Hesperion—Wow..enough to make me “bi”!! LOL! Wait a minute—am I?

Marshall—bloe me….c’mon, you’ll feel better. You are so obssessed with it. I just keep coming back here, and, here you are, defending motherhood and applepie…and too many kids, and, suburban sprawl, and ALL THINGS ‘MERKIN!

Marshall:
’... We’ve clarified the fourteenth amendment’s meaning over time and it plainly does not protect same sex marriage. ...’

A number of courts have decided that it does.  That’s the reason for the resort to referendums, for example, Proposition 8.

Anarcissie and KDelphi: As we have seen here, the heterosexual is clearly not to be trusted with decision-making. They are known to be selfish, willfully ignorant and stubborn. They don’t practice monogamy (as is demonstrated by statistics) but if they feel their dominion is threatened they will construct vast moral obstacles to require it of others. They all look alike. When they get wet they smell like potato chips. It is statistically proven that they molest children, statistically, usually their own. They consume the vast majority of the world’s resources with impunity and breed uncontrollably insuring further continued mass consumption without contributing much of anything. They insist on their great superiority when all they really have is majority. This gives them the assumption that they can dictate for all people. This is typical of their kind. Tradition tells them what to do. This is because of their lazy minds that resist thought and consideration. Even in the face of facts they will repeat and repeat myths, lies and legends. This comforts them inexplicably making them impenetrable to reason. They have their dominion over us all only by force of arms, sheer numbers and revenue. They are known for their anger, vindictiveness and meanness. They only amuse themselves to communicate with us in these venues because they have not completed the readiness of the facilities for our incarceration and eventual extermination.

[So you see, Prejudice goes both way and is often fostered in reciprocity.]

By Anarcissie, December 19 at 7:42 am #

I do understand that you see this as a rights issue, and that the current legal framework should be changed to fit the circumstances.  But throwing out a system of case law that evolves over years to better handle just such issues is not how our system works.  We’ve clarified the fourteenth amendment’s meaning over time and it plainly does not protect same sex marriage.

We’re also dealing with more than just the desires of a small self-described group here; we’re dealing with societal values held by a majority and real concerns about traditional institutions and the importance of supporting them for future generations.  I believe that absent civil rights legal protection for same sex marriage advocates, society has every right retain its traditional definition.

Regarding the polygamy - i know you weren’t arguing against it.  But i think it’s a clear analog to the same sex issue given another self-described group who’s preference (and they would argue, “right”) calls for a redefinition of marriage to accommodate a non-traditional structure.

Marshall—I’ve observed arguments between flat-earth advocates and others in various places, so I’m well aware that no matter what anyone says, you will be able to string some words together, grammatically enough, which “refute” any proposition about the world, even those which are completely obvious to everyone and immediately verifiable.  It’s a trick even a clever child of six or seven can learn.  It’s hardly worth pursuing for very long.

As for polygamy, certainly, if people are strongly attracted to it, the Constitution commands that the laws be adapted to them.  The law is made for people, not people for the law.  I was just saying that constructing the laws would be far more difficult than legalizing same-sex marriage and might take a good deal of time and discussion.

Marshall-“I think you’re getting hung up on an earlier aside i made regarding single parenting stats.  I’m not comparing single parenting to same-sex households.(YES YOU WERE—OR,IF IT HAD NO PLACE THERE) (mine)  My only point about same-sex households is that in the absence of conclusive scientific consensus,(are you kidding me? How would that be?) (mine) society has every right to discourage such non-traditional structures.  And because no rights are violated, it’s not an equal rights issue.”

This was in reply to my stating that there was no scientific evidence. But, your stats were not scientific evidence…huh??OK. There has been opposite (??)(who can tell?? you say..) sex two parent families since the beginning of the country…are THEY possibly the cause of our hyper-militarism? Our loss of the middle class? Our greed and lack of concern for others with non-similar beliefs?

I am not submitting that they are—-just that there is not scientific evidence to prove othrewise.

Correlatin is not causation

“Speculation about current divorce rates isn’t really relevant to the main discussion so i’m not going to comment on that.”

Then why did you say that “current divorce rates were down”? I just listed the stats. You brought it up.

Apparently, you thought that it mattered earlier
(the death of the nuclear family concept and its promotion in society.), or, did you mean, like I would probably say, “thank gawd!”

“Anyone can call themselves anything they want - including heterosexual.  Do bisexuals exist?  You tell me.  How about Polygamists?  Since there is no possible way to differentiate among these many groups, this removes one’s stated sexual orientation from the equation - which is why the issue isn’t about sexual orientation at all, but about the right to marry someone of the same sex by preference.  Period.  And this is precisely why it’s not a civil rights issue…”

So, you would agree it is not about sexual orientation at all—good, Glad you agree that it is not about what sex someone is.

So you are just “afraid of it leading to polygamy”...right…well, the state of Utah is already full of them.

And, since you will not drop the polygamy red herring (any other arguments? Besides unproveable messed up kids?), I have to conclude that you are a homophobe, and, worse, too chicken ass to admit it.

