Pajamas Media

124 Comments

1. EgregiousCharles:

I think marriage equality should be provided in a different way; the government should recognize only civil unions, including for heterosexual Christians like me. Marriage is a religious ceremony in every religion I know of, it should be left up to the church. Any government definition of marriage, even one matching my religion, is a First Amendment violation (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Easy government divorce has done enough harm to Christian marriage already, further government definition will only lead to more harm in the long run, even if it looks favorable now.

Cross-posted at Cynthia Yockey’s essay
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/my-blissful-gay-marriage/

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:30 am 2. Telly:

ditto EgregiousCharles. End all state sanctioned marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:16 am 3. Lisa:

Look two women marrying has no impact on anyone else. Let them marry.. then they can enjoy the fun of paying more taxes and the horrors of divorce too.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:22 am 4. Technology Slice:

They aren’t hurting anyone until they take the responsibility of looking after child.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:30 am 5. winout:

The state needs to “promote the general welfare.” Clearly that is to continue the state and that is done through procreation. I mean, children are “our future”, right? Then let’s do everything we can to promote a stable environment for them.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:45 am 6. sheesh:

The only possible defense of the anti-gay marriage position is that homosexuality is a choice. If you believe that people are born gay, that ends the debate.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:47 am 7. Tom W:

So, ultimately we will define marriage as “a relationship between two consenting adults”. Where do we draw the line? Will it be ok for a brother to marry his sister? How about a father marrying is daughter? Or how about a grandmother marrying her granddaughter? And what exactly does adult mean? Nambla would like to have the age of consent lowered to 18 months.

What about polygamy? With both parents working is there any doubt that many of our children are basically raising themselves? Wouldn’t a family with 3 or 4 parents help to insure that there would be someone there for the kids?
Where will it end?

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:56 am 8. Joel:

Solway is right. Gay freedoms and acceptance are progress; gay marriage is decadence. Human and societal reality is not infinitely malleable. Damage and compromise and trivialize the institution of marriage, and you harm society, quite possibly irremediably. Ask Western Europe. I would add that if society allows a gay couple to adopt a child who could have been adopted by a heterosexual couple, it is committing a crime.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:59 am 9. Lynn:

Marriage will become a ‘plaything’ for the narcissistic masses being raised by our society to believe that if you want something get it, and if it doesn’t work out to your satisfaction get something else.

The attempt by people to redefine marriage to include man and man or woman and woman is just another example of this. Our children will grow up in a society without road signs, left to flounder around moving from one identity to another, never quite sure which path to take and which physical and/or emotional feelings to nurture in order to lead a stable life that is the healthiest for them, their future and society as a whole.

If some do not choose to have a relationship with someone of their opposite sex through ‘marriage’ it may cause them to feel they are missing something, but that is not a reason to redefine marriage.

The judicial system has seen fit to redefine marriage and the word is being diluted and watered down while these articles and discussions are taking place. The word is being redefined before we can argue whether it should be.

If marriage is redefined to mean anything other than a man and woman joining together, in my opinion it will end up meaning nothing. Because a small group of people don’t like the meaning and want to change it to include them is wrong and in my opinion unconstitutional.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:07 am 10. Omar:

Thanks for this, Mr. Solway. The majority who opposes such marriages need only hear a few strong, reasonable voices in defense of their position to fortify them, and, as in California, they can and will stand in opposition against the constant drum beat of cultrual left/MSM.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:23 am 11. Omar:

For those who believe there is no sane, rational basis for preventing SSM, here’s a good blog entry that runs down some of the major arguments against. If you are a secular minded person, the article by Jane Galt (linked and quoted in the post) is especially interesting:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/gay-marriage-fear-and-skeptici.html

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:38 am 12. Frank:

So if propogation is the reason behind marriage, should we not allow straight marriages if the couples don’t have any children?

Why should the state have jurisdiction over the reasons behind marriage?

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:41 am 13. Doug:

People express a great deal of concern and place so much effort into assuring same-sex marriage.

Could all this effort be mis-directed? What about preserving “Marriage” in our society?

Do homosexuals want to get married just to throw it all away into the dust bin on a whim like women are urged to do over and over by Oprah and her ilk?

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:41 am 14. Terbreugghen:

Brilliant!

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:52 am 15. Terbreugghen:

Has anyone else noticed that none of the contrary posters have addressed the clear and cogent points Mr. Solway makes in his essay? This is the current popular mode of “argument” such as it is. “If people are born gay, there is no debate?” If you’d read the essay you’d see that Solway clearly states the issue is not one of identity, but of social cohesion, which gay marriage disrupts, whether gays choose their lifestyle, or are “born” into it. Of course being “born gay” doesn’t explain the ability of most homosexuals to beget children in the natural way . . . ooops.

Frank comes closest so far to dealing with what Mr. Solway wrote, but appears to be unaware that Mr. Solway has answered his challenge as well. Heterosexual bonding pairs have potential fertility, period, and this is exactly what the institution of heterosexual traditional marriage is designed to address. If we didn’t have traditional marriage, we’d have to invent it to deal with the nearly inevitable result of the cohabitation of male and female humans. Furthermore, there are tons of stories of infertile couples who adopt and then “presto!” they’re pregnant. The percentage of heterosexual couples who do not procreate either out of functionality or choice is a red herring, too small a percentage of population to alter the foundational nature of the institution.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:02 am 16. Lawler:

Will you destroy civilized society by caving in to the excesses of an aberrant minority?

I will not. Nor will I stand by silently while others attempt to do so.

Jun 23, 2009 - 7:45 am 17. chris in Toronto:

A nicely written essay as should be expected from a poet and essayist.

That said, it boils down to a series of assertions. Here are a few: (1) marriage is about procreation and therefore must be extended only to those who can bear children to; (2) same-sex marriage undermines different-sex marriage; (3) same-sex marriage leads to societal depravity and the destruction of the institutional framework of society at large; (4) children are best reared by a mother and a father.

(1) The author states that the fact that two men or two women cannot, together, produce offspring means that they should be denied the societal benefits that are dispensed to those who can, some of which benefits have nothing to do with children. The author believes that a heterosexual couple who either cannot (due to their nature) or will not (due to their choices) deserves these benefits. An interesting position to be taking, one that when examined ends with straight couples deserving the largesse of society while gay couples do not.

(2) Same-sex marriage, the author is asserting, somehow undermines different-sex marriage. He doesn’t say how this is so, but just that it is so. Besides not defining how one couple’s marriage undermines or devalues those of others, he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the easy availability of divorce undermines the institution. Nor does he take into account the rampant heterosexual promiscuity as a undermining agent. Or the work of government agencies, those agencies designed to foster the welfare of “the children,” which reward women for having children with no husband in the house, and whose benefits are removed if a male role model lives with his offspring. It seems he has misplaced his aggression.

(3) Same-sex marriage undermines institutions. It appears as though the author is intending to mean that government recognition of same-sex unions will undermine a major societal institution: the Church. Insofar as the government could be pressed to force churches to marry same-sex couples, he has a point. But he would be better to use his obvious rhetorical talent to argue that the state has no role in the religious aspects of marriage. As commenter #1 (EgregiousCharles) succinctly argues, the issue goes away when government is taken out of the equation. If same-sex couples want a spiritual aspect to their union, they’ll find a church to bless them. Churches should not be forced to go against their doctrine, which is what happens when government gets involved. The author further asserts that somehow the state’s extension of recognition of the host of privileges, benefits and protections enjoyed by one group of citizens to another group leads to depravity and the decline of civilization. He offers nothing to prove it. We just have to believe this to be true. But this belief in the gay boogeypersons and the so-called “gay agenda” as the cause of societal malaise allows believers to close their eyes to the real causes. There are lots of them, but at the core of the problem lies the absolute lack of critical thinking that is encouraged by the nanny state. [I realize that I'm asserting this, by the way.]

(4) Children are best reared by a mother and a father. Well, okay. In theory the best of all possible worlds is for a kid to be raised by a loving and capable set of role models who can provide for his or her physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Adults who can help guide them through the many stages of development from infant to child to teen to adult. Loving parents who can help him or her to think for his or her self in order to make sense of the world, to know his or her place in the grand scheme of things, to be a good person and functioning member of society. Parents who will put themselves second and the child first, provide a stable home environment and for whom family is paramount. It’s a great theory, but it sure assumes a lot, but it does not require different-sex parents (granted, the way I’ve constructed it). To argue that same-sex couples cannot fit into the above theory is, basically, to argue that there is something mystically better about female-male parents, assuming the best-case scenario–a position that is by definition heterosexist.

Release the “best case” assumptions and what do we have? Single-parent families. Single-parent families where the parent puts her or his needs above those of the child. Or worse, double-parent different-sex parents who put their needs ahead of the child. Families where children are “accidents.” Families held together using the children as the glue. Families where the parents can ill-afford to provide the basics. Parents who do not provide for the physical, mental and spiritual development throughout the many stages of life. And so on. Yet because these different-sex parents are naturally able to procreate these families are deemed, somehow, to be better than families where the parents must go to extraordinary means to add children to their lives.

There are more of these debatable premises contained in this essay. But like those listed, they can be refuted. It’s difficult, though, because the author is a great essayist.

In anticipation and because I’ve been down this road before on this touchy subject, I’m going to say that I will not be arguing on this thread with those who flame me. I am adding my comment to voice a dissenting view, not to enrage people who have different ideas. I’ve been called all sorts of names for expressing these opinions before and, while I won’t respond, I will read avidly the rest of this comment thread.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:06 am 18. Paul of Alexandria:

Telly (2):

ditto EgregiousCharles. End all state sanctioned marriage.

Very, very bad idea.

Marriage is, and has been for the past 10,000 years or so, a social contract. In many countries literally so; the husband and wife must sign a paper before a judge or other civic authority in order to be legally married. Marriages are sactified by almost all religions, since they are a fundamental basis for society (For a very good discussion of the role of marriage in various Earth societies see “Man on Earth: A Celebration of Mankind: Portraits of Human Culture in a Multitude of Environments” by John Reader, Harpercollins, 1990). However marriage is primarily a civic function.

Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. The woman agrees to grant the man sexual access, to bear and raise his children, and to keep his household. The man, in turn, agrees to provide for and protect the woman and subsequent children. In some societies either a man or a woman (almost never both in the same society) may enter into multiple marriages simultaneously: polygyny or (more rarely) polyandry.

In support of marriage, societies grant special privilages to married couples. In practically every society on Earth, “bastard” is an insult. For instance, only children of a marriage may legally inherit titles and property, and married couples are granted special protections and tax status.

The reason for this is simple: since the beginning of the human race, experience has taught that raising a child requires both a father and a mother. The two form a symbiotic relationship in which each provides what is necessary to raise children in a way that is best both for them and for the society around them.

Mothers, of course, must bear and nurse the babies. Historically, the woman cares for the household and provides the day-to-day care fofr the family. Pregnant human females are relatively fragile and newborn humans require immense amounts of care for years. Historically, the fathers hunt or otherwise bring in food and money and provide protection against predators, both animal and human.

The legal commitments of marriage also keep men responsible. One observes even today, in the breakdown of black society, the effects of not having fathers bound by marriage. Quite bluntly: marriage keeps men bound and responsible to and for a single woman and his children. Unmarried men are notoriously irresponsible and prone to violence as they fight for status and mates. (Interesting aside: shortly after the discovery of the Americas in the 16th century, it was the regular practice in Europe, especially Spain, to send unmarried men to the colonies to fight the Indians. Survivors would get the inheritance and marriage).

One final aspect of marriage, as pointed out by Reader, is population control. Societies – especially island populations – control their numbers (relative especially to the food supply) by making it harder or easier to get married and bear children.

Love and comfort, especially in old age, are aspects of marriage, but they are not its raison d’etre. For our society to reduce marriage to this, and to deny its fundamental nature, will be to destroy ourselves.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:09 am 19. Paul of Alexandria:

Recent legislation favoring same-sex marriage is not, in my view, an indicator of a compassionate and socially progressive culture as many have automatically presumed. It is, rather, a prime indicator of decadence, the weakening of common sense, and the dissipation of belief in a common future.

Very good article. In so many ways our country is headed down the path of the Roman Empire. I know that all empires fall, but I was really hoping that ours would last a while longer.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:12 am 20. Paul of Alexandria:

Gays have come out of the closet and entered common life without shame or inhibition, which is a necessary and desirable outcome of liberating social movements. It does not mean, however, that a person’s heteroclite sexual choices permit him or her to enter the Constitution or the sacraments, that is, into state-sanctioned formal arrangements.

One may argue this point. One reason that homosexuality is frowned upon in Judeo-Christian culture (and forbidden by God) is because it ultimately leads to precisely what is happening – as demonstrated by the Roman homosexual-”marriage” examples (which were not limited to Emperors, BTW). It annoys me when people assume that religious prohibitions like those against homosexuality are arbitrary or result from “phobias.” Most of these laws and rules result from observed damage to society by some behavior and have a specifically desired effect.

I might also point out that historically, even those societies that accept homosexuality – the Spartans being the prime example – protect marriage.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:30 am 21. Paul of Alexandria:

Frank (12):

So if propogation is the reason behind marriage, should we not allow straight marriages if the couples don’t have any children?

By definition marriage is “straight”. Whether a couple actually has children is less relevant than the precedent is set. After all, the couple could adopt (and by definition adopted children are treated exactly, both morally and legally, as natural-born children). Even if they don’t, they still set an example for the rest of married couples.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:42 am 22. Paul of Alexandria:

Terbreugghen (15):

Well said. In these arguments people tend to ignore the secondary effects, which turn out to be very important in the long run.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:46 am 23. Paul of Alexandria:

chris in Toronto (17)

It’s a great theory, but it sure assumes a lot, but it does not require different-sex parents…To argue that same-sex couples cannot fit into the above theory is, basically, to argue that there is something mystically better about female-male parents, assuming the best-case scenario–a position that is by definition heterosexist.

Yes it does, and it’s not mystical – it’s biology. Men and woman are fundamentaly different (as any parent with both a son and daughter can testify). They have different qualities and properties and serve different functions. Together they complement each other and form a symbiotic relationship. A man might “feel” that he’s really a woman, or vice-versa, but that means very little. The biology just isn’t there.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:50 am 24. Paul of Alexandria:

chris in Toronto (17)

(1) marriage is about procreation and therefore must be extended only to those who can bear children to; (2) same-sex marriage undermines different-sex marriage; (3) same-sex marriage leads to societal depravity and the destruction of the institutional framework of society at large; (4) children are best reared by a mother and a father.

1) No, this is a typical fallacy used by advocates of many liberal agendas. One important aspect of a married couple is that they serve as an example to other individuals as to what is socially acceptable. Young people look around them to see what everybody else is doing. Social acceptance and peer pressure can be very important, despite a parent’s best efforts. I would much rather not live in a society that actively fights my efforts to bring up my children properly.

One of the other big fallacies used by the left is that you are “born homosexual” and the status cannot be changed. In reality humans, like most things, operate on a Gaussian bell curve with most people being somewhere in the middle. If we begin to accept alternative social constructions as “normal” than those people in the middle who could “go either way” will consider doing so – which is where your society starts to break down.

2) Yep.

3) Yep.

4) Yep.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:58 am 25. Peggy:

I would add the the description of those marriages which do not produce biological children. These marriages are not just potentially fertile, they also represent a ready-made ideal model of marriage for potential adoptive children and also model the ideal of marriage in the community.

Further, they model the compatibility of the sexes and the greater challenge of loving what is truly “other”. These marriages have value on many levels besides that of being potentially reproductive.

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:05 am 26. Delia:

Since Cynthia’s blog didn’t let my post through, I’ll post it here and hope it makes the ‘cut’:

“P.S. I *DO* believe some people are honestly born ‘gay’ or ‘gender dysmorphic’ because of hormonal imbalances that cross the placenta but, we are talking a very ‘Horton hears a Who’ minority of people that actually happens to. To change the whole way society views marriage for those people is just insanity.

Mrs. & Mrs. Smith? I don’t get it.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:10 am 27. Delia:

Also, what about the bi-sexuals? What about someone who would want to marry a man and a woman? Do those people get left out of the great ’cause’ for homo-hetero marriage?

Jun 23, 2009 - 9:12 am 28. njcommuter:

(4) Children are best reared by a mother and a father. Well, okay. In theory the best of all possible worlds is for a kid to be raised by a loving and capable set of role models who can provide for his or her physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

It’s more than just that. The scientists are learning what the observant have known all along: that fathers and mothers contribute differently to the developing psyche of a child, whether that child is a boy or a girl. To accept a substitute because nothing better is available is one thing; to accept a substitute on principle when the real thing is there is another.

Seeking to rear a child when you are in a homosexual ‘marriage’ is putting your desires ahead of the child’s best interests.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:16 am 29. Steve:

The argument that you can be born that way still do not matter because it takes a choice of the individual, it is still biologically incorrect. Plus many religions believe that it is a sin. Without traditional marriage the human race would not be here at all it would end in one generation. Unlike the mule or hinnie you could kill them all today and within the gestation period start them all over again, oh yeah a mule or hinnie can not reproduce.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:27 am 30. Joe Bison:

As I said quite some time ago-end state
sanctioned marriage. The state can register
the legal civil part and whatever church
the couple belongs to can perform the
marriage if desired.

Hopefully at that stage straights and gays
can then face the next question which will
be that of polygamy. A large number of
Muslims in the West already have multiple
wives and economic costs probably prevent
a lot of others from following this course.

Civil unions will have to be defined as
between two people and on this I would say
the vast majority of Americans agree.
With global mobility you can’t really
control what individuals do elsewhere;
therefore, set a rule here that many
may not like but can live with before
we get caught up in other issues.

The swords of individual rights and
religious tradition both have two edges
handle with care.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:29 am 31. "progressive"watch:

Beware the heterophobe,
He will break your words and bend your earlobe.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:38 am 32. Chuck Pelto:

TO: njcommuter, et al.
RE: Indeed

Seeking to rear a child when you are in a homosexual ‘marriage’ is putting your desires ahead of the child’s best interests. — njcommuter

All these people are doing is struggling after a happiness that they shall never understand, let alone achieve. And, if they acquire children, all they will do is harm them and condemn themselves…..