You should be thrilled with Pastor Warren.

By KDelphi, December 17 at 1:17 pm #

I think you’re getting hung up on an earlier aside i made regarding single parenting stats.  I’m not comparing single parenting to same-sex households.  My only point about same-sex households is that in the absence of conclusive scientific consensus, society has every right to discourage such non-traditional structures.  And because no rights are violated, it’s not an equal rights issue.

Speculation about current divorce rates isn’t really relevant to the main discussion so i’m not going to comment on that.

“Same-sex unions could provide stable homes for some of these children”

...or they may not - we just don’t know.  Until we do, i think public and legal opinion is correct in preferring traditional family structures.

By Anarcissie, December 17 at 6:31 am #

“while same-sex marriage is easy and obvious, legally institutionalized polygamy is not so easy and obvious.”

You are right, but if you argue the civil rights angle for polygamy (which would make as much sense as arguing it for same-sex), then the legal difficulty of polygamy would be no excuse for denying a group its civil rights; thus the argument for legalizing polygamy would stand.

By Anarcissie, December 17 at 6:19 am #

“You would have to show that the normal model of marriage (in the United States) is not centered on sexual attraction and its concomitants”

The origin of marriage is complicated and it would be difficult to show that it is based, or not based, on just about anything.  Absent your proof that sexual attraction is a constitutional requirement of marriage, i don’t see a case for you there.

“or that there weren’t really any homosexuals”

Anyone can call themselves anything they want - including heterosexual.  Do bisexuals exist?  You tell me.  How about Polygamists?  Since there is no possible way to differentiate among these many groups, this removes one’s stated sexual orientation from the equation - which is why the issue isn’t about sexual orientation at all, but about the right to marry someone of the same sex by preference.  Period.  And this is precisely why it’s not a civil rights issue.

Marshall—How ridiculous! There is no “logic” in comparing single parent families to same sex parental families!

I am sure you know that, intellectually. You just wont accept it, on a gut level.It just “bothers” you—you need to find out why…unless, of course, it is religious conviciton, which, you have no right to thrust onto others, unless we are a theocracy. We are not.

I submit, again, that it is none of your business.

It is a matter of human rights. Do you support equality (as you say you do) or not?

Divorce rates are down, but the reasons “why” seem to be alot more complicated. Some think it may be due to more extended cohabitation, which you probably dont “approve of” either.

8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents—the lowest figure in the Western world.

Same-sex unions could provide stable homes for some of these children. We also need to teach BIRTH CONTROL!! Good lord—this “purity ring” crap doesnt work! It is also criminal, in my mind, to not teach male and female condom use, especially in Third World countries, which we are rapidly becoming, but that is another isuue.

There were approximately 2,230,000 marriages in 2005—down from 2,279,000 the previous year, despite a total population increase of 2.9 million over the same period.

Stats show that 36% of births in the uS are to single mothers—the highest in the free world, despite the christian rights’ “marriage promotion”.

There are some even scarier stats here:
http://www.singleparentsuccess.org/stats.html

Marshall: ’... Because there is no difference between the arguments in favor of same sex marriage and in favor of polygamy.’

The difference is that there is a universally accepted working model in American law and custom for same-sex marriage between two persons, to wit, different-sex marriage between two persons, whereas there isn’t for marital unions between more than two equal persons.  In other words, while same-sex marriage is easy and obvious, legally institutionalized polygamy is not so easy and obvious.

Marshall: ’... Then we’re back to the previous positions, mine being that there is no violation of equal protection because all persons of all claimed sexual orientations (since independent verification is impossible) have the right to marry. ...’

No, we are not.  You would have to show that the normal model of marriage (in the United States) is not centered on sexual attraction and its concomitants, or that there weren’t really any homosexuals.  Both of these propositions will be considered preposterous in any place where common sense is permitted to exist.

By KDelphi, December 17 at 12:08 am #

The studies i speak of address outcomes of children raised in single vs. two parent (i.e. “nuclear”) familes; where kids from single parent families suffered lower academic performance, higher mortality rates, higher incarceration rates, etc… It’s a good thing then that the number of single parent families has been dropping, as has the overall divorce rate (now at 48%), for the last twenty years.  Of course however high we may think that is, it’s certainly no argument in favor of allowing alternative marriages.

Which, btw, you would have to support if you buy the logic of same sex marriage.  Because there is no difference between the arguments in favor of same sex marriage and in favor of polygamy.

Marshall—“proven data” and “my belief” ( as well as “no studies”) are totally contradictory..

but , the two parent nuclear family is going so well, we should all judge..

51% of all heterosexuals who have been married, are no longer. Quite a track record.

Well, at least they cant blame it on gay marriage, yet!

I still say it is religion. I see no secular belief to base your ideas on.

“as to whether same sex or other so-called “atypical “ marriages are “good for society”, is purely you opinion.”

That is correct.  The proven data i speak of is with regard to single vs. two parent households which clearly favor two-parent arrangements.  I know of no credible studies comparing same vs. opposite sex marriages.  My argument isn’t based on studies, nor is it based on religion.  It’s based on my belief that secular society has the right to make value judgments and promote those judgments through policy.  Since i don’t buy the civil rights argument in favor of same sex marriage (as i explain previously), i see no impediment to enforcing a traditional marriage framework.

Marahsll—I was hardly supporting polygamy, but, as to whether same sex or other so-called “atypical ” marriages are “good for society”, is purely you opinion.

You submit that they are not. I submit that they are.

They provide a long term framework for relationships. They promote manogamy. They provide a framework for children. They promote a more open society.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Spain, and other forward thinking countries.

The only REAL reason to oppose it , is really religion. Isnt that true? I have seen the “studies”—but not a single one that isnt backed by some uber-religius think tank.

I would like to know where you got the data for such a statement—that anything, save “traditinal christian marriage” is ‘bad for society”...

By Anarcissie, December 16 at 7:38 am #

Then we’re back to the previous positions, mine being that there is no violation of equal protection because all persons of all claimed sexual orientations (since independent verification is impossible) have the right to marry.  The fact that the state chooses to encourage the traditional nuclear family by discouraging polygamous, same-sex, or other alternative arrangements in no way violates that protection and those who claim such violation are a self-described group, not a civil rights group.  The state does not guarantee one’s happiness or gauge sexual attraction - that’s your business, and there is no abrogation of 14th amendment rights.

Likewise i would not support the legalization of polygamy, group marriage, or similar alternative marriages.  The complicated legal/structural issues you mention aside, these are not arrangements that are of benefit to society.  Just as single parenthood is discouraged given its demonstrated inferiority when compared to two parent families, society has its origins in, and indeed an obligation to promote collective values.

Marshall—Marriage is a state institution created on the basis of sexual attraction and its consequences.  As long as the state does this, then equal protection of the laws applies (in the United States, as long as the parties to it are voluntary, informed and competent).  If you don’t like this, you need to get the 14th Amendment repealed.

KDelphi—There is no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is happy.  Unfortunately, in marriage as with other contractual arrangments, not everyone remains happy with what the contracts they have entered into, and it is necessary to break them up.  It is already very tricky to break up marriages, especially those with children, between two persons while treating all parties justly and with the least harm.  The problems will be greatly compounded in marriages with more than two primary participants.  People attempting to deal with such arrangements legally or otherwise might have to study what we know about societies with such marriages, instead of simply following the prejudices of the voters or their friends and business associates.  Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage presents signficiant structural differences which the laws would have to take account of.

By Anarcissie, November 28 at 7:23 am #

Why can’t it be both?  There are many things that the state promotes which are not solely the invention of state, but which would be undermined were they not encouraged.  We’d all like to have a greener society, but i imagine you’d support govt. mandating of green programs in order to help make it happen?

There’s no question that govt. does promote societal values through policy - its inevitable.  And it doesn’t make those values entirely the invention of the state.

Actually, I think that it is the WAY polygamy seems to be practiced, both here (fricking wierdos) and abroad. If all are of age, concensual (we would have a sticky wicket there, considering a child brought up in a polygamous society wouldnt know much else), and they pay taxes and dont try to live off of govt benefits, even when they are rich (like LDS and Wal mart)—I say—have at it!!

You should be able to be miserable with as many people as you like. Polygamous males—women with 5 husbands. I dont care if you marry anyone (unless it is family, and then I have genetic stake in that!@)

So, why do you?

Marshall—You’re saying that marriage is solely a creation of the state?  That’s not my perception, but if so, equal protection of the laws applies.  You have neatly refuted your own prior arguments (insofar as you had any).

I wish we had gotten to this point sooner, because your view is strongly related to the usual theory propounded by religious bigots, which is that the nuclear family can exist only if it is enforced and regulated by the power of the state.  In other words, there is no natural basis to marriage—it’s a social artifice.  And the only reason to construct the artifice is that some gigantic spook in the sky, who most people can’t see or hear, orders humanity (through a select few) to construct it.  Do you want to lower yourself onto that hook now? 

Alternatively you could claim that your views on marriage are a personal prejudice which other people should obey just because you say so.

By Anarcissie, November 27 at 7:01 am #

“There is no absolute reason why polygamy shouldn’t be legal between competent, informed, consenting adults.”

Exactly.  And same-sex marriage is the line that, when crossed, will make any argument against polygamy practically impossible.  Marriage will then cease to be anything but a state license to receive benefits, and since there will be no qualifications for receiving that license, everyone will be able to receive those benefits.  This is, essentially, the death of the nuclear family concept and its promotion in socieity.  And this is exactly the agenda of those behind polygamy.

I see we have some more sophistry from Marshall.

There is no absolute reason why polygamy shouldn’t be legal between competent, informed, consenting adults.  However, assuming you think the state ought to regulate marriage, setting up the laws to regulate polygamous marriage will take some time and discussion because many new and complex issues will be raised.  Same-sex marriage of couples, by contrast, can be easily modeled on different-sex marriage.