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If Congress passes and Obama signs this new ‘hate crimes’ legislation, that comment will be considered ‘hate speech’……

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:48 am 33. Paul of Alexandria:

Delia (27):

Also, what about the bi-sexuals? What about someone who would want to marry a man and a woman? Do those people get left out of the great ’cause’ for homo-hetero marriage?

You miss the point. A homosexual man or woman may get married, as may a bi-sexual person. To someone of the other sex. Just like everybody else. (aside – a sex-change-operation does not make a man a woman, nor a woman a man. The internal biology is still unchanged). Our culture, for a variety of reasons, does not allow multiple marriages.

Statements like this also miss one other very important point: just because I have a biologically-based urge doesn’t mean that I have to act on it! By the logic of the homosexual community, my being born with a strong temper means that I have license to assult people who disagree with me and beat my wife. If I have a strong sex drive, then I would have the assumed right to rape women (the bases, BTW, behind the Arab practice of making their women wear the burqua. Don’t want to overstimulate those weak men, do we?) If I am easily susceptible to addiction, then no-one should try to keep me from my opium habit; don’t mind that I can’t support my family or hold a job (the basis for modern drug laws is the widespread fallout from freely available opium in 19th century England).

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:51 am 34. Paul of Alexandria:

30. Joe Bison:

As I said quite some time ago-end state sanctioned marriage. The state can register the legal civil part and whatever church the couple belongs to can perform the marriage if desired.

Er, that’s the way that it works now. “The legal civil part” is state-sanctioned marriage! Religions just sanctify the civil contract because of its importance to society. (The U.S. is one of the few countries, BTW, where religious figures can perform state-recognized marriages. In Europe and most other countries one must get married by a state authority first then have the marriage sanctified by the church.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:55 am 35. Paul of Alexandria:

Joe Bison (30):

With global mobility you can’t really control what individuals do elsewhere; therefore, set a rule here that many may not like but can live with before we get caught up in other issues.

That’s what we’ve done. The only major difference between us and the rest of the planet is our non-acceptance of polygamy. We do this for a variety of reasons, primarily because of the Judeo-Christian tradition of monogamy. It also helps to avoid trouble with unmarried youth due to all of the eligible women being snapped up by a few rich men.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:59 am 36. Clayton E. Cramer:

Born that way? The evidence simply isn’t there–and there’s considerable evidence suggesting that at least for many homosexuals, it is an adult response to childhood sexual abuse.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:13 am 37. Delia:

33. Paul of Alexandria,

The little thing gay people can’t [EVER] get around is the word “NORMAL”.

They [gay people] will never be considered ‘normal’ because…uh…they ARE NOT. I wish them all the best with their ‘urges’ that they choose to follow but I’ll never look at two men necking and think, “Awwwww. Sweet!”

My ‘bi-sexual’ bit was just showing that people can and do make perverse choices and there are only a few people who are actually born gay because of hormones that change their sexuality in the womb. I’m driving myself crazy trying to find a link about that very thing and I promise to share it when I find it.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:36 am 38. AST:

Why not just pass a law that says that lesbians are men? Laws can change reality, can’t they?

I’m not a big fan of legal fictions, which is what “gay marriage” is all about. It’s really just an effort to validate same-sex sex. But that begs the question whether sex can really occur between creatures of the same sex. Sex isn’t a grammatical term like “gender.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:05 pm 39. gus3:

This is the weakest “argument” in defense of hetero-only marriage, and in its core it is insulting.

Will you declare null-and-void a marriage of a man and a woman, because the husband found out he was born without vas deferens and therefore can never father biological offspring? After all, why waste his wife’s ova when she could be popping out kids by some other guy?

Will you deny a woman marriage because she developed ovarian cancer at 17 and her womb will never hold the flesh of her flesh?

Such a position is short-sighted, cruel, and atavistic. It only serves to increase the burden of those who oppose the LGBT lobby.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:21 pm 40. Delia:

39. gus3,

Do you think being gay or bi-sexual is ‘normal’? Do you think that’s a new ‘norm’ for the school books?

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:26 pm 41. Clayton E. Cramer:

This is the weakest “argument” in defense of hetero-only marriage, and in its core it is insulting.

Will you declare null-and-void a marriage of a man and a woman, because the husband found out he was born without vas deferens and therefore can never father biological offspring? After all, why waste his wife’s ova when she could be popping out kids by some other guy?

You know, if limiting marriage to its traditional definition was preventing gay people from doing something, your claim about being cruel might make some sense. But what, realistically, does leaving the marriage definition as it do?

1. Gay couples can’t get the marginal tax advantage of filing jointly.

2. They have to do a bit more paperwork for visitation, property inheritance, and the like. On the plus side, they have a lot less to do when it comes time to go their separate ways.

3. Some employers will refuse to extend health insurance and other benefits to a gay couple–although overwhelmingly, since both partners are likely working anyway, this isn’t as big a problem as it for a couple where the wife stays home and raises kids.

How does not having a marriage certificate otherwise impair a gay couple in the enjoyment of their relationship?

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:33 pm 42. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Give gus3 Time….

This is the weakest “argument” in defense of hetero-only marriage, and in its core it is insulting. — gus3

….and the passage of the new ‘hate crimes’ bill moving through Congress….

….and next he’ll be calling that ‘hate speech’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:35 pm 43. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. And filing charges with some US Attorney…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:48 pm 44. Delia:

When does it go from ‘gay acceptance’ to ‘everyone should be gay to save mother earth’?

Just wondering out loud.

Jun 23, 2009 - 12:55 pm 45. sharonsj:

How can procreation be the sole purpose of marriage? First of all, you don’t need to get married to have kids. Secondly, if having kids is so desirable then you ought to encourage every pregnancy, even if the woman is unmarried or underage, or was raped, and you should ban all forms of birth control. If a woman has more kids than she can care for, other families with fewer kids should be forced to adopt them. Actually, everyone should be forced to have kids and every married couple who couldn’t have kids should be made to divorce.

If you don’t agree with any of the above, then keep your nose out of other people’s lives. I don’t care if gays want to marry; it has absolutely no affect on me or my religious beliefs.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:00 pm 46. Clayton E. Cramer:

How can procreation be the sole purpose of marriage?

I don’t recall anyone saying that it was the sole purpose. The government’s involvement, however, has become almost entirely about dealing with legal obligations associated with children.

First of all, you don’t need to get married to have kids. Secondly, if having kids is so desirable then you ought to encourage every pregnancy, even if the woman is unmarried or underage, or was raped, and you should ban all forms of birth control.

Who argued that having kids “is so desirable”?

If a woman has more kids than she can care for, other families with fewer kids should be forced to adopt them. Actually, everyone should be forced to have kids and every married couple who couldn’t have kids should be made to divorce.

Who argues for this? No one.

If you don’t agree with any of the above, then keep your nose out of other people’s lives. I don’t care if gays want to marry; it has absolutely no affect on me or my religious beliefs.

It will once the government starts punishing churches that decline to perform religious marriage ceremonies.

If your argument is “keep your nose out of other people’s lives” then you are in no position to insist that the government needs to be involved what a gay couple does. If a gay couple wants to live together, share property, etc., they can do that without having an official government seal of approval.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:13 pm 47. Delia:

You wouldn’t be here on this planet if your parent didn’t participate in hetero activity.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:16 pm 48. Steve:

Delia:
Well stated and so far one of the better posts and quite to the point. Without a man being attracted to a woman or a woman being attracted to a man for sex which can lead to procreation then mankind (which includes women) there would be no one in these forums, any thing other than that is perverse and biologically wrong.

Even though the act of sex might bring pleasure does not mean it is right or will result in the preservation of mankind. With that said if homosexuality was correct then only one gender would be necessary, but that begs the question which one would it be.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:37 pm 49. Scott:

Edit for my above.

It is also pretty emotionally devastating to a man to find out he’s shooting blanks, so both genders find it very hard to be infertile.

Jun 23, 2009 - 1:42 pm 50. Scott:

The moderation on these forums is pretty terrible…

I pointed out similar points to 41, 47, and a response to 39 and used no foul language, no slurs, no personal attacks of any kind yet my post got deleted.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:03 pm 51. avoidswork:

Marriage is not sacred in America. We have seen countless examples of the lack of respect for the institution by those man/woman pairings. Recently: Ensign. A spell ago: Britney Spears’ 55-hr marriage to that guy.

A commitment is a commitment. Period. Whether it is male/male, male/female or female/female, it is the intergrity and work of the parties involved which gives it meaning. I know two gay couples who have been in 30+ year committed relationships with their partners. My own parents’ marriage did not last for 30 years.

Procreative purposes are easily debunked: biological problems as mentioned above, a woman who is going through/has gone through menopause, personal choice. No one has to be married to have/adopt a child. There is absolutely no validity in the argument.

You want to “save the children”? Then give them self-esteem, a sense of self-worth and the resources to be a good/better person. Love them, care for them, teach them value and meaning. Accept them. Give them your time, patience and love. And when the time comes, let your little one spread its wings and try to make their way in the world.

I am constantly baffled by reading how little self-confidence many of you appear to have. Why you are so very concerned about a relationship that is not yours, nor are you involved in? What does someone else’s marriage have to do with the security of your own relationship? What if this was your child? Would you want them to be considered less valid in society for being who they are?

Again, why do you people care?

It really highlights the insecurities of those “afraid” of “not me” instead of the merits of the argument. Newt Gingrich cannot argue about marriage when he is on #3. Nor Rudy G. Nor the Vitters, the Ensigns, or even Bill Clinton. Whether their spouses choose/chose to accept their failings and stay in a relationship is their own decision to make. Not ours.

Whether a church performs a religious marriage ceremony or not – isn’t it that little piece of paper you sign and then turn in to your respective home state that defines you as married? Thus, by definition, all marriages are “civil”. A covenant with God is wholly separate from whether your home state recognizes marriage

For God a sin is a sin is a sin. And homosexuals/bisexuals were/are his creation. Period.

Even BillO thinks gay penguins are cool. And this coming from a guy who harrassed (embarrasingly/poorly) a former employee of his and had to pay hushhush money. Obviously, his wife chose to stay with him. Chose. Choice. Just as he chose to harrass a woman who was not his wife.

Delia @47 – you may be correct. But what does that have to do with whether a homosexual or heterosexual couple wants to be married and have it recognized by their home state? Just because a child is born does not mean it was born within wedlock. Just means it was born.

You can be married. To a complete P.of.Sh. To an abusive person. Doesn’t mean you have a “good” marriage. Just a marriage. Choice.

What is the problem with allowing others to have that same choice? Because you’re afraid? Grow a pair. Take more stock of yourselves and find out what ails you. Because it isn’t whether Bob/Bill get hitched or Sarah/Mary. It’s within *you*.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:20 pm 52. RAH:

The premise of your argument is simply wrong. Marriage and procreation are two entirely different concepts. I’m married without children. I suppose you think my marriage is wrong. OTOH, a lot of people are unmarried with children. And they are not all accidents either.

The statement that hetero couples are drying up is factually wrong and I think you know it. A lot of them are unmarried or are divorced and remarried, but they still exist. As far as our duty to whore ourselves out to the state goes, the world and this country are already grossly overpopulated. And you have no evidence at all that 1. there even is a collapse of civility or that 2. it is caused by gay marriage.

Nothing that happens in nature is unnatural. Even if gay marriage was unnatural, so what? If that is a legitimate complaint, then stay away from modern medicine, food products or really everything produced by civilization. It is hypocritical to complain about unnatural unions on the one had and then demand babies for the most unnatural thing of all: civilization.

Bottom line is your prejudices make you uncomfortable with marriage equality and you are looking for excuses to justify it.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:27 pm 53. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Steve & Delia, et al.
RE: It’s All Part….

Well stated and so far one of the better posts and quite to the point. Without a man being attracted to a woman or a woman being attracted to a man for sex which can lead to procreation then mankind (which includes women) there would be no one in these forums, any thing other than that is perverse and biologically wrong. — Steve

….of a social order based on ‘death’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:35 pm 54. myth buster:

I would note that the Catholic Church to this day, and most Protestant Churches at least until very recently, if not still, are adamantly against both abortion and birth control. So yes, we do believe that having children is desirable, even if the circumstances are not, because children are a heritage to the Lord.

Jun 23, 2009 - 2:36 pm 55. Berlet98:

NATURE OR NURTURE? WHO CARES?

(Fourth in a series in recognition of New York City’s “Gay Pride Week”)

I don’t think I have to take a backseat to anyone in my opposition to and condemnation of the gay revolution and agenda now sweeping our country. But, fair is fair and distortions of truths are still unacceptable.

One like-thinker in the quest to expose homosexuals for what they are and for what their aims and intentions are seems to needlessly shade the truth about them in this article: http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=311.

The facts, the absolute, unvarnished, un-PC truth about gays is much more than sufficient to out them for what they are sans shadings of any sort.

In point of fact, although Gregg Jackson is clearly on the frontlines in seeking to preserve and protect American moral values, the American Psychological Association did not, as Gregg writes, definitively report what he reports as to the question of whether gays are born that way or not.

Gregg quoted the APA: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. . . no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors,” which is totally correct.

However, it was the American Psychological, not Psychiatric, Association which made that clarification on its website, http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html.

They are both “APA’s” and sister organizations which generally march in lockstep with one another but the Psychological association went on to say, “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

However, both APA’s lack credibility. They were previously intimidated into changing their diagnoses on homosexuality. Not coincidentally, the flipflop occurred just a few years after the gay Stonewall riot of 1969.

After decades of describing homosexuality as “an abnormal mental disorder” and those afflicted with that disorder as “sexual deviants,” under severe pressure and threats from gays, they amazingly flipflopped beginning in 1973 and ultimately concluded that, Nah, it’s all very normal. See http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=635.

Since being gay had miraculously been transformed from deviancy to normality, any debate as to its “causes” were moot, to which I would agree but for vastly different reasons.

The point is, Who cares? Nature or nurture, genetics or environment, Who cares?

Few people object to what consenting adults do to and with one . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:01 pm 56. Scott:

Same sex couples do not deserve the same “coverage” as marriage. You don’t need to be married to split the rent/bills, you don’t need to be married to engage in a sexual relationship, you don’t need to be married to share a bank account, you don’t need to be married to love someone, you don’t need to be married to have life long companionship. The marriage contract itself is about children. Post 18 covers it pretty well.

Even in ancient societies that did not frown upon (or even encouraged a certain life stages) homosexual practices Marriage was considered to be between “man & woman”. This is not something that is restricted to the Abrahamic religions or their cultures, its universal, even in cultures that practice polygamy or polyandry.

Also if you assume homosexuality is a genetic trait, then without the intervention of modern science or a homosexual forcing themselves to accept sexual encounters with the opposite sex, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Why would humanity if it wants to survive encourage such a genetic trait through the use of modern science? If a significant portion of the population relies on artificial means of reproduction, then what happens to the species if that means no longer is available? Think massive climate change that leads to war, famine, and disease leading to a loss of either the knowledge or facilities for artificial reproduction. The eventual loss of petroleum dependent energy sources or materials (plastics) relied on for artificial reproduction. A solar flare that knocks pretty much the entire planet back to the 18th century. Where does humanity stand then? Yeah its doom and gloom apocalyptic stuff I know, but I’m sure nobody considered the first outbreak of the Black Plague a likely occurrence either.

It is only because of the the Abrahamic religions aversion to homosexuality and Asian cultural Familial obligations that there are even homosexuals today. 2000 years would probably been sufficient for the mutation to work its way out of the gene pool if it weren’t for homosexuals being forced to conform to cultural/religious norms.

Marriage is about procreation, and couples who cannot or choose not to have children do not provide an equivocating argument for same sex marriage. The percentages of marriages that these represent is minuscule, and it is emotionally devastating for a heterosexual man or woman to find out that they are infertile. This is generally true even if they don’t want kids, and I’d even bet homosexuals who are told that they are incapable of reproducing (assuming an encounter with the opposite sex) would probably find it at least emotionally uncomfortable if not just as devastating.

All the legal protections, rights, etc are available with just a little more legal paperwork, AND its easier to dissolve said arrangements when you decide to move on to another partner.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:04 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: RAH

Marriage and procreation are two entirely different concepts. — RAH

Obviously….

….someone who has no concept of ‘holistic’ systems. And part of the problem we experience today with rampant teenage pregnancy/unwed mothers on welfare, gang-bangers, etc.

The thread drifts towards Dr. Helen’s recent article.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know you were a good parent, if your grand-children turn out to be alright.]

P.S. But then, it could well be too late…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:08 pm 58. Clayton E. Cramer:

Again, why do you people care?

Again, what does it really gain a gay couple to have official government endorsement of their relationship? Very little. There was a time when homosexuals had the good sense to not want the government to have any say in their relationship at all.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:16 pm 59. Clayton E. Cramer:

And homosexuals/bisexuals were/are his creation.

Not at all clear. There’s a very strong disproportion of child sexual abuse survivors among adult homosexuals. Hence, there is nothing too terribly surprising about the rather ambivalent relationship between gay activists and pedophile advocacy groups.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:18 pm 60. Scott:

#52 RAH

Are you completely incapable of having children? When you got married (the first time, as this may or may not be it for you) were children COMPLETELY out of the question for both of you? Did you both run out and get sterilized if/when you decided not to have kids?

Every hetero-sexual marriage has the possibility (at least on the surface) of producing a child, you don’t look at two gay men or women and ask “So, when are you having kids?” (assuming no outside help). Some people choose not to, some can’t but that falls within somewhat acceptable societal norms. Just ask couples who cannot or choose not to have children how much social pressure they undergo. For those that can’t its pity, for those that can’t its pressure and the “aaaahhhh okaaay” response. Most married couples will tell you the of the question they hear the most after getting married is “When are you having kids?”

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:20 pm 61. Clayton E. Cramer:

Newt Gingrich cannot argue about marriage when he is on #3. Nor Rudy G. Nor the Vitters, the Ensigns, or even Bill Clinton. Whether their spouses choose/chose to accept their failings and stay in a relationship is their own decision to make. Not ours.