Of course, this is a red herring, but at least it’s easily disposed of.

By Hesperion, November 26 at 6:36 pm #

Let’s set aside the fact that i’ve hurt your feelings for a moment and address a real issue for those who oppose gay marriage.

You accuse me of “propounding bigoted myths that he insists on believing.”  But I ask you and anyone - in all seriousness - the following question:

Why is the idea of legalized polygamy anymore far fetched than the idea of gay marriage was until recently?

The fact is that polygamy is ALREADY being advocated for as the next “battleground” in altering the definition of marrige.  The ACLU recently stated that it will defend the “fundamental right” of polygamy.  There are cultures in which it is legal today.  There are numerous alternative lifestyle groups that advocate it.  And there are no substantive differences between the arguments for gay marriage and polygamy.  Those who support same-sex marriage currently have a vested interest in dismissing the idea of legalized polygamy as “ridiculous” because to acknowledge its similarities would alienate many potential same-sex marriage supporters.

So please - I’d like to hear the response of anyone here as to why polygamy should not be legal?

Hesperion:
’... We do not confide in haters and it is just too tiring to teach someone who will not learn.

My theory is that he’s from another universe.  He has now said that, in effect, homosexuals don’t exist, as well as that sex is irrelevant to marriage. 

What I’m wondering about is how the messages get through to TruthDig.  Some kind of space or time warp, I suppose.

Marshall says:
“Hesperion - you keep accusing me of inaccuracies but fail to point out a single one.  If you want to belittle some of my points as cliche and uninformed, at least give me some reason to believe you know why they are.”

Marshall here says I am “accusing” him of “inaccuracies” and I am not. I am accusing him of propounding bigoted myths that he insists on believing. He asks that I give him reason why these are “cliché and uninformed”. He fails to grasp that I have done with him after his insults and hurtful generalizations which led to my feeling licensed to respond in kind. He has demonstrated an inability to comprehend which is why I have not bothered to attempt his remedial education on the subjects that we who grew up and survive as gay people have had to deal with all our lives from the likes of him. He blundered in here pronouncing how we are and what we think and do as if he had some knowledge which he could not have as shown by his remarks. He claims he wants “discussion” but he has shown that what he really wants to do is insult, demean, belittle and condescend to us. It is obvious that he has never known a gay person well enough have his myths either smashed or brought into question. But judging from what he has said about us (indeed directly TO us) that is an unlikely possibility. We do not confide in haters and it is just too tiring to teach someone who will not learn.

By Anarcissie, November 26 at 2:08 pm #

Some argue your point as “right to pursuit of happiness”, but you argue it under “equal protection” so i’ll address that:

“In order for homosexuals to enjoy this right, they have to be able to marry someone of the same sex.”

I think you and i agree that marriage is not a “right” (certainly not a constitutional one).  It’s a societal designation that all have access to.
But sexual orientation is not definable, nor is it static.  There is no way to identify a homosexual other than their claim of being so.  Some who identify themselves as gay will choose (and be happy) in traditional marriages, while others won’t.

Thus, sexuality can’t be the issue here.  The issue is simply whether two people of the same sex can marry.  You may choose to or you may not - it’s simply a choice you have to make.  And if you choose not to, you can instead choose a domestic partnership and get all the same stuff.

“Equal protection of the laws, then, requires that they be able to do so.”

And they can.  But the law doesn’t guarantee happiness in marriage; just that you have the choice to GET married - which everyone has.

By Hesperion, November 26 at 3:04 pm #

Hesperion - you keep accusing me of inaccuracies but fail to point out a single one.  If you want to belittle some of my points as cliche and uninformed, at least give me some reason to believe you know why they are.

Anarcissie

Marshall “Santorum” here in ineducable and just comes to taunt us with his stubbornness and bigotry. He must get a thrill out of this since it serves no purpose when he fails to comprehend the barest of simple facts. He consistently repeats the myths (i.e.: “lifestyle choice” and “a small subset of the population…” “…a vocal group…” “people who call themselves gay…” “…no legal classification of a “gay” person …no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.” “just a “preference”.”  He is like most of the ill-informed straight people I have known thinking they have knowledge and considering themselves “experts” on the very people they is addressing. He is making a fool of himself. He has predictably brought in the highly insulting assertion that extending equal protections will devolve into a free-for all of variations. I expect before his current amusement with us is exhausted he will bring up a likelihood of someone using this to marry their pets. (Ex-Senator, Rick Santorum (one of the finest minds of the 15th century) has already said this so, even that will not be new.) He has nothing new to offer, just bigotry, he has nothing old to offer, just old myths and legends that have long been disproved and are only clung to by the willfully ignorant. So, between conducting a “long-distance relationship” (probably doesn’t even have any children) and checking under the bed and in the closets for dangerous fags that might spring out and any moment he amuses himself by displaying his fears and misinformation here.

I would recommend the cat-box cleaning.