Yup. And gay couples who want to be together are perfectly free to do so. And if they have a church that is willing to go through whatever ceremony they want, they are free to do that as well. But when you ask for government approval, you are asking the majority to express an opinion about the validity of that relationship. Most people, even with 30 years of pro-gay propaganda, still aren’t comfortable with homosexuality–and even those of us were comfortable with it at one time, have become less so, from having lived in places with large gay populations. There’s a reason.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:21 pm 62. Chuck Pelto:

TO: avoidswork
RE: Obviously….

Newt Gingrich cannot argue about marriage when he is on #3. — avoidswork

….you avoid rational thought as well.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom. -- Proverbs]

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:35 pm 63. gus3:

@Clayton Cramer:

Who argued that having kids “is so desirable”?

David Solway did just that by bringing up the 2.1 birth rate. Only he’s making the claim that it’s “desirable for society.” That argument has been refuted countless times; I suggest you begin with George Orwell’s writings.

@40 Delia:

Do I think it’s “normal”? Only in the sense of being “typical,” no. Neither do I think it should be considered “criminal.”

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:41 pm 64. RAH:

We had no intention of having children and every intention of avoiding it. 7 Billion. That’s too many. Again, that’s not the point. People have a right to live as they like. Until you are willing to allow people to vote on your marriage, the rest of us have no moral right to vote on a gay person’s. You are relying on the fallacy of concensus anyway. The whole world can believe something and it can still be factually wrong.

The simple fact is that there is no public policy reason to stop marriage equality. The only “reasons” anyone can give are based on religious folk prejudices. Statements about what is natural or how we are “supposed” to be are religious statements. The simple fact is, gay couples are not going to make anyone’s god turn anyone’s city to salt. That is mythological fantasy and those of us outside of that religion are not bound by its rules.

As far as gay propaganda goes, nothing on the marriage equality side can possibly compete with the constant slander and incitments to violence coming from America’s pulpits nor from so-called conservative commentators.

Give me ONE legitimate (logical and based on fact) public policy reason to prevent gays from getting married.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:42 pm 65. gus3:

Yes, Chuck, we get it. You want a theocracy, fine.

But first, I suggest you go to Iran and let us know how it’s working out there.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:44 pm 66. Cybergeezer:

See my blog about denied comments to this article.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:56 pm 67. Cybergeezer:

Hey moderator? Are you feeling yourself? That’s about the only thing you do feel!

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:57 pm 68. Delia:

The thing is, there are some very nice, talented people that ‘happen’ to be ‘Gay’. There are also some real jerks that ‘happen’ to be ‘Gay’.

The slippery slope with any anomaly, is there’s a fine line between ‘acceptance’ of abnormalties in human behavior and ‘encouragement’ of said behavior.

Gay sex is atypical, deviant sexual behavior and gay sexual activity will never be a ‘norm’.

Think of the idiocy of ‘gay’ being ‘okay’ in any other part of the ‘nature’? The absurdity is almost embarrasing. There are so many liberals who fight for some little titmouse or treefrog etc. because they fear of/for their extinction but yet, they have no problem with promoting ‘gay’ which would surely extinct humanity.

Uh.

Duh.

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:57 pm 69. Cybergeezer:

Pajamas Media-Feigning Conservatism!

Jun 23, 2009 - 3:59 pm 70. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: More Massive Ignorance….

Yes, Chuck, we get it. You want a theocracy, fine. — gus3

….demonstrated by gus3.

I’ll give him allowance for being ‘ignorant’ about me and the fact that I’d fight a theocracy as vehemently as I would an invasion by a foreign power. Ignorant of the fact that like so many other comrades-in-arms, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies….foreign AND domestic.

But that’s all the allowance I’ll give him.

Any more comments like that I’ll consider to be rank stupidity.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adj., 'Ignorant' and proud of it.]

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:00 pm 71. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. My brother-in-law is a Persian. And he lives in the Land of the Free….for good reason…..I mean besides my sister…..

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:02 pm 72. Clayton E. Cramer:

As far as gay propaganda goes, nothing on the marriage equality side can possibly compete with the constant slander and incitments to violence coming from America’s pulpits nor from so-called conservative commentators.

Huh? I’ve attended conservative to fundamentalist churches for thirty years now. I think that I have heard homosexuality condemned in a sermon about three or four times in all thirty years.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:02 pm 73. Cybergeezer:

Okay, you parasites; I found your weak spot.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:03 pm 74. Praetorian:

There is no basis to believe that heterosexual intercourse is intended for propagation. Just take a look at some mainstream hetero pornography. You pretty much can’t find one that doesn’t include anal sex. Such hypocrisy.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:04 pm 75. Clayton E. Cramer:

David Solway did just that by bringing up the 2.1 birth rate.

That was a long time ago!

Only he’s making the claim that it’s “desirable for society.” That argument has been refuted countless times; I suggest you begin with George Orwell’s writings.

Care to give a specific example of where Orwell refuted that? In 1984, heterosexual sex was the enemy to be suppressed.

It is quite clear that societies that refuse to reproduce are going to end up losing influence relative to those that do. Not that recognizing SSM is going to change birth rates. I don’t find that a plausible argument at all.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:05 pm 76. Clayton E. Cramer:

The simple fact is that there is no public policy reason to stop marriage equality. The only “reasons” anyone can give are based on religious folk prejudices.

By the same reasoning, there is no public policy reason to stop polygamous marriage, or sex with animals. Opposition to those is also based on “religious folk prejudices.” (You know, the values held by about 90% of the population?)

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:07 pm 77. Clayton E. Cramer:

There are so many liberals who fight for some little titmouse or treefrog etc. because they fear of/for their extinction but yet, they have no problem with promoting ‘gay’ which would surely extinct humanity.

I’m hard pressed to see how homosexuality will ever be so dominant that it will extinguish our species.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:09 pm 78. gus3:

Got any more names to call me, Chuck? Or will you just continue trying to argue legal points from the Bible instead of the Constitution, like in #32 and #62…

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:27 pm 79. Marc Malone:

#52 RAH – All your assumptions are false.

Though you be childless, your marriage yet has value to society, as you maintain the model for society, with or without marriage. This is a point the article made.

Those who bear children outside marriage, do society and their children a disservice. It is better than abortion, but it does do ill. This is the greatest cause for societal disfunction, as proven by many studies on causes of criminality.

Marriage is, indeed, drying up. The number of people who never marry is on the rise. The durability of marriages has been on the decline for decades. Yes, people divorce and re-marry (rinse and repeat). In fact, were it not for that tendency, and the children that ensue from these unions, we would not be still replacing ourselves, since the number of children per union is down.

Collapse of civility? The evidence is all around you. Try this: count the number of times you hear please or thank you per day. One can go days without hearing these phrases. How many times per day do you yourself use these phrases? Count the times you hear “no problem” instead of “you’re welcome”, then tell me civility isn’t on the decline.

Gay marriage doesn’t cause this. No one said it did. The decline of marriage causes this, as children are not brought up in the proper environment. Children need the proper role models. They need the stability and love of a committed, heterosexual relationship.

Marriage needs to be exalted in our society. We need to cherish it. Our future as a society depende upon it. Gay marriage waters down the message and the intrinsic value of marrriage. It’s a form of moral equivalence. The people who maintain a hetero marriage are furthering our society. They form the infrastructure of our future.

Do not sell short your marriage, just because you have no children. You are doing your part to support the ideal of marriage as the form of what our society should look like. You are one of the pillars of our society. You are doing your part for us as a whole. You set an example. I value what you do.

Jun 23, 2009 - 4:40 pm 80. gus3:

“In 1984, heterosexual sex was the enemy to be suppressed.”

Huh?

In 1984, the idea that one can govern one’s own life, without first seeking permission of Big Brother, was the enemy to be suppressed. It the “thought police,” not the “sex police.” Sex was merely the primary facet of that control.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:01 pm 81. Richard:

Bzzt. Missed it again, conservatives. Marriage is not a commandment to procreate.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:07 pm 82. Chuck Pelto:

TO: gus3
RE: Naming of Names

Got any more names to call me, Chuck? — gus3

Only those that you manifest for US all.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Do you, now, properly appreciate my stance on ‘theocracy’? Or any other form of dictatorship that some fool might want to establish in this country?

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:17 pm 83. DavidN:

One of the goofier arguments in favor of the gay marriage ban is the argument that allowing gay marriage will somehow damage the “institution of marriage”, because, you know, the hetero community has been doing such a stellar job of protecting the institution while it’s been restricted to them. You have to wonder, at some point, why such people shrug at Britney Spears getting married repeatedly along with the Hollywood types, half of Congress and at least 2 presidents cheating on their wives, etc…but the *gays* getting married, that’ll really screw things up! Arguing that *any* heterosexual relationship, by its nature of one-woman-one-man, will provide a better environment for children than two people of the same gender is similarly silly. If you really think that, you obviously don’t read the paper, don’t watch the news on TV, and don’t get out much. There are any number of heterosexual marriages where the children get verbally, physically, and psychologically abused in various horrible ways…to assume that all gay marriages will be *worse* than this is downright stupid, and defies logic.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:19 pm 84. Matt:

The problem with most arguments to the effect that gay marriage will degrade society is that they fail against the relevant statistics. Countries where Gay Marriage is legal typically have lower crime rates and lower divorce rates. Where is the damage to society? Nowhere.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:19 pm 85. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. By the way….

…when you say….

Or will you just continue trying to argue legal points from the Bible instead of the Constitution…. — gus3

….are you saying that I am not allowed to think, let alone express, my honestly held personal opinions?

If so, are you a fascist at heart? Someone who hates the Bill of Rights?

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:21 pm 86. sheesh:

More Republican family and marriage values at work . . .

From the Greenvile News: “On Tuesday, sources told News 4’s Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.”

if it’s not one thing, it’s the other, eh? Just can’t catch a break. But hey, he sure was a good grtandstander while he lasted.

Jun 23, 2009 - 5:44 pm 87. gus3:

Your stance on “theocracy,” Chuck? Don’t make me laugh. You’re the one arguing points of law from the Bible. A whole lot of good that does for convincing any Hindus, Buddhists, neo-pagans, paleo-pagans, atheists, etc etc etc among us.

I see how much you value that Constitution, indeed. You know, that document that applies to all our citizens, no matter their religious beliefs? Injecting Judeo-Christian arguments into Constitutional matters is oxymoronic.

So go ahead, keep trying. Your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment, just as it also protects my right to expose you.

Jun 23, 2009 - 6:20 pm 88. David S:

Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.

There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.

Peace.

DS

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:04 pm 89. Paul of Alexandria:

gus3 (39):

This is the weakest “argument” in defense of hetero-only marriage, and in its core it is insulting.

Will you declare null-and-void a marriage of a man and a woman, because the husband found out he was born without vas deferens and therefore can never father biological offspring? After all, why waste his wife’s ova when she could be popping out kids by some other guy?

See previous posting re infertile couples and adoption. Although in many cultures this would be a legitimate reason for divorce.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:06 pm 90. Paul of Alexandria:

Delia (37):

…My ‘bi-sexual’ bit was just showing that people can and do make perverse choices and there are only a few people who are actually born gay because of hormones that change their sexuality in the womb. I’m driving myself crazy trying to find a link about that very thing and I promise to share it when I find it.

Ok, and understood. Even if it is biologically based, e.g. through hormonal imbalance, that is a medical problem, not a legitimate excuse.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:10 pm 91. Paul of Alexandria:

sharonsj (45):

How can procreation be the sole purpose of marriage? First of all, you don’t need to get married to have kids. Secondly, if having kids is so desirable….

Go back and read the postings very carefully. You’re missing the main point. “Procreation” is more than just popping out babies, and it is not the “sole” purpose of marriage. Controlling and making as optimal as possible the enviroment for the bearing and raising of children is the primary reason for marriage.

You’re right, you don’t need to be married to have kids (although it’s best of you are). But if you are not, then your children are at an extreme disadvantate, and you are hurting the society in which you live.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:15 pm 92. Paul of Alexandria:

RAH (64):

We had no intention of having children and every intention of avoiding it.

Good. Less competition for my kids.

People have a right to live as they like.

No they don’t. No society grants any of its members perfect freedom, nor should it.

Until you are willing to allow people to vote on your marriage, the rest of us have no moral right to vote on a gay person’s. You are relying on the fallacy of concensus anyway. The whole world can believe something and it can still be factually wrong.

Again, this isn’t opinion or up to a “vote”. This is the way that over 10,000 years of human history have shown to be the best way to raise kids and run a society.

Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, every society that has tried to destroy the traditional family structure has fallen. Hard. This isn’t prejudice, it isn’t irrationality, it isn’t person opinion. It’s history and biology.

Give me ONE legitimate (logical and based on fact) public policy reason to prevent gays from getting married

Funny, I thought that I posted about a half-dozen of them.

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:26 pm 93. Paul of Alexandria:

74. Praetorian:

There is no basis to believe that heterosexual intercourse is intended for propagation.

Um, let me go back and check my freshman biology textbook. Hmm. Sperm, Egg, …. Yep heterosexual intercourse is required for propogation, and so “intended” by nature (and God, of course). What did you think it was for?

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:31 pm 94. Paul of Alexandria:

Clayton E. Cramer (76):

By the same reasoning, there is no public policy reason to stop polygamous marriage, or sex with animals.

Not to take from your argument, but this last is wrong, BTW. Most sexually transmitted diseases (most diseases of all kinds, in fact) originated in domesticated animals, where they usually live benignly. Chlamydial is native to sheep, for instance. (Of course the disease contamination can go both ways, too).

Jun 23, 2009 - 8:51 pm 95. Joe Bison:

#34/35 Dear Paul-you did not understand my
concept

The piece of paper you would get from
government for a fee entitles you to
a legal civil union(not marriage).

You get married by the church(if you wish)
but that like baptism etc would not have
legal ramifications with the state.

Thus separation of church and state. If
you are a certain type of Christian for
example and you want legal rights you do
both-others only the registration(no
ceremony) with the government.

With your position you will be left with
no loaf eventually instead of half.
Eventually pastors employed by city
hall will be forced to perform gay
marriages there or face human rights
litigation. Open your eyes to what has
happened elsewhere in the west.

To #35-My point is to settle this issue
before others such as polygamists exploit
it in the future. If you allow the
state to define marriage(to me a sacrament)
you will have gay marriage everywhere
eventually. My solution is a compromise
-my church defines my marriage but does
not extend the definition to others
not of the faith and others do not define
mine.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:32 pm 96. mystercy:

chris in Toronto:
Your arguments trump everything written so far. It is the voice of reason in a sea of nonsense.
Paul of Alexandria:
“Yes it does, and it’s not mystical – it’s biology. Men and woman are fundamentaly different (as any parent with both a son and daughter can testify). They have different qualities and properties and serve different functions. Together they complement each other and form a symbiotic relationship. A man might “feel” that he’s really a woman, or vice-versa, but that means very little. The biology just isn’t there.”
Yes men and women are biologically different, but it has no bearing on whether the individual can be an effective parent or not. Bad parenting happens when a person believes his or her biology has granted them with the skills to be a good parent. The greater trajedy of the modern family is not because gay people want to share their lives with the person they choose, but a breakdown in the heterosexual families that are failing thier children.
To the rest of you, marriage is a relationship between two adults, children or not. Its when two people want to share their lives in an intimate and loving relationship that has a spiritual significance beyond casual love or a business contract. Marriage is the only institution that expresses this commitment in a meaningful way. To deny these citizens, these brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, cousins and neighbors this ability is just down right selfish. Shame on your judgemental, small-minded selves.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:42 pm 97. Linda Mae:

Historically, the contract of “marriage” has been to transfer property from the “bride’s” family to the “groom’s” family. It is also to consolidate property and monies between 2 families. Children are important to be the heirs. Remember the old English saying, “an heir and a spare.”

Today, we need to apply to the state for a license to marry, then go to our choice of person to do the marriage, and the marriage is reported to the state. It is a personal choice to have a religious or non religious person to perform the marriage.

It does NOT threaten my marriage if my gay friends wish to “marry.” It is a method to give them protection for property and health decisions. If we remember that it is NOT a religious event – unless the couple want it to be – then there should be no problem with allowing it.

Jun 23, 2009 - 10:45 pm 98. cpinva:

apparently, many of you either can’t, or choose not to read.

“The fiscal and social amenities that accrue to the married condition are a form of recompensation, a reward for the duties of procreation and bringing up children in, ideally, a stable environment. There is no reason for gay unions to profit from status recognition, tax breaks, pension and inheritance rights, family courts, civil enactments, and the like. These are privileges that must be earned and that reflect the labor and sacrifice involved in the reproduction of the generations.”

per the author of the piece, procreation IS the primary purpose of marriage, everything else is pretty much secondary. only those who procreate are entitled (in the author’s opinion) to the benefits innuring to married people.

either it is or it isn’t, you can’t have it both ways. if procreation is the primary purpose for marriage, then those who either don’t plan on, or can’t have children, shouldn’t be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender.

if procreation isn’t the primary function of marriage, then what difference does it make, to you or society in general, what gender the participants are?

the “arguments” against same-sex marriage, when exposed to the cleansing rays of open discussion, disintegrate like a vampire exposed to the sun; there’s just no there, there.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:45 pm 99. Realist:

Gays should be allowed to have all the children they can create naturally with their chosen partner. There is no God or man given RIGHT to have children and no justification at all for children to be raised in a so called ‘family’ where the natural creation of children is impossible.

Jun 23, 2009 - 11:45 pm 100. Caestal:

“Marriage will become a ‘plaything’ for the narcissistic masses being raised by our society to believe that if you want something get it, and if it doesn’t work out to your satisfaction get something else.” I assume you meant “Marriage HAS BECOME…” since clearly, long before the concept of gay marriage was brought up as more than a joke, marriages in this country had become something that you could enter into with the idea that if you got bored or something better came up, you could always bail out.
That being said, folks need to quit confusing the legal concept of marriage with the religious concept of marriage. When I married my wife, I had one ceremony that I considered binding for my lifetime, that had deep significance, and that had no legal standing at all. Later, we stood up in front of a Judge and made it legal. Both ceremonies accomplished something different; had we wanted to, we could have done both at the same time via a single ceremony.
I can’t help but suspect that this will be a non-issue in a couple hundred years… speaking of which, marriage as we know it is a relatively new thing; I believe it really started in the middle ages. Of course, that concept is bound to start a whole new chain of side arguments, so I will let it alone.