Marshall—we’re not talking about inalienable rights; the issue is equal protection of the laws.  Heterosexuals have a legal right to marry; the normal model includes sexual attraction (and the concomitant emotions) even if that is not the dominant motive. In order for homosexuals to enjoy this right, they have to be able to marry someone of the same sex.  Equal protection of the laws, then, requires that they be able to do so.

However, as we have seen, you can deny that sexual attraction is part of the normal model of marriage.  My experience with those who deny obvious facts is that they will go to any length, however contrary to evidence and reason, to maintain their opinions.  So I suspect I’m wasting my time.  But it’s this, or clean the cat box.

By KDelphi, November 25 at 1:24 am #

Continuing your comparison, what if they put a proposition on the ballot to state that society shall not discriminate against those who choose to marry multiple partners?  There are many gay and straight (especially mormons!) who would claim they cannot be happy unless they can marry the “people” of their choice.  Would you support this legal sanctioning of lifestyle choice?

The race, gender examples you gave have all been settled in constitutional law and are easily identifiable civil rights groups - not self-identified as are gay, bi-sexual, even heterosexual.

So this issue really isn’t about being gay, bi-sexual or whatever; it’s not a discrimination issue.  It’s about marriage and gender.  Period.  Can a person marry someone of their same gender.

I also find it curious how so many on this board treat the black community as though it has no opinion of its own other than what the mormons give it.  Blacks have never supported gay issues and don’t need the church to prove it.  And while i’m sure you credit them with the intellectual capacity to elect Obama, they get painted as simpleton dupes when it comes to prop. 8.  Shame.

By Hurt by Homophobia, November 25 at 6:35 pm #

don’t see any posts from you addressing calif. domestic partnerships, so i’m not sure what i ignored.  The fact is that as the code is written, domestic partnership in CA contains ALL the same rights and privileges conferred on marriage.

“297.5.  (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?secti on=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

And i do have a girlfriend but she lives in san diego, giving me time to discuss these topics with you.  let’s hear it for long distance relationships!!

By Anarcissie, November 25 at 7:45 pm #

“Marshall—if you want to pretend that sexual attraction is not part of the normal model of marriage…”

I think you’re not getting my point Anarcissie:  There is no legal requirement of sexual attraction to get married.  And in practice, people often marry for practical reasons (to have kids, improve social standing, etc…). Of course sexual attraction is a common reason.  But we’re getting hung up on a technicality here.

The broader point was whether you have an inalienable right to “marry” the person you’re sexually attracted to, and the answer is “no” if they are of the same sex.

Anarcissie—pssst! Hey! I think Marshall means that it is not a part of partnership for HIM—you know—sexual attraction!

Cause, like , wouldnt he be fun in bed?! LOL

Marshall—if you want to pretend that sexual attraction is not part of the normal model of marriage in the United States, there is nothing I can do about it.  I don’t feel like playing word games about someone else’s made-up world today.

By Anarcissie, November 25 at 8:41 am #

“Of course you can insist that marriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction”

And you can continue to claim statements i never made.  I said sexual attraction was not a “requirement” of marriage, and it obviously isn’t.  So where’s the factual incorrectness?

Marshall: ‘Thanks Anarcissie - I see that your accusation of ad hominem was simply cover for launching your own.  When you’ve gotten the “other planet” remarks out of your system, feel free to interject an actual point.’

Saying that you are from another planet is hyperbole, not ad hominem.  What I meant by it—if I really need to spell it out—is that you appear to be unconcerned with factuality.  If so, it is not going to be possible for you to have a discussion with people who are dealing with facts.  Of course you can insist that marriage has nothing to do with sexual attraction, or that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat, and if someone presents evidence to the contrary, you can close your eyes real hard and shout, “No, it isn’t!  No, it doesn’t!”

That’s what you appear to be doing here, and I’m not going to waste my time with it.

Marshall—What if they put a propostion on the ballot to state that, society chooses to dictate which lifestyle choices qualify for the term marriage, and they decide that people of different races coudl not marry? Disabled people could not marry? (I know the Catholic church has done that a couple of times—when the man was unable to pro-create, they would not recognize his marriage—is that sortve what this is about?)

What about people below a certain IQ level?Lets’ just say—that that is what “society” “voted”.

Would you think that that was ok? What if a people wrote a Constitution for others to live by, that considered certain persons to be 2/3 of a person, by virtue of their race, women to not be able to vote, and , the only ones allowed to vote woudl be white, male land owners? What woudl you thhnk of that? Would you think it was ok, if the Church of the Fiery Cross (KKK) spent 25 million dollars to lie to people to get it passed?

This will come out the same way. I can guarantee it.Because, despite coming out in conservative, gerry mandered counties to vote against Obama, and, the LDS spending $25 m on it, and conservative,“christian” Af Ams voting for it, most people in this country just do not care. With all the problems we have, I do not think it woudl pass a national electon.

Hey, churches have gobs of money, and pay no taxes—-why not put it on a natl ballot? Oh, and, since you interject yourselves into others personal beliefs—PAY YOUR FRICKING TAXES!! (Its patriotic!)

BTW—I am not gay—but first they came for—fill in the blank..how long do you think that the now-majority Left-leaning citizens will put up with bigotry? When they may “come for you”, I will defend your right to believe as you please…just stop trying to impose it on others.

It is a slippery slope, my friend…

By Anarcissie, November 22 at 8:08 am #

Thanks Anarcissie - I see that your accusation of ad hominem was simply cover for launching your own.  When you’ve gotten the “other planet” remarks out of your system, feel free to interject an actual point.

By Hesperion, November 22 at 1:54 pm #

Though your numerous “bigot” bullets don’t help your argument much, nor do all the words you put in my mouth, i’ll simply reply with the following:

Your orientation isn’t the issue - that is what it is.

This is about the claim that some people (regardless of sexual orientation) cannot be happy without the same-sex moniker of “married” despite having all the same rights and benefits.  Pro same-sex marriage groups are comparing this to historical civil rights struggles like suffrage, emancipation, equal protection, etc… which involved obvious discrimination against clearly identifiable groups; neither of which exist in this case.  And that’s why the majority of voters in the U.S. just don’t buy this characterization.

It’s entirely your choice (or your DNA’s) as to who you love, have sex with, co-habitate with, and even share domestic partner rights and priveleges the same as marriage.  But it’s society’s choice to dictate which lifestyle choices qualify for the term “marriage” because it’s more than a label; it’s a societal value statement which a lot of people care about.  I don’t hate you or wish you ill.  I simply want the term “marriage” to apply to a man and a woman.  That’s it.

Hurt by Homophobia—I know I am not bursting any bubbles here—since when are churches equated with morality? In this country, it sesm to be quite the opposite. When you stop to think about it—pretty much , throughout the ages, also.

They claim not to belivee in Darwin, but they certainly live Social Darwinism.Unregulated caitalism (their idea of “freedom”) is the ultimate “survival of the fittest”.

The Dems are almost as bad about as GOP—we are NOT a “christian” nation!

I was raised Lutheran, took catechism, first communion. I started drifting from it after I went to school work/study, overseas, i guess. But, it never bothered me what anyone else wanted to belive, until these “born agains” came around. Their philosophy is simply absurd..it is entierly “reward based”—so they never do anything out of true love—it is all for a reward later.

I am so tired of “faith based initiatives”,folks posting the Ten Commandments, like that is the basis of laws we live by (“What—you havent coveted your neighbors man servant lately? Nor his ass?”), but, most of all—THEM TRYING TO IMPOSE THEIR MORALITY ON OTHERS! It is unconstitutional. It needs to STOP!

I wish we could get someone in the White HOuse who would dump all this religious crap and tell people to keep in in their own homes and churchs.

But, they have a corner on the truth and what is right—I wonder why god made the rest of us so stupid?

Although it’s been well established that this “Marshall” here is a self-educated BIGOT thus not influenced by religion or (as he claims) some other mob thought, I have to admit I have understood his contentions finally.

“…one enduring “assumption” about marriage from the start, it was that the partners were of the opposite sex.”

True enough that was the false “assumption” which leads him to conclude that anyone not in a contract of marriage is an infidel and since gays can not marry, they have no fidelity. Convenient outcome for his prejudices.

“…marriage obtains its origins from family, procreation, fidelity, tax law, religious passage, social standing, etc… it has never required sexual attraction.”

Procreation and Fidelity are “required” features of real, original marriage? Thus divorce should be made illegal and infidelity should be made punishable of course.

“People who “choose to call themselves” [Marshall thinks some “choice” was involved in these “orientations” he lists] … have the full and absolute right to marry [a person of the opposite sex of course] and that’s why this isn’t a civil rights issue.  No one’s civil rights are being violated.”

Makes perfect sense to him; All these people DO have the “right” to marry, sure. So what could be the problem?

“This isn’t like black suffrage here.”

We aren’t discussing suffrage here. Marshall needs to look into the history of Black MARRIAGE. “Until Death or Separation by the Owner do you part…” All the same arguments were used to prevent legalizing that as well. AND it was the original venue for “civil unions” in other words some lowered standard of citizenship as a compromise with Bigots that could not conceive of marriage between what they considered “farm livestock” which was how slaves were inventoried in those days.

“So there is no “implication” as you state, nor is there an assumption of sexual attraction.  If you’d like to cite legitimate references, feel free.”

There is still a ground for divorce based on “failure to consummate” is there not?

“It was further disingenuous by not even taking the follow-on position that gay marriage SHOULD be taught alongside traditional marriage” ““…could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and I’d rather not test it that way.”

This rumor that the Yes proponents publicized was most effective on our man Marshall here. It was and is not true but he persists in bringing it up at every opportunity. Did I miss school that day? Was his philosophy of “traditional marriage” taught in schools? I do not recall any indoctrination on that subject not in public school that I have ever heard of. He is not constrained in any way from re-teaching his kids in any way that he wants, finding a Bigot school he likes better or even keeping them home from school altogether. 

“a small subset of the population…” “…a vocal group…” “people who call themselves gay…” “…no legal classification of a “gay” person …no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.” “you have no case; just a preference.”

All subtle and not so subtle insults designed and carefully worded to demean and belittle us. You enjoy the myths over the facts and will not make any effort to learn anything that might differ from what you have already decided. You hate us, you don’t approve of us…we get that…loud and clear. “…but you seem to choose to take it personally.” So, the animals you have come to taunt for your amusement should not take your bigotry personally? Of course that makes sense; to you we are not quite human, therefore not capable of sensing any hurt or emotion. We are fair game for any harm that you can construct against us. Why else would disinterested parties come from another state and spend vast sums in this ballot measure. It tickles them I guess.

Marshall—You have yet to posit facts.Here are some:

While the Greeks widely accepted same sex unions, the first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same sex couples, was in the Roman Empire.(Until Constatius—because he was a “christian”—so this is realy about religion—and you know it) We have a separation of church and state here in the US, no matter how “blurry” that has been lately. If you dont like that—go live in a theocracy.

Polygamists have many argumenst for their perceptions of marriage (polygamy is, in fact, more common than monogamy, in general).This is mostly in theocracies, which is what I submit, what you actually want. A christian country. The US is NOT one.

So the “enduring assumption from the start”(of what?? christianity? I took catechism—never heard Jesus mention it..)) was not necessarily “two partners of the opposite sex”. (Woe to the transgendered, I guess!)

Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, Norway, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Nepal. Gay foreign marriages are recognized in Aruba, Israel, France, and the Dutch Antilles.All have lower crime rates, less violence, more prosperity and longer lasting marriage, when they do decide (they marry later)(By prosperity, I mean general standard of living)

The first legally recognized gay union was in Copenhagen in 1989. Gay marriage is now legal in NY, Conn, and Mass.It was , also, in Ca , until the other day.

I reliaze that the uS is backward and primitive—but there are “drawbacks” to imposing your values on others.

We “passed a defense of marriage act” here in Ohio in 2004. (Actually it was a device invented by J. Kenneth Blackwell, Sec. of Ohio, under Gov Taft—who stole $3 million from our Workers Comp.—to get more conservatives out to vote for Bush again. He was the head of his campaign) It worked! (On both counts! Great!) I have to assume unintended consequences followed (but, you guys DO like to punish almost ANYONE who chooses to live differently than you—that would include non-married couples or non-procreators.Perhaps it was viciously intended). This was one.

The first of many, was that, a man , who had lived with his partner for 15 years, (they had 3 kids) beat her beyond all recognition. He was charged with “domestic violence”, which is a felony. His attorney seized on the “defense of marriage” crap, and it was lowered to assault, while the judge noted that “her name is not on the deed to the house, so technially, she was trespassing”. GAWD!!!

He got 6 mos. She got a lifetine of brain damage and a wheelchair . ..I think. But, she probably wasnt on his insurance, so she may have had to buy it herself….

Stop trying to couch your fear and hate in diplomatic terms.It is about YOUR religion, which, imposed on others, is unconstitutional.

So sexual attraction has nothing to do with marriage?  I think I’m beginning to see your problem, Marshall—you’re posting from a different planet—perhaps a different universe.  That might also explain your problems with logic. 

As a new visitor to this planet, you might want to take a look at some artifacts of popular culture, like the innumerable songs about the relationships between love (meaning sexual attraction and its emotional concomitants) and marriage as it is defined in custom and in law. It might prove enlightening and help you get your feet on the ground, so to speak.

By Anarcissie, November 21 at 9:28 pm #

“Your “Civil Rights” argument fails because, in the West anyway, the right to marry implies the right to marry the person, or kind of person, of one’s choice, and sexual attraction is clearly supposed to be part of the situation.”

The points you make here are unsubstantiated.  If this were true, there’d be no controversy and no efforts to clarify state constitutions, etc… The concept of a man marrying a man - much less the “right” - was never even conceived of when the institution of marriage came into being.  So there is no “implication” as you state, nor is there an assumption of sexual attraction.  If you’d like to cite legitimate references, feel free. But if there was ever one enduring “assumption” about marriage from the start, it was that the partners were of the opposite sex. And while marriage obtains its origins from family, procreation, fidelity, tax law, religious passage, social standing, etc… it has never required sexual attraction.

People who choose to call themselves bi-sexual, gay, mostly hetero, non-sexual, previously hetero, previously gay…anything at all… have the full and absolute right to marry and that’s why this isn’t a civil rights issue.  No one’s civil rights are being violated.  This isn’t like black suffrage here.  It’s about a small subset of the population who claim that they can’t be happy unless we alter the definition of marriage so they can marry a person of their own gender, regardless of whether its true, or may even change.

No - it’s not a civil rights issue and frankly i think the gay community bungled when it chose that tact to begin with.  What this is is an attempt to expand the definition of marriage to include anyone for any reason.  This does indeed have legal and monetary implications and its why civil union is an appropriate response and allows us to leave marriage as it was intended to be.

I’m glad you recognized my comment on education as an opinion since its difficult to state fact about future events.  I found the “No on 8” campaign disingenuous when it vehemently insisted that the court decision would not influence teaching on the subject when it’s obvious that many teachers would take the opportunity to teach gay marriage as well.  I believe the electorate knows this and wasn’t fooled by the rhetoric.  It was further disingenuous by not even taking the follow-on position that gay marriage SHOULD be taught alongside traditional marriage - after all, if it were legalized then why would gays NOT want it taught?  There is no reason.  Which makes their campaign position politically opportunistic.

Marshall: ‘I think you’re confusing statements of opinion with factual assertions:  My education point was that since the law would not prevent teaching gay marriage alongside traditional marriage, there would be no restraints upon doing so and given the liberal leanings of most in the teaching profession, the reality is that it would be.  If you dispute this, please explain.

My point about gay promiscuity’s effects on the institution of marriage is something that could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and i’d rather not test it that way.

My point about civil rights is this: people who call themselves gay already have the right to marry.  But there is no legal classification of a “gay” person and therefore no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.  It’s a self-identified group whose membership qualifications are fluid and subject to change.

And i have no idea why you’d consider a generalized reference to those on the left who suppress discussion through labeling as ad hominem; this wasn’t a personal attack but a legitimate complaint about a vocal group that uses name calling to invalidate opposing opinion.’

So your first two arguments against Gay marriage are merely aesthetic responses?  You just don’t like the idea of teachers telling students that people of the same sex can get married, and you have a hunch that the supposed promiscuity of Gay people will somehow impugn heterosexual marriage?  Well, no one can argue with your mysterious feelings, I guess, however far-fetched they may be.  If you agree that they’re merely prejudices and not arguments we can move along.

Your “Civil Rights” argument fails because, in the West anyway, the right to marry implies the right to marry the person, or kind of person, of one’s choice, and sexual attraction is clearly supposed to be part of the situation.  We do not need a definition of Gay or homosexual; the question is whether one can marry a person of the same sex as oneself, regardless of what sexual orientation one may be thought by oneself or others to belong to.  To pretend otherwise is to engage mere verbal pettifoggery.

If your complaint about leftists’ arguments was merely a criticism of style, I guess it does not rise to the level of an argument, and thus cannot be considered an ad-hominem.  I thought you were trying to prove something; but again, we are in the realm of feelings.

It seems to me that before you went about depriving innocent people of equal rights you would have something more serious to say to justify the harm you mean to do them.

Marshall—Please, posit some fact based arguments as to what woudl happen to your society , if gay marriage was legal…

BTW—When I said “I’m NOT GAY!!”: I was imitating how Marshall et al might respond if they were CALLED gay.

I wouldnt give a damn if anyone called me gay.

Maybe I am , maybe I’m not, maybe I’m bi-sexual.

By Anarcissie, November 21 at 8:09 am #

I think you’re confusing statements of opinion with factual assertions:  My education point was that since the law would not prevent teaching gay marriage alongside traditional marriage, there would be no restraints upon doing so and given the liberal leanings of most in the teaching profession, the reality is that it would be.  If you dispute this, please explain.

My point about gay promiscuity’s effects on the institution of marriage is something that could only be tested by legalizing same-sex marriage and i’d rather not test it that way.

My point about civil rights is this: people who call themselves gay already have the right to marry.  But there is no legal classification of a “gay” person and therefore no definable group whose rights are allegedly being violated.  It’s a self-identified group whose membership qualifications are fluid and subject to change.

And i have no idea why you’d consider a generalized reference to those on the left who suppress discussion through labeling as ad hominem; this wasn’t a personal attack but a legitimate complaint about a vocal group that uses name calling to invalidate opposing opinion.

Anarcissie and all—Yes..I am suggesting that “IF ” ones feels very strongly about someone else’s joy, one is either a sadist, or, may want such a thing themselves, but is unable to admit it…sortve..lol

In other words, me thinks thou doest protest too much…

NO!! I am not GAY!!!!!

Have fun hating!! (not you Anarcissie)

KDelphi: ‘I think that the homophobic in here (who seem to feel SO strongly about it!) need to read and re-read, the post by Hurt by Homophobia…. ‘

Not much use in that, probably.  Homophobes typically believe that homosexuals are subhuman, or at least diseased or deformed humans, so that their suffering doesn’t matter or can’t be helped.  Whether it’s more useful to expose their logical fallacies I don’t know, but it’s more fun (from my sadistic point of view, anyway) than giving them the satisfaction of their prejudices.

I think that the homophobic in here (who seem to feel SO strongly about it!) need to read and re-read, the post by Hurt by Homophobia

Check it out—if you need to talk, you can probably find some help locally.

As most of us have gay friends or family, as a “straight” person, I find your pseudo-religious comments insulting and without merit.

The “promiscuity” you see, is much more likely a result of hormones—-have you checked out the young heterosexual community lately? I do not have any gay friends, who are couples, past the age of about 35, who are promiscuous. NOr heterosexual. I just have to assume you homophobes