Jun 24, 2009 - 12:01 am 101. Confused in Virginia:

The basic fact is that the fight for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with marriage. It is just a way for a minority of people who claim that they are born gay to get legal benefits that they see other people getting. Whether or not some people are actually born gay or not, I can’t say. However, there are people who were not born that way, but changed because of traumatic events, and others because there has been so much propaganda from a small, yet very vocal group of people that they decide to try it as the “in” thing to do.

It is surprising that these people demand that we respect their chosen way of life, while they feel no obligation to respect ours. What this comes down to, as with everything, is money. The marriage issue is just a distraction.

Jun 24, 2009 - 1:46 am 102. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Mr. Solway, thank you for detailing a reasoned approach for the institution of marriage. The left says that being gay is not a lifestyle. I believe their are both … people born gay and many others for whom it is a “lifestyle” choice. But beyond that in general they are a bunch of whiney, self centered people who want to be recognized! A generation of people who in normal times would have been left unselected when teams were being picked. Now they have a vocal ability and a sympathetic audience to bring their gripes to. It’s popular don’t you know.

It is part of an overall leftist attempt to destroy (molest) any institution that has given many benefits to this country. Sure divorce is rampant but I don’t believe that just because it was not easy to obtain in decades past that the same effects did not affect past generations of children born in wedlock.

It does take a lot of sacrifice and investment by mother and father to raise children. Those who think that two mothers or two fathers is an adequate substitute are only fooling themselves. Or maybe they want to fool us. The truth is that without procreation, gays as a segment of society will remain a small and insignificant voice. But, ah ha, being able to adopt and inculcate the gay lifestyle in numerous children without the need to procreate allows gays to propogate their lifestyle.

But basically your article puts some meat to the arguments for the institution of marriage and that the institution is not a remnant of eras long gone and is no longer relevant, but that there are valid, logical reasons for the institution even if one wants to discount the religious aspects.

I say live and let live. But again as with any issue, your privacy ends where my nose begins. And I prefer that gays keep their lifestyle out of my nose/face. I don’t really care what two people want to do in their own privacy but when you bring it into the public square, then I will give a strong and clear reaction! “Get out of my face with your business!”

Jun 24, 2009 - 3:45 am 103. Chileno:

Gay-marriage proponents assert that marriage should be defined solely as a legal contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. But if this is strictly a legal contract among consenting adults, what’s the legal basis for stopping at two? In our multicultural society, would this definition not discriminate against Muslims, Mormons, or any other set of consenting adults who willingly participate in polygamy/polyandry?

Marriage is not a simple contract among adults. Couples engage in it for personal affective reasons, but society sanctions it because it’s the best means to raise the next generation. Whether each and every heterosexual couple is “good” or produces offspring is not the point: society knows marriages aren’t perfect, but they carry the best odds for stable procreation. It rolls the dice and hopes to win. Should homosexual couples have rights? They should, to the extent any group of persons, be it two, three, four, etc. can sign legal contracts for common benefits. But that doesn’t carry the same meaning as “marriage.”

Gay marriage proponents frame the issue as one of couples’ legal rights (i.e. gay couples are not allowed visitation rights, it’s difficult to inherit your partner’s goods). But these issues could be adequately resolved with the help of a lawyer and a little ink. This argument masks the real agenda: not tolerance, but forcing acceptance of gay couples as equal to heterosexual couples.

Personally, I could care less how homosexuals live their lives. It’s their God-given right to choose whichever lifestyle they wish. And I am morally obliged to treat them with compassion, as all of us are children of God. But what am I to do if placed in a situation where I am forced to accept or participate in events I consider morally wrong?

For example, a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts refused, on religious grounds, to let a gay married couple adopt a child. (I’m sure if an unmarried or divorced couple had applied for adoption, they would’ve also been refused). The adoption agency was pressed by the state government to allow the adoption go through, or they would be taken to court for discrimination. The adoption agency opted to shut down its operations in Massachusetts rather than break their own religious beliefs. Another example: a group of California Christian firemen were assigned to be on hand at a gay pride parade. They requested to be reassigned, as due to their religious beliefs, they did not want to participate in the event. They were denied the reassignment, and threatened to be fired on grounds they were discriminating against homosexuals if they didn’t show up.

It’s ironic how, during the Viet Nam war, the Left supported the conscientious objectors, crying out that it was morally wrong to force kids to fight in a war they didn’t believe in, even if the draft law stated otherwise. Yet today it is precisely those on the political Left who demand we cast our morals aside, and accept the gay marriage laws, or be branded bigots, or homophobes worthy of being punished.

The United States was founded on the notion that we could pursue whichever religious beliefs we wished, so long as they didn’t harm others. But what about situations where other’s beliefs harm us? Are my religious beliefs subordinate to gay’s sexual beliefs?

Jun 24, 2009 - 4:52 am 104. EgregiousCharles:

As Joe Bison said in comment 95, Paul in Alexandria is missing our point. Government can and should define civil unions, which can be discussed in a much less emotional way in terms of what their impact on society is; that’s all a civil union is about. And I can’t see why gay civil unions threaten society.

Attempts to make the government definition of marriage conform to the Christian one, or the traditional one in virtually every society, merely reinforce the idea that the government DOES define marriage, and modern governments absolutely cannot be trusted with that power. Joe gives some examples of where it will likely become a problem next, such as polygamy; as I mentioned, it’s already socially destructive in divorce.

Paul provides arguments about the essential role of traditional marriage in virtually all societies. Similar arguments can and have been put forth about the essential role of prayer in public life, but making that prayer free of government regulation made it thrive here in America. Religion in countries that have state churches dies, either on the inside or the outside. In places such as modern England or Sweden, it dies on the outside; there’s very little faith in either of those countries. In the medieval countries it died on the inside; the Church was merely another career, all show and no heart.

Jun 24, 2009 - 6:16 am 105. Clayton E. Cramer:

By the same reasoning, there is no public policy reason to stop polygamous marriage, or sex with animals.

Not to take from your argument, but this last is wrong, BTW. Most sexually transmitted diseases (most diseases of all kinds, in fact) originated in domesticated animals, where they usually live benignly. Chlamydial is native to sheep, for instance. (Of course the disease contamination can go both ways, too).

By that reasoning, there is a sound public policy reason to ban promiscuous sex between people. But we know how well that would work with the proponents (both gay and straight) of SSM.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:22 am 106. Paul of Alexandria:

mystercy (96):

….
Yes men and women are biologically different, but it has no bearing on whether the individual can be an effective parent or not.

You aren’t paying attention. Go back and read my posts. Fathers and Mothers play different roles in the raising of children and are not interchangeable! Two lesbians may both be “good parents” but they will be two mothers, and the role of the father will be lacking.

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:49 am 107. Paul of Alexandria:

cpinva (98):

per the author of the piece, procreation IS the primary purpose of marriage, everything else is pretty much secondary. only those who procreate are entitled (in the author’s opinion) to the benefits innuring to married people.

Carefull here, that’s not what was said. The primary purpose of marriage is to support the bearing and raising of children in such a way as to maximize both the wellbeing of the children and the benefit to society. Your last statement is not true, since even those married couples without children serve as an example to those with children, and can always have children through adoption (which are treated – legally and morally – exactly as natural children).

Jun 24, 2009 - 7:53 am 108. Paul of Alexandria:

Linda Mae (97):

Historically, the contract of “marriage” has been to transfer property from the “bride’s” family to the “groom’s” family. It is also to consolidate property and monies between 2 families. Children are important to be the heirs. Remember the old English saying, “an heir and a spare.”

Certainly, the actual marriage contract is of particular importance among the upper class/rich/nobility, where such things are important. I disagree that the “purpose” is to transfer wealth from the bride’s family to the groom’s, it can go the other way; traditionally, in most cultures, the bride joins the grooms family. However, this is an effect of the marriage contract, not the reason for it.

Like all other long-standing customs marriage is interwoven into every aspect of society. Instead of the nobilty – which are a relatively small proportion of society – consider the middle and lower classes. Marriage is extremely important there, by and large, since it provides safety and stability in an otherwise uncertain world.

Jun 24, 2009 - 8:00 am 109. Paul of Alexandria:

EgregiousCharles (104):

As Joe Bison said in comment 95, Paul in Alexandria is missing our point. Government can and should define civil unions, which can be discussed in a much less emotional way in terms of what their

Please tell me in what way a “civil union” would differ from a marriage contract?

IMHO, it wouldn’t – it’s merely a different name for the same thing, and is an attempt by certain groups to subvert the institution of marriage. The term “Civil Union” is based on the false premise that a marriage is primarily a religious institution.

Jun 24, 2009 - 8:03 am 110. Paul of Alexandria:

Clayton E. Cramer (105):

“…
Most sexually transmitted diseases (most diseases of all kinds, in fact) originated in domesticated animals, ….”

By that reasoning, there is a sound public policy reason to ban promiscuous sex between people. But we know how well that would work with the proponents (both gay and straight) of SSM.

Yep. I am 99.99% certain that neither myself nor my family will ever contract an STD, especially AIDS (barring a contaminated blood transfusion).

Jun 24, 2009 - 8:07 am 111. Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian:

Delia,

I checked my “Comments” panel and your comment never came through. The only reasons I can think of are that you did not fill out the form correctly, or that you commented while I was having technical difficulties with my Web host, which were going on into the wee hours on the morning of 6/23. You are welcome to try again.

If you don’t succeed, leave a comment here or in the comments on my piece, “My Blissful Gay Marriage,” and explain what happens when your comment doesn’t go through and I will see if I can pinpoint the problem and fix it. Thank you for going to my blog to check it out.

If others are interested in checking out my blog, the URL should be under my name in this comment. While the “Gay Marriage” category there addresses this topic, you may also enjoy my posts in the “Humor” category.

Cynthia

Jun 24, 2009 - 8:55 am 112. Paul M Hupf:

Same sex marriage is nothing more than hedonism without the risk of producing children. It is selfish; contrary to the common good, and destructive of all moral values. The idea that two people of the same sex have a constitutional right to “marry” finds no support in the U S Constitution. It is the product of court made “right to privacy”, not a constitutional right at all.

Jun 24, 2009 - 2:59 pm 113. Clayton E. Cramer:

I can’t help but suspect that this will be a non-issue in a couple hundred years… speaking of which, marriage as we know it is a relatively new thing; I believe it really started in the middle ages.

This is incomplete. There were church sanctioned weddings even earlier, but these were more a recognition of something that was often accomplished as the result of a couple deciding that they were married in the eyes of God; the ceremony was something of a community wide acknowledgment.

Complicating the matter is that the Church sometime in the early Dark Ages adopted the current rule of consanguinity to prevent first-cousin marriages. The reason was to prevent the creation of excessively close clan systems, such as is common in Iraq–and for very similar reasons. In England, the reading of the banns in church for three consecutive Sundays in both bride and groom’s parish churches was to make sure that if anyone knew that the bride and groom were more closely related than they supposed (as was quite possible in communities where more than few people were born on the wrong side of the sheets), it could be quietly communicated to the priest before the marriage was formally recognized.

Jun 24, 2009 - 3:17 pm 114. DavidN:

Has anyone else noticed that everyone who is supporting “traditional marriage” is citing 10,000 years of history, or whatever, and to my knowledge all of these mentions ignore the fact that for most of that time, polygamy was the rule of law for many of the societies involved? I’m just sayin’…

Jun 24, 2009 - 11:27 pm 115. EgregiousCharles:

Paul of Alexandria (#109): The term “Civil Union” is based on the false premise that a marriage is primarily a religious institution.

Sorry, I thought you were missing our point when in fact I was missing your point. You see marriage as primarily a social or legal contract, I see it as primarily a religious one. I’m not sure which one, social or legal, you see it as though; I’m guessing social because of your references to the definition of marriage. If it was primarily a legal contract the government would be the definer.

>>>Please tell me in what way a “civil union” would differ from a marriage contract?<<<

If it’s a legal contract, then any two or more people of whatever sex could simply have draw up a contract and wills to share funds and inheritance etc. and be married. Then there is no difference from a civil union and gay marriage has been available as long as strong contract law.

If it’s a social contract, then the name is the essential part. Homosexual couples who want marriage rather than civil unions see that instinctively. A civil union does not confer social legitimacy, only legal equality. As society as a whole does not recogize same-sex marriage, homosexuals see the government definition as a lever to change that. If the government definition is gone, the lever is gone. You also want to use the government definition as a lever to keep it our way.

I see marriage as primarily a religious institution; to me same-sex marriage can never take place regardless of what institution says it has. I do not think prayers to the saints are appropriate, and state sanctioning cannot make it so. That state sanctioning was the case in most European countries when Protestants (protestors) founded this one. Though to a religious person the government cannot truly change God’s law, yet it is enormously better to live in a place where they do not attempt it; their only tool in the end is the gun. Therefore I will fight people imposing a government definition of marriage that happens to match mine just as I do opposing definitions or as the Founders fought imposition of prayer.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:04 am 116. EgregiousCharles:

DavidN (#114), yes, people have noticed that, but I understand why you didn’t see it in the volume of comments.

Because the number of men and women is roughly equal, and neither men nor women much want to share, polygamy has not been very prevalent in societies that recognize it. Basically what happens is a few very rich men have more than one wife, and the impact on society isn’t that huge; though probably there are far more polygamous marriages than there would be gay ones.

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:12 am 117. Chuck Pelto:

TO: gus3
RE: Heh

Your stance on “theocracy,” Chuck? Don’t make me laugh. — gus3

This is the wrong topical thread to discuss your stupidity. Or maybe it’s much, much worse than merely being ’stupid’.

Let’s discuss this on a more apropos thread HERE!

Looking forward to this. I need to a ‘pleaseant diversion’ to clear the mental sluices while writing code today.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. -- Proverbs]

Jun 25, 2009 - 6:32 am 118. Lynn:

“I assume you meant “Marriage HAS BECOME…” since clearly, long before the concept of gay marriage was brought up as more than a joke,…

No I meant exactly what I said, but I agree that you have a point. Along with that I am observing that sexual orientation by young people has become a plaything, where moving in and out of sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex is becoming the fashion for young people. Of course the ever ready corrupting adults are more than willing to go along and in fact profit from it.

As I said the road signs are vanishing, and marriage becoming more than a man and woman joining together is another example of another road sign vanishing.

This generation will pass before any direction is no direction (what does it matter), and in the meantime we will have passed along our willingness to buckle under pressure because we lacked the ‘balls’ to stand up for an institution that has served this society well. And we also lack the ‘balls’ to let the judicial system know that their place in our society is not to redefine words to suit them or others, or force states to comply with those redefinitions to please citizens that are not included ‘by definition’.

The joining of a man and woman should not become a adjective to describe a kind of marriage because at it’s core it is a man and woman.

Finally, if the marriage success rate is in the fifty percent range, it may not be ideal, but if the chances of winning the lottery were that high the whole country would be playing.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:01 am 119. Clayton E. Cramer:

that for most of that time, polygamy was the rule of law for many of the societies involved?

Even polygamy has a stronger basis than same-sex marriage. But watch the stink if you point this out–most same-sex marriage backers suddenly get all squeamish about polygamous marriage, bestiality, child brides, etc.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:03 pm 120. Cybergeezer:

Obviously, one of the main reasons for promoting gay marriage is the political aspect; It’s pandering and profiteering off another special interest group.

Jun 26, 2009 - 9:22 am 121. David S:

@120. Cybergeezer:

“Obviously, one of the main reasons for promoting gay marriage is the political aspect; It’s pandering and profiteering off another special interest group.”

I’m afraid I can’t buy that. Promoting gay marriage is promoting equal rights. Courts and legislatures are coming to realize this is an issue of Constitutional protections. Pandering and profiteering is not confined to those promoting the franchise.

Peace.

DS

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:32 am 122. Joe Bison:

To #110-The difference between a civil union
and marriage is like the difference between
a birth certificate issued by government
and a baptism done by a church.

At one time in certain places a record of
baptism filled the role of a birth certificate-
not any more.

The US is not a religious institution that
can grant or control sacraments.
If you wish to merge government and religion
try a theocracy like Iran instead. Myself
I’ll take the US.

Jun 26, 2009 - 10:34 am 123. Joe Bison:

Once government defines a union in civil
terms the religious freedom/religious history
argument of the polygamists is defanged.

In fact for example many Muslims in the
West already have multiple wives whether
some readers like it or not. They have
the full blessing of their faith whether
you like it or not.

However, with my concept they will never
get legal status as their arguments are
religion based and the government would
not have its two people civil union policy
based on religious arguments.

Base it on the human need for a companion
if you will. Everyone has the right to
shelter but not the right to be given
four houses. I don’t have the right to
deny someone the need to enjoy life with
someone else with the same rights I have.
Freedom cuts two ways-somethings you may
like, others you may not agree with.

Jun 26, 2009 - 11:58 am 124. Berlet98:

How About Same-Sex Bennies?

(Fifth in a series in recognition of New York City’s “Gay Pride Week”)

I’ve never been a member of any minority that I know of but I can now better empathize with the discrimination some minorities claim to suffer. Any discriminatory action must be painful to endure but when its source is the government of the United States it is not only painful but infuriating.

A recent article on The American Spectator, “Friends with Benefits,” by George Neumayr reveals the essence of that discrimination in a quotation from the Washington Post, “Barack Obama’s presidential memorandum that decrees in these dark days of recession new ‘benefits to partners of federal workers. . . . [the memo] does not cover domestic heterosexual partners.’ “

If you happen to be a heterosexual worker, you get didleysquat, nothing, nada, zilch in new benefits. They are reserved for homosexuals in the employ of our government.

The tipoff should have been the word “partners,” the preferred term for gay lovers who are, usually, shacking up. As Neumayr writes, “Heterosexual sinners need to hire better lobbyists, or hope that Obama soon finds in his impressively massive heart a new and richer understanding of their attempts at semi-committed love:” http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/19/fiends-with-benefits.

A GAO employee, a lesbian and ordained “minister” Candy Holmes, told the Post she wants “to believe this is the beginning of equality.”

I must be missing something here…
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Jun 26, 2009 - 3:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: