go Keith!

I had liked best John Scalzi’s argument:

If the people voting for Proposition 8 couldn’t stand personally in front of a married couple, tell that couple they shouldn’t be married, and say that it is their right and duty to destroy that marriage, they should not vote for Proposition 8.

Wish they put that personal face on it. George Takei. Ellen DeGeneres. People.

<;_;>

Wish they put that personal face on it

Sadly, I’m sure there are lots of people who wouldn’t have a problem standing in front of a couple and tell them they can’t marry.  Some would probably relish the opportunity.

“Wish they put that personal face on it. George Takei. Ellen DeGeneres. People. ”

I think it’s a matter of having the privacy of the voting booth. Call me cynical, but I think a large enough number of people simply don’t care about the damage to actual people their votes caused.

<3 KO.

I think a large enough number of people simply don’t care about the damage to actual people their votes caused.

I think that’s right.  Think about the ridiculous ‘partial birth abortion’ ban.  It didn’t matter that the women who testified before Congress had real life stories of wanted children.  It didn’t matter that an intact dilation not only is safer for the mother’s health and reproductive abilities, but can give grieving parents a body to hold or bury.  The reality that not every fetus is a perfect little snowflake that just creates a minor inconvenience while gestating, that despite all our best medical care, a pregnancy can go horribly wrong and endanger the mother’s life, or that a developing fetus might not be viable. 

These realities...completely irrelevant.  The pain and damage that these people have to go through because they can no longer make the best possible medical decision with their doctor b/c people who don’t even know them decided that only sluts have abortions and that all abortions are for convenience and that a woman’s health is never endangered by pregnancy.

These people get off of self-righteousness and don’t like to think about messy reality.  It’s why they can excuse themselves if they “need” an abortion or have a homosexual child.  Their situation is special and there are extenuating circumstances.  They just have a complete failure to realize that every person has extenuating circumstances, and that you should but out of other people’s lives if they aren’t directly affecting you.

And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Simple. They don’t. They don’t believe in the same golden rule we do. Their golden rule has all kinds of exceptions and caveats, and most of them will be all too happy to admit it. Their golden rule doesn’t apply to brown people, or to people whose sexuality isn’t a source of the deepest possible shame and guilt, or to those who don’t say exactly the same words in exactly the same building on exactly the same day as they do.

I’d call it the imagination gap. It’s how the Reagans can be hardline conservatives on everything but stem cells, the Cheneys on all but gay marriage, so on, and so forth. It’s not that they can’t feel the pain of others. It’s that they can only feel pain that’s exactly like their own.

I think many of those who voted against gay marriage would be willing to give up all the rights of straight marriage as long as they could prevent gays from being happy together.  I also think it’s going to come to that, since some state’s supreme court will look at the different rules and do California’s ruling one step further.  And after a very short time when no one in at least one state will be legally married, only then will the rest of this country come to its senses.

Of course, that would be somewhat logical.  Instead, we’ll have more animosity between groups of people who should be allies and more distance for the people who don’t really give a crap about the issue as long as they don’t have to think about two men having anal sex.

He makes an excellent point about the divorce rate and the sanctity of marriage.  FOr all of those who believe that marriage should be solely between a man and a woman many seem more than ready to run from it at the first opportunity.

Countdown to Uhura telling us how Keith is a fake liberal whitey and his comments are offensive to black people.

I’m going to start a drive to get a Proposition on the ballot that says that all breeders who commit adultery should be taken to a town square and stoned to death.  I mean, since hetero marriage is perfect and all, that won’t be a problem, right?

Right?

Keith is the best fighter we have. If we do to him what we did to Michael Moore (throwing him under the bus in the naive hope that just maybe conservatives will be nice to us from now on), we don’t deserve to win another ideological battle ever again in this country. Rightists defend their guys to the death, even when they screw up as bad as O’Reilly (see: Andrea Mackris) and Limbaugh (oxycodone and Dominican sex tourism). If KO’s most damaging sin is bombast, we couldn’t ask for a better advocate.

What a typically fine, no-BS statement from Olbermann. I’d be shocked if one of the people defending Prop 8 had the guts to answer his question: what is it to you? Not to “the chillldddreeennnn,” not to the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, but to you—the person who actually cast a vote.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: Prop 8, positively worded as it is, sets forth exactly the same effective legal prohibition as this negatively-worded law:

Marriages between [persons of the same gender] are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

The original language of that law specified different types of people whose marriages were forbidden in the area I’ve bracketed out to make my point, but the rest is legally and logically indistinguishable from the language just added to the CA constitution. And that inescapable fact, considering the quote above is from Article 1 Section 1 of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, is a shameful thing anywhere in the U.S. ca. 2008.

Countdown to Uhura telling us how Keith is a fake liberal whitey and his comments are offensive to black people.

Yes, and countdown to the commenters touting the vote on Prop 8 as “democracy at its finest.” Those narrow-minded supporters of bigotry would probably have said the same about the 1933 German voting result.

I read the transcript, and thought “oh, that’s pretty cool,” and then I watched the video and it was… wow.

You know the part where he talks about the sham marriages?  People living lies?  My parents were married for 25 years before my father came out.  And it’s not just that they are happier now, although they are, but I really think they are better people.  We’re certainly a better family.  To be denied the kind of intimacy that people want in their marriages, and to be yoked to someone with whom you do not and cannot ever have it… it’s terrible.  And to top it off with a lie, or with a denial of something so basic in yourself, or to be the unknowing spouse and not know why your marriage is so hollow… He’s absolutely right, it makes a mockery out of the whole concept of marriage.

If the people voting for Proposition 8 couldn’t stand personally in front of a married couple, tell that couple they shouldn’t be married, and say that it is their right and duty to destroy that marriage, they should not vote for Proposition 8.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, since my dad is a conservative Christian and my best friend is a lesbian. I did convince my dad to abstain from voting on Prop 8 rather than voting yes (it was the best I could do), but I wonder how this line of argument would work on him. He doesn’t go for the separation of church and state argument, because he honestly thinks the country should be Christian. He doesn’t go for the “this doesn’t hurt anyone in any way” argument, because he honestly thinks that being gay hurts gay people and that it would be better to protect them from themselves.

But I wonder how he would react if I actually stood him in front of my best friend (whom he has always been perfectly polite and friendly to) and said, “I want you to put your arm around Mom and then tell my best friend to her face that you don’t think she deserves to have what you have.”

If KO�s most damaging sin is bombast, we couldn�t ask for a better advocate.

It’s not, though.

I, for one, agree that he’s a good advocate and is often even inspiring, BUT I also appreciate the arguments from feminists who have noted several problems with some of KO’s more flippant or even misogynist remarks about various women, including Hillary Clinton.

“Often even inspiring” is too tepid, I realize. In this video, for example, he’s utterly stunning. He’s an incredible newsman.

I can’t be the first person to notice that the Mormons themselves were once subject to the government coming in and breaking up stable homes and marriages, as a condition of Utah becoming a state.

Of course, in those cases, it was just the excess wives and their children who were tossed out on the prairie with no home, no future, no support, no non-domestic skills, and their marriageability shot to hell, women who’d gone from being respectable housewives to dumb sluts who’d got involved with married guys, with the stoke of someone else’s pen.  If it had been the men whose lives had been ruined, the LDS might be more sympathetic nowadays.

The presiding emotion of modern American conservatism is joy at stopping people who they consider unworthy from being happy. In that sense, there are people getting a thrill at the thought of being able to telling couples that they are duty-bound to destroy their marriages, and would spit in their faces afterwards.

In the mean time, just across the state line, straight Californians will be getting married at 2am with an Elvis impersonator in attendance after a night slamming back shots. Ah, the fucking sanctity of marriage.

Molly, NYC, that’s a really good insight. I have been so perplexed that of all the religious groups endorsing Prop 8 it was the Mormons who were at the forefront. The Mormons, of all people, should be for relaxing traditional forms of marriage. But I suppose you’re right in saying that when something similar happened to Mormons, it was the women and children who were harmed the most, and maybe that affects their sympathy level.

On a more theoretical level, I wonder if it has to do with seeing marriage as more of an ownership than a partnership, a view that is held strongly in many religious and conservative communities, but would seem to be especially strong in men with multiple wives. This is purely conjecture, but I have a hunch that they see a problem with marriages in which a man is not owning a woman.

I think many of those who voted against gay marriage would be willing to give up all the rights of straight marriage as long as they could prevent gays from being happy together.

Nah, you’re wrong there, jon.

You see, they deserve marriage.  It’s the public expression of something real and true, their love for each other.

Unlike the queers, who don’t deserve marriage.  Because it’s not really love, and their emotions are not really emotions, and, in fact, they only technically count as human beings.  They’re queers, you know?

I mean, it’s obvious to them that the whole gay marriage thing just doesn’t make sense. How can homos make any comparison between their fake lives, and the lives of real human beings?  Everyone who is real lives their life just like them, and everyone who lives their life otherwise isn’t real - is only playacting.

Lauren O - I’ve been trying to find a footnote from Mark Twain’s Roughing It (I think--I read it a long time ago and as I can’t find it, it’s possible that I got the source wrong), describing one of these tossed-aside women, living as an outcast with her child, not only impoverished but having had her honor stripped through no fault of their own, by someone she had vowed to trust, back when honor was both more valued and more technically defined.

The thing is, if you look at the Mormon elders (all men) debating Utah’s statehood vs. polygamy back then, the issue of what would happen to these women just wasn’t much part of the discussion. Possibly some of these guys tried to do right by all their wives, but if your rationale for plural wives is that they’re essentially breeding stock, and the law isn’t going to come after you for abandoning wives #2 through whatever, and the other men in your community don’t care (especially when the sight of your abandoned wife is a nice little threat to hold over their women), there isn’t much to stop you.

And these are the venerable family traditions, shaping the values from which Mormons draw their insights as to what a proper marriage constitutes.

The Prop. 8 proponents were successful not simply in amassing a war chest, thanks to politicking by nominally apoliticial and therefore tax-exempt churches, but also in rebranding the issue from love and equality to indoctrination of children, sexual licentiousness, and political correctness. In a “let’s interview the rabble on the streets” piece, the LA Times quotes a number of proponents in Seal Beach hooting about how they don’t have animus against gays but nonetheless voted for Prop. 8 and how same-sex marriage was a slippery slope to polygamy and speech restrictions on churches. Keith Olbermann is great; why couldn’t people think about the issue in those terms?

Also, countdown to Ostiarius with some stupid and irrelevant judicial activism argument that lets him pretend not to dislike gay people and pretend to be principled.

Once again, we must turn to our European friends for a reasoned response to the Prop 8 proponents.

“We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members. “ Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain

This attack on children is disturbing. First they want the right to kill children in the womb, now they want to deny children a Mother and a Father.

“And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I actually had one fundy explain it to me. People who do not follow all Christian precepts, as defined by him, are going to hell for all eternity. If he were so deluded that he was doing things that would cause him to go to hell, he would want others to do whatever it took - lying, cheating, ruining his finances, denying his relationships, denying him work, passing restrictive laws, whatever - to force him to see the error of his ways and find Jesus and get back in line. Once he was in Heaven, looking down on all the suffering of the souls in hell, he would weep for joy that people were willing to love him enough to beat the crap out of him on earth so he didn’t lose his soul.

Therefore, lying, cheating, and actively seeking ways to hurt others who are different is one of the highest forms of following the Golden Rule.

Pretty much ended that conversation.

By that reasoning, larry, any single parent should have their child taken away and placed with a hetero married couple so that they don’t grow up without a mother or father, regardless of the single parents’ reason for being single.

Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences between women and men. It is the only institution that harnesses the entire human race to work hard together and raise children in prosocial manner. It is the only institution that naturally assures everyone equal rights of every description regardless of race, sex, or creed. Same-sex marriage is the polar antithesis of equality because it maximizes every tangible disparity that exists between women and men.

The above analysis predicts that same-sex marriage would be much more attractive to feminists than men. Massachusetts has been permitting same-sex marriages since 2003, and is the only state with enough historical data to study. 80% of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve females, and only 20% involve males. This is precisely what a social and economic cost/benefit analysis predicts: men get little or nothing out of marrying each other.

Like the ERA, same-sex marriage is a equal-rights trojan horse. It must be stopped. The greatest socioeconomic problems are still caused by the feminist-inspired divorce revolution. The immediate and downstream costs to women, children, men, and the taxpayer are horrendous. We see them reflected every day in the media .. the plight of dissatisfied heroic single mothers; children abused or neglected, children in trouble, and “deadbeat dads” whose crime is often that they, too, are poor or underemployed.

These problems cannot be impacted by subsequently turning the entire institution of marriage over to feminists. Major contemporary problems such as poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, child discipline, and massive welfare outlays will abate only when the divorce revolution itself is unwound, federal programs modified, and heterosexual marriage once again becomes the most advantageous route to success for all Americans.

When Republicans finally realize the vast importance of enacting solid “Marriage Values” policies, America will stand a chance of realizing what Republicans promised in 1994. Proposed policies include a “Welfare to Marriage” transition, effective prevention of family violence, marital discord, social violence, child abuse, and traffic fatalities via programs that apply the courts to help responsible spouses get a drug or alcohol-abusing spouse into treatment and recovery. Marriage Values policies will ensure that marital responsibility is always rewarded in the event of divorce or unwed childbirth, and marital irresponsibility always gets shown the door.

Far fewer Americans will become trapped in the tragically problematic diaspora of marriage-absence when federal programs expect and reward marital responsibility, and no longer bait Americans into making very bad choices that harm themselves and their children.

The passage of same-sex marriage bans will help keep the liberal core of radical feminism in check during the next few years. The divorce revolution should be held in check. Feminists will not be able to convert the discontent of single mothers into “female-female” marriage.

Shows what you know, More Flash.  Radical feminists want nothing to do with marriage, since it is the building-block unit of the patriarchy.

But what do I know?  I’m just a dum wimmin.

Geez Fash, isn’t it a little early in the day to be smoking so much dope?  Get yourself some Rice Crispies, then get some help.

Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences between women and men.

Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha.  Yeah, right.  Fash, you start right out of the gate with a totally delusional statement and it just goes downhill from there.

Olberman’s speech (I’ve only read this transcript, not watched it) is inspiring, but I’m a bit disappointed that when he discussed “redefining marraige” he didn’t mention the redefinition of marraige from a property contract where the man takes possession of the woman from her father to the modern contract of mutual support and obligations between equal individuals.  Starting to understand why radfems don’t have much use for him.  I’m just a liberal dude, and that ommission stood out for me.

If he were so deluded that he was doing things that would cause him to go to hell, he would want others to do whatever it took - lying, cheating, ruining his finances, denying his relationships, denying him work, passing restrictive laws, whatever - to force him to see the error of his ways

So did you beat the crap out of him and ruin his finances?

Mormons lecturing other people about marriage is like an alcoholic lecturing others on, say, the merits of whiskey vs. wine.

As a small-L libertarian, I really, really, really wish people would start embracing the idea of not giving a shit what other people do with their lives.  So much of human misery could be wiped out REAL quickly.

More Fash:

Hang on, didn’t you (or someone else?) post that exact same screed on another thread a few days ago? As in, exact same phrasings, cut-and-pasted, copied?

If so, what’s the point? You got snark then, you’ll get snark now. And well-deserved, but surely a waste of yours and everyone else’s time?

“I’d be shocked if one of the people defending Prop 8 had the guts to answer his question: what is it to you?”

We are all part of this societie we call USA. The reason that societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently from other unions is that doing so is to their benefit. Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.

It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them—the latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capable—but why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround? The union of marriage does both by nature. It’s the way humans and human societies are designed to work.

Because marriage uniquely benefits societies and enables them to continue, societies extend to marriage special recognition and benefits in order to encourage it. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger it is and the better it can survive.

What would be the effects of creating a legal fiction that forces society to extend the same recognition and benefits to other unions—one that, like homosexual marriage, do not contribute to society in the way marriage does?

Extending recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would encourage them, just as they do marriage. This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.

The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS). This lifestyle results in more diseases, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality has not changed this; it is intrinsic to the behavior. Further, since homosexual unions are notoriously unstable, the cost that society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.

The problems of homosexuals don’t just affect themselves. They affect others, including adopted children of homosexuals and members of the community at large. Homosexuality is a net cost to society. Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.

Another result of forcing society to treat homosexual unions as marriages would be the devaluation of actual marriage. The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many. Devaluing marriage further by detaching the term from the reality of marriage and applying it to non-productive homosexual unions would only further these trends.

There are thus ample reasons for society not to force people to treat homosexual unions as marriage.

For a society to be successful and function smoothly, its social policy needs to be in line with reality, and treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal.

I’m a big-picture kind of person, and whatever minute point about feminism that KO forgot to mention doesn’t matter. The point is the same. Do Unto Others You Hypocrites, Dammit. I tongue-in-cheek agree with some that marriage to anyone should be outlawed. However, no matter what I believe why would I support or vote for a way to take away other people’s right to it? It’s got ZERO to do with me. It’s got ZERO to do with my relationship (not married, btw). In my opinion more heteros like me need to use our privilege to help those without it. I haven’t asked for it, but as long as it’s there let me use it for not for good, but for AWESOME. Let everyone wearing shoes of privilege stand up and just say “Do as you like, because it’s none of my business.” Hell. Everyone should take that attitude and we’d be better off.

As a California born and bred, ex-LDS hetero I’m ashamed of anyone who voted for Prop 8.

It’s always surprsied me that Spain, SPAIN, FORMER HOME OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION, has modernized and accepted gay marriage and yet the US, that supposed beacon of hope and progression, is so homophobic and ethnocentric under the guise of religion.

I think people use religion as their excuse for things so they never have to admit they aren’t smart enough to come up with conclusions on their own.

Dear McGreevy Michael,

Someone else can intelletualize you, because all I have patience to say to you right now is Fail. On all counts.

Someone, please, hammer this douche.

Love,
Lindsay

P.S. McSkeevy, you didn’t answer the question of what it means to YOU.

But then again, that is very common with people of your ilk.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members.

This is factually wrong, right from the start.

Go do some research, come back and try again.

now they want to deny children a Mother and a Father.

As others have said, banning divorce will be much more effective at ensuring all children have a Mother and a Father than banning gay marriage will ever be.  People who are sincerely concerned about “protecting children” are focusing on the wrong issue. 

I’m more curious as to why concerns over hypothetical, future children trump the very real legal and financial issues caused by outlawing gay marriage. How many gay couples have or are expecting to have children, anyway? What if gay couples promised not to have any children? Would it be OK for them to get married then? That doesn’t even get into the argument over whether having a “mother and a father” is a “right” guaranteed by law.

And then there’s the issue of current, unmarried gay couples with children, namely, that only one partner can be the legal parent (instead of both). If something happens to the legal parent, the partner--who has raised the child alongside the parent--can’t be the legal guardian (thanks to “gays can’t adopt” laws). If the gay couple was estranged from their pamilies (which is all too common), the will likely end up going to an orphanage or into foster care. 

Are you seriously arguing that children are better off going to live with a complete stranger rather than staying with a caregiver they have known all their lives? Really?

And you think we’re attacking children?

I think Lymis has pretty much nailed it.  I had a long and painful exchange with a christian friend, and her viewpoint is that gays are only that way because they have endured some trauma.  So making their lives as gays difficult is actually kinder to them, because it forces them to consider going back to being straight, which is the only right way to be.  She’s not hateful, she claims, she really loves gays and wants to help them.  Oh, and there was some bit about the gay agenda, and teaching the kids homosex, etc.

She is now an ex-friend.

mildredmorgan, first, great name. second, i agree with you, ex-friend indeed. it boggles my mind how brainwashed these people are.

Fash, the best thing my biological parents ever did for me was divorce. If you stand in any way against the option of divorce, then I consider you a positive *threat* to children. Please put down the pipe and get some help.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members.

Except, of course, for the many, many married couples that have no children.

And the many, many unmarried couples that do have children.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, marriage doesn’t appear to have A SINGLE GODDAMN THING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. Het sex can create children, but it doesn’t have to, and there is no law that says that infertile people cannot marry, and no law that says that people who have had children together must marry, or even that people who married and had children must stay married.

besides which. I was legally able to marry my husband in 2001 when he completed his divorce. At that time, he and I had no biological children; I was helping him raise his children from the previous marriage. Sure, later on we had kids, but at the time that we were legally able to marry, we did not have children together and I had no proven fertility; I could have married him and raised his kids with him without *ever* getting pregnant by him. And a man could have done the exact same thing, had it been legal and had my husband been gay. In fact, many, many step-parents do not have children with the person they marry, but instead help that person raise the kids they’ve already got. There is no reason a man cannot do this for a man or a woman do this for a woman.

No, marriage is not a contract that produces children. Marriage is a contract that converts another legal adult who you are not related to into your family, and it is the *only* contract that may do this. You cannot adopt another legal adult when you are an adult, so the only way to turn a person who is not related to you, when you are both adults, into family is to marry them. We cannot choose the family we are born to, and if we’re children we can’t choose the person who adopts us; marriage is the only situation where two people can *mutually* choose to become family. Why do you oppose allowing people to make the person they most care about into a family member?

Idiots like our troll argue out of both sides of their mouths:

1) California already extends benefits to gay couples and their children so why do you need marriage?!
2) California shouldn’t extend marriage benefits because we don’t want gay couples because OMG TEH CHILDREN.

I have children. I’m really fucking sick of people with the mentality of twelve-year-olds seeing their parents smooch ("EEEEWWWW GROSS!") trying to hide behind my kids.

Did Fash just blame every single economic and social problem existent in modern america on women? Yes, I think he did. I’m sure he just loves women, though.

then, MM wrote a long post which, to me, read like a stirring endorsement of marriage equality, until he got to the end, where it turns out he doesn’t think gay people arn’t real.

BobbyV @ 6:37AM - you can’t really expect us to take anything from the speech by the dictator of a Central American banana republic, can you?

“Sadly, I’m sure there are lots of people who wouldn’t have a problem standing in front of a couple and tell them they can’t marry.  Some would probably relish the opportunity.”

And these people would be heartless fucking hypocritical assholes.

And Lymis 07:59 AM, that is some of the most twisted thinking I have EVER heard. That’s like the evil opposite of christianity.

It’s not only Spain (home of the Inquisition and ruled by one of the worst dictators in the West, Francisco Franco, until 1975) that legalized same sex marriage. South Africa, practitioner of Apartheid up until 1990, also legalized it in 2006. No matter how low we set the bar, wingnuts manage to limbo under it, hurting not only loving couples who simply want equal rights, but also the international reputation of the US.

“Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.”

I’ve got to jump on this particular piece of idiocy from MM.  McGreavious, if marriage is the only way for a society to survive, why are we here?  After all, “marriage” is a social construct that didn’t exist in most societies until relatively recently.  Our ancestors should have died out many millennia ago...unless marriage isn’t really necessary…

“The problems of homosexuals don’t just affect themselves. They affect others, including adopted children of homosexuals and members of the community at large. Homosexuality is a net cost to society. Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.”

...so let me get this straight, so to speak.  The one and only thing of any value an individual contributes to society is their genetic material...is that right?

Doesn’t it follow then that when Alan Turing basically invented the modern computer, this contribution to society was worth nothing.  And because he didn’t reproduce, he was a net drain on society...right?

When Leonardo da Vinci invented new machines, painted beautiful paintings and frescoes, etc., those contributions are useless because he didn’t reproduce (that we know of)...right?

Likewise, Alexander The Great accomplished nothing because he didn’t reproduce.

All of the contrubutions of all the gay men and women for hundreds-of-thousands-of-years are of no important at all unless they reproduced…

Dude, you have some really serious problems understanding the world around you and accepting that it is the way it is precisely because of the staggeringly important contributions of gay human beings (among others), the vast majority of whom did not reproduce…

Lymis and mildredmorgan have explained it exactly.  The poor homosexuals are so in the grip of the devil that they don’t know what’s best for themselves.  The xtians are only trying to help!  It’s an expression of deepest love to fire, evict, beat, and kill LGBT people.  Because if they don’t, they will have to answer to their god for the souls they failed to save.  And if you think that’s a fucked up definition of love, look at the rates of domestic abuse and divorce across certain demographics and realize it’s not just queer-looking strangers that get a taste of this “love”.

Someone please to be explaining to me how it was better that I had a father, who beat the shit out of me my whole fucking childhood for being female, rather than the horror of two moms. Mmmm. I love the smell of good old-fashioned family values in the morning.

We are all part of this societie we call USA.

Yes, and “this societie we call USA” doesn’t poke its nose into people’s personal lives or deny rights to law-abiding citizens. Perhaps you’re thinking of “this societie we called the USSR” or, given my reference above to the identical Nuremberg Law, “this societie we called Nazi Germany.”

The reason that societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently from other unions is that doing so is to their benefit. Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members.

So then, unless you’re planning to have children, the state should deny you a marriage license? What are the consequences of your interesting system if a couple decides to or has no choice but to remain childless?

It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them—the latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capable—but why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround?

Indeed. Why orphanages, adoption agencies, foster families, extended families helping in raising of children—“unnatural,” all of them. Why schools for the matter—more unnatural child-raising outside the immediate heterosexual family.

Because marriage uniquely benefits societies and enables them to continue, societies extend to marriage special recognition and benefits in order to encourage it. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger it is and the better it can survive.

Yeah, with a divorce rate that hovers (conservatively speaking) around 40%, society is doing a bang-up job there.

What would be the effects of creating a legal fiction that forces society to extend the same recognition and benefits to other unions—one that, like homosexual marriage, do not contribute to society in the way marriage does?

All sarcasm aside, you continue to make the category error that the only contribution the institution of marriage makes to society is children. But let’s humour that narrow-minded assumption and see where it takes us.

Extending recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would encourage them, just as they do marriage. This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.

Well, that’s quite a leap. Let’s find out what’s dangerous and destructive....

The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS). This lifestyle results in more diseases, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality has not changed this; it is intrinsic to the behavior.

First, I’m willing to bet that the lifespans of lesbians are on average longer than those of male heterosexuals, because, y’know, women tend to live longer than men.

The psychological problems and suicides and misery are generally the result of bigotry (the kind that drove Prop 8, to be precise). If you were constantly bombarded with messages from family and acquaintances and (years ago) the media, or had to constantly hide who you are, you’d be pretty unhappy, too.

Further, since homosexual unions are notoriously unstable, the cost that society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.

Again, heterosexual marriages aren’t doing so hot—especially in places where religion rules and lip service is given to the sanctity of marriage. Homosexuals have no such societal pressure to get married and enter monogamous relationships, so tell us why they’d want to do so if they’re so naturally promiscuous.

The problems of homosexuals don’t just affect themselves. They affect others, including adopted children of homosexuals and members of the community at large. Homosexuality is a net cost to society. Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.

This “logic” is based on several fallacies above, so is quite useless.

[continued...]

Another result of forcing society to treat homosexual unions as marriages would be the devaluation of actual marriage. The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many. Devaluing marriage further by detaching the term from the reality of marriage and applying it to non-productive homosexual unions would only further these trends.

Yes, in an atmosphere like that, why promote monogamous relationships between any two individuals in society.

There are thus ample reasons for society not to force people to treat homosexual unions as marriage.

As I’ve shown above, you haven’t come close to demonstrating those “ample reasons” have any basis in reality. Come back with peer-reviewed studies and we’ll talk.

Nor did you answer my initial question about why you, personally, support Prop 8—you’re as gutless as the rest of the bigots who’ve shown up here to defend Prop 8, hiding behind fictional “endangered children.” At least have the courage of your convictions like Fred Phelps does.

“marriage doesn’t appear to have A SINGLE &^%$#%%^ THING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.

It is obvious to all that sex is about reproduction. That’s what it’s for in animals, and that’s what it’s for in us. We may find it enjoyable, but from a biological perspective, that is motivation to get us to engage in it and thus reproduce our species.

Sex is about babies, and there is an important fact about babies: They are helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention. It’s a full-time job more than one person can handle. Even when they grow out of the infant stage, children still need two parents to take care of them and provide for the family.

Children also take a long time to mature. They won’t be biologically mature for around two decades, and they may not be socially mature and able to serve as functioning, independent members of society for even longer. When more children come along, that only prolongs the period of investment parents have to make in raising their offspring.

Raising children is a multi-decade effort that needs the involvement of both parents. The fact that human offspring require so much care and take so long to mature means that their parents need to be joined in a stable union. This union even extends beyond the childrearing years, because by the time the offspring are grown the parents are in their declining years and need to start taking care of each other (as well as receiving help from their offspring).

Thus, as the RC Code of Canon Law points out, “marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation” (CIC 1096 §1). This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history, even those that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality.

Human nature thus leads to sex, which leads to offspring, which leads to the reality of childrearing, which leads to marriage—an institution found in every human culture and understood in the way just described.

Someone, please, hammer this douche.

Love,
Lindsay

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” - C K Chesterton

Go ahead and ignore my questions, McSkeevy. 

And for evidence to prove your point you reference the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law...?

I wonder how the other fundnuts would appreciate hearing their beliefs are grounded in the teachings of The Whore of Babylon?…

Dude, you’re a bigot.  Accept that you are a bigot.  Decide if being a bigot is something you are proud of or ashamed of.  If you’re proud to be a bigot, there is no further need to bother us with your bigotry...oh and turn off that computer and get rid of it.  You wouldn’t want to be tainted by Turing’s gay cooties…

Also, countdown to Ostiarius with some stupid and irrelevant judicial activism argument that lets him pretend not to dislike gay people and pretend to be principled.

If Bill Clinton had won a third term and the Supreme Court said that he can’t take office because of the 22nd Amendment, would these people say that’s judicial activism?

It is the California State Constitution that promises equal treatment. The SCOC had finally awakened to the fact that the promise had been broken when it comes to gay couples. Do the opponents of Gay Marriage have the guts to come out and say that when a nullification has been practiced for 158 years, it is judicial activism to put a stop to that nullification?

Sex is about babies, and there is an important fact about babies: They are helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention. It’s a full-time job more than one person can handle. Even when they grow out of the infant stage, children still need two parents to take care of them and provide for the family.

Children also take a long time to mature. They won’t be biologically mature for around two decades, and they may not be socially mature and able to serve as functioning, independent members of society for even longer. When more children come along, that only prolongs the period of investment parents have to make in raising their offspring.

Raising children is a multi-decade effort that needs the involvement of both parents. The fact that human offspring require so much care and take so long to mature means that their parents need to be joined in a stable union. This union even extends beyond the childrearing years, because by the time the offspring are grown the parents are in their declining years and need to start taking care of each other (as well as receiving help from their offspring).

If that was true, shouldn’t we prevent the violent, the sexually abusive, the verbally abusive, and the negligent from getting married?

I know some gay parents, and I think they are better suited to the task than many of the straights that should have been banned but haven’t.

Thus, as the RC Code of Canon Law points out, “marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation” (CIC 1096 §1).

Man, according to that “reality” the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™’s son must be getting it on big-time with all of his “brides.” You’d think you’d see more J.C. Jrs around as a result.

Just a reminder: the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution establishes that the RC Code of Canon Law is about as legally meaningful to non-Roman Catholic Americans as are the rules of Dungeons and Dragons.

It is obvious to all that sex is about reproduction. That’s what it’s for in animals, and that’s what it’s for in us.

I always feel a little pang of sadness for people who make this argument, because they might as well just say “and I know this, because I have an empty, unsatisfying sex life; the only joy I get out of it is that I have some children.”

In humans, sex is a human bonding mechanism. Even conservative religious organizations recognize that it is an expression of love and intimacy. From a scientific perspective, that’s why humans don’t have heat cycles.

It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them—the latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capable—but why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround?

You’re joking right? It’s theoretically possible? As though people haven’t been adopting, fostering, step-parenting, and taking in foundlings for most of human history? Seriously? You think that in our current system, only biological parents are taking care of children?

I’m glad my step-dad’s gone. I’d hate for him to have to hear that he didn’t, apparently, raise me. I suspect that he’d want the label to go along with all the cleaning of scraped knees, teaching to read and ride a bike, comforting after heartbreaks, putting up with teenagedness, and paying for my education that he did.

Oddly enough, none of the above was gender specific.

McGreevy, why does society allow elderly couples (who are way past the age of child-bearing) to marry?

“...so let me get this straight, so to speak.  The one and only thing of any value an individual contributes to society is their genetic material...is that right? “ No wrong. We are talking about Marriage in Society. Marriage is not the only way our lives impact society.

“All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Jhon Donne

Homosexual acts are depraved, but that’s not the same as saying that homosexuals are depraved.

“Homosexual acts are depraved, but that’s not the same as saying that homosexuals are depraved.”

...um, yeah, you pretty much are saying that LGBTQ people are depraved.  And that would be bigotry…

I always feel a little pang of sadness for people who make this argument, because they might as well just say “and I know this, because I have an empty, unsatisfying sex life; the only joy I get out of it is that I have some children.”

That’s the real motivation for most Prop 8 supporters, of course—buried even lower than the hatred of homosexuals. H.L. Mencken described McGreevy’s brand of puritanism best: “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Pathetic as he is, though, he forfeited any pity from me the moment he and his comrades began trying to foist their sexual misery on others.

Just a reminder: the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution establishes that the RC Code of Canon Law is about as legally meaningful to non-Roman Catholic Americans as are the rules of Dungeons and Dragons.

Gracchus on 11/11 at 12:04 PM

Lol thats funny and true.

#1 D&D;Rule:  Never insult the person who holds the dice.

Gracchus, I did say it was a little pang.

It’s probably the same thing that leads them to foam about homosexual perversion. They’re secretly outraged at the idea that those gays are actually having a lot of fun and aren’t suffering for it.

This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history...

No.

Marriage is and was, for a large chunk of human history, a political, social or economic arrangement that unifed two families, dynasties, or businesses. Powerful men married the most politically or financially suitable woman; they’d have children sometimes, sometimes not, as you could always have kids with your mistress or your servant and name them as your heir or whatever. Merchants did it. Nobles did it. Popes did it.

And what about a tisese marriage, based in a matrilocal landscape, that requires a man to look after his sister’s children, not his own ? While that’s specificaly a custom of one Chinese ethnic group, it echoes the customs of some Iroquois groups. Not to mention the Zuni, where a girl’s father could adopt her intended husband as his own son.

Oh, what’s that ? You were only talking about white Christian marriages ? Surprise, surprise. Okay, well, how about the fact that Christian marriages, prior to the Council of Trent, did not require a priest or witnesses and didn’t have to take place in a church; not to mention that fact that the wedding vows were simple ("I thee wed” sufficed) and included no reference to children whatsoever ?

It would appear that marriage has undergone some serious re-defining already. I’d say it’s time again for some progress.

We are all part of this societie we call USA.

I’m not, I’m British. I wouldn’t mention this, except that it’s illustrative of your general assumption that everyone is like you, unless they specifically tell you they’re not.

Also, neat spelling there.

The reason that societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently from other unions is that doing so is to their benefit. Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.

As plenty of people above me have pointed out, but you appear to have ignored, no-one has to be married to produce a child - or to rear one. Sexual organs don’t get magically unlocked when the ring goes on the finger, nor do maternal/paternal instincts. (Equally, some people’s maternal/paternal instincts, or their sexual organs, aren’t unlocked even by marriage.)

Firstly, there’s this whole thing where some straight people choose not to get married, but have a family anyway. Imagine that. Yes, it’s actually possible for two individuals to love and support one another, and raise well-adjusted children, without having gone through a ceremony first. (Other people get married but decide not to have children. Shocking, I know.)

Secondly, and brace yourself for some astonishment: since it isn’t actually *necessary* to be married in order to a) love each other or b) raise children, those gay people you’re so afraid of? They’re raising children anyway. Preventing them from getting married won’t stop them doing a) or b) - it just makes them second-class citizens, forbidden even to make the *choice* of whether or not to get married. What do you think it does to a child knowing that their family is second class, inferior?

Thirdly: the real threat to marriage? Straight people who get married just because it’s what you do when you’re in a relationship, then have kids just because it’s what you do when you’re married - and then get divorced, tearing their family apart, because they didn’t think it all through before they started. Men (and women) who abuse their partners or their kids, using marriage and ‘the family’ as a trap to keep their victims where they want them, under their control. FLDS patriarchs creating harems of cowed teenage brood mares. Not gay people. If you want to protect marriage, educate people young about the rights and responsibilities that two people have to each other in marriage, rather than about how it can only be between a man and a woman.

Finally: dude, seriously, read some history and anthropology. Monogamous one man-one woman hetero marriage is a long way from being the universal, immutable way of doing things. In the UK, at least, marriage had little to do with either church or state until the 17th century or so. Having two people to share the load is a useful model, but arguably an extended family that joins in child-rearing - for example - is even better. (It certainly helped my parents!)

#1 D&D;Rule:  Never insult the person who holds the dice.

I’m guessing in your campaigns, only the high-and-mighty DM was allowed to do that. He probably also rolled behind the screen, and demanded that the players take the announcement of the results on faith.

“Homosexual acts are depraved, but that’s not the same as saying that homosexuals are depraved.”

Liar.

mcgreevy - Major fail with that stab at biological reductionism (and you have the gall to go vomit up quotations from literary luminaries like you’re some sort of humanist). Human beings are not fruit flies. Sexuality does not reduce in us to a reproductive mechanism, any more than musicality reduces to barking or moaning.

It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them [...] but why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround?

Two people subjected to such “dubious, cumbersome workarounds”:

Moses and Jesus.

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” - C K Chesterton

Exactly what we’re saying about your bigoted beliefs! Thank you for this :D

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right,

Human nature thus leads to sex, which leads to offspring, which leads to the reality of childrearing, which leads to marriage—an institution found in every human culture and understood in the way just described.

You are absolutely right in all your parts, and wrong in your conclusion. You have failed to logic.

You can have sex without marriage.  You can have children without marriage.  You can have marriage without sex.  You can have marriage without procreative sex.  You can raise your own biological children outside marriage.  You can raise unrelated children without marriage.  You can raise unrelated children within marriage.  You can fail to love your biological children.  You can love unrelated children. You can have marriage without children.  You can raise children together without marriage.  Marriage has benefits unrelated to children.  Marriage benefits are not predicated on children.  Access to marriage is not predicated on children.  Access to marriage is not predicated on fertility.

Once you have dealt with those facts in your scheme of things, get back to us.

“It is not bigotry to be certain we are right...”

...said by every bigot since the beginning of time…

This attack on children is disturbing. First they want the right to kill children in the womb, now they want to deny children a Mother and a Father.

God saw fit to deny me my “right” to a mother and father; he killed off my dad when I was 10. Obviously our Lord approves of attacks on children. Good to know we have God on our side!

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right.

And why are you certain you’re right? I ask because the fallacious logic and unsupported “facts” you’ve presented thus far don’t provide anything approaching a firm foundation for certainty.

If, as I suspect, you’re driven to support Prop 8 due to your belief in some supernatural entity, have the honesty to say so. Perhaps you’re a little wary of relying on invisible men to justify taking away citizens’ rights, but in most religions isn’t denying your deity when challenged generally equated with a lack of faith?

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” - C K Chesterton

Is this quotable moral authority “C.K. Chesterton” a lesser relation to G.K. Chesterton?  Or is it more like P.D.Q. Bach?

Tell us, Larry and Michael, should Child Protective Services remove the children from a widow’s home before or after her spouse’s funeral?  After all, if being raised in a two-person, opposite-gender family is the paramount goal of society, then you can’t possibly allow children to grow up with only one parent.  Better for them to be taken out of the home and given to a couple who are properly married than for them to be damaged by a single parent.

Don’t forget that you also need to legally ban divorce.  After all, it’s much worse for children to be raised in a broken home than for them to see their parents fighting every day and sleeping in separate bedrooms, so you need to eliminate divorce as a possibility.  And if the other spouse takes the out that’s always been available and disappears, you’d better remove the children from the remaining spouse’s custody immediately so they’re not tainted by living in a single parent family.

Tell us, Larry and Michael, should Child Protective Services remove the children from a widow’s home before or after her spouse’s funeral?

Don’t be silly, Mnemosyne.  That would cost something.  Morals are all well and good, but they take a dim second place to tax-funded spending.

Unlike banning gay marriage, denying same-sex couples legal protection for their love, the right to represent and stand for each other before the law.  That has no cost whatsoever.

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right.

Actually, yes it is. By definition. You bigot.

bigot
One entry found.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Yeesh, the more I read of bigots like Larry and Michael, the more I’m convinced that they think incredibly badly of pretty much the whole human race.

I mean, gays and lesbians shouldn’t get married (or even exist, I’m guessing they’d argue), because the only point of human existence is biological reproduction?  We’re animals, and so thus should only ever act on animal instinct (i.e., reproduce)?

And Michael, should my marriage be dissolved, too?  I’m hetero, but my husband and I have sex regularly with no intention of ever having children.  As the only possible point of marriage, in your view, is to have children, what do you think should happen to couples like us?

Not that I expect an answer, mind.  Okay, back to work.

Unlike banning gay marriage, denying same-sex couples legal protection for their love, the right to represent and stand for each other before the law.  That has no cost whatsoever.

Clearly you haven’t seen the statistic that the average American wedding costs $25,000.  There are a lot of hotels, restaurants, florists, photographers, videographers, department stores, bridal stores, tuxedo rental places, cake decorators, and limousine services that are really pissed off right about now.  Allowing gay marriage probably would have brought $200 million a year into California’s economy for each of the first three years.

But, then, these are the same people who would rather make less money and pay less in taxes than pay slightly more in taxes and end up with more money overall, so logical thinking when it comes to finance isn’t exactly their strong suit.

Perhaps Michael can turn some of his long-winded-but-dim reasoning skills towards explaining to us why the Catholic Church is terribly concerned about protecting the rights of pedophile priests, but not willing to honor my marriage last month to my partner of seventeen years.

So the logic goes something like…
1) Marriage must protect children above all else.
2) Gays can’t get married because all children need a mother and a father.
3) Since gays can’t get married, they can’t adopt or assume legal guardianship of their partners’ children.
4) If the partner dies, the children have to find a completely different home or go into foster care.
5) This situation is GOOD for the children, because we outlawed gay marriage only to protect the children.
6) If it is better for children of a gay “widow/er” to be removed from their home, it is also better for children of straight widow/ers (since all children need a mother and a father).
7) The incidence of widowhood will be highest among those with dangerous occupations: soldier, police officer, fire fighter, etc.

Therefore…

Opponents of same-sex marriage rights want to take the children of veterans, police officers, and firefighters away from their families and force them off to foster care.

QED.

You guys are doing a great job with the whirling vortex of stupid that is Michael and his pathological inability to comprehend simple if/then statements, but then I saw this from Gracchus…

I’m guessing in your campaigns, only the high-and-mighty DM was allowed to do that. He probably also rolled behind the screen, and demanded that the players take the announcement of the results on faith.

...and LOLed. I totally had a GM like that once, when I went on my very brief V:tM kick in college. I didn’t come back for the second session.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.

My parents are not and never have been married. I still exist. The only “union” necessary for new people is that of sperm and egg. And you don’t even need hetero sex for that. WTF does straight marriage have to do a woman getting pregnant, and how does gay marriage preclude that?

It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of them

Does the word adoption mean anything to you? ‘Cause that’s been more than “theoretically” for a few centuries now. There is also surrogacy now.

the latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capable

I’m sorry, what!?

but why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround?

1) Why would that be dubious? Or cumbersome? 2) You seriously don’t understand why adoption exists?

The union of marriage does both by nature. It’s the way humans and human societies are designed to work.

You lost me when you said “marriage” and “nature” in the same sentence. Marriage is construction of society, not nature. and, fyi, no one here (except apparently you) believes in Intelligent Design.

What would be the effects of creating a legal fiction that forces society to extend the same recognition and benefits to other unions—one that, like homosexual marriage, do not contribute to society in the way marriage does?

Name one thing that hetero people need marriage for that benefits society and explain how gay people getting married interferes with this.

This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.

Aside from that being a bigoted lie, since homosexuality is. not. a. choice, I don’t see how this even relates to the topic at hand.

The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS).

1) Site your source. 2) Why would that even be true. 3) Advent of AIDS?!

This lifestyle results in more diseases, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals.

The lifestyle, or the discrimination they face from society? Don’t blame gays for problems you created. Also, of the top of my head, ”To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database”.

Further, since homosexual unions are notoriously unstable

Source please.

the cost that society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.

What cost?

The problems of homosexuals don’t just affect themselves.

Quite true. When gay people are denied basic civil rights, it hurts their friends and families as well.

Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.

If you genuinely think two people being in love is as harmful as alcoholism, you are simply not human. And you still haven’t explained why you think gay people can’t reproduce.

Another result of forcing society to treat homosexual unions as marriages would be the devaluation of actual marriage.

How?!

The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many.

No that happens when people jump into marriage without thinking it through because you’re “suppose” to get married.

Devaluing marriage further by detaching the term from the reality of marriage and applying it to non-productive homosexual unions would only further these trends.

Gay marriage causes the above list of things? So, two lesbians getting married would result in more single mothers? Letting men marry each other causes abortion? Really?

[TBC, as I’ve exceeded the comment size limit]

For a society to be successful and function smoothly, its social policy needs to be in line with reality, and treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal.

Reality is that homosexuals are people and all people, even gay ones have rights. And, because in this country “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”, all people have the same, equal rights. If straight people can get married to the person of their choice, so can gay people. End of story.

I heard a comment on NPR the other day. I think it was Gore Vidal who said it (as per the guest - Prof. Westin). He said that when Sen. Kerry was debating Preznit Bush, who was against gay marriage because he felt it was a threat to traditional marriage, Kerry should have responded with the following;

“If you think that gay marriage might threaten your own marriage, you might be gay.”

Remember that Alan Keyes and Ric Santorum both spoke often about the “lure and temptation” of homosexuality. It’s almost as if they need to keep it as forbidden fruit or it will stop being “dirty” and therefore desired.

LOL

If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people.

This is not a race issue. It’s different and here’s why:

1) Homosexuals are not politically powerless
2) Homosexuals are not economically oppressed.
3) The homosexual identity group is not based upon an immutable characteristic.

Bottom line is homosexuals don’t qualify for minority status and as such, must go through the political process. They did. They lost. Most Americans don’t want the gender definition of marriage changed.

1) Californians vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
2) Courts overrule that law
3) Voters amend the constitution
4) Courts invalidate it? Don’t think so.

It would make the courts look like overlords if they overturned it now.

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the [gender] classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious [gender] discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of [the same gender] resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

1) Californians vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
2) Courts overrule that law
3) Voters amend the constitution
4) Courts invalidate it? Don’t think so.

Because, of course, the equal rights protection in the Constitution that #2 was based on just...appeared in the Constitution, as if by magic (possibly gremlins did it). It was absolutely never voted in by the people.

It would make the courts look like overlords if they overturned it now.

AFAIK, the equal rights protection wasn’t specifically repealed by prop 8, and prop 8 is clearly discriminatory. What is the procedure for having two, mutually exclusive laws on the books?

1) Californians vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
2) Courts overrule that law
3) Voters amend the constitution
4) Courts invalidate it? Don’t think so.

You forgot step 5, where another proposition to amend the constitution and overturn Prop 8 is put on the ballot next year, and it passes, and then the Yes on 8 people get their resources back together and run another fear-and-smear campaign to get their new proposition passed, and then the No on 8 people put together yet another constitutional amendment ...

What, you thought that once a proposition was in California’s constitution, it couldn’t be removed by another constitutional proposition?  Au contraire—this game can keep going for the next decade or more.

There is one way I can see a court case winning:  if the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church get together and sue on the grounds of the state establishing a religion.  All three of those churches solemnize gay marriages, and telling them that they can no longer do so legally is infringing on their religious rights.  There is no “majority rules” clause in the First Amendment—if the government gives one religion rights but not the others, that’s an automatic Fail.  State constitutions can be overriden by the US Constitution (but not by federal law) when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members.

Um, there seem to be a lot of associations and groups doing fine without literally breeding new members.  You don’t get new lawyers by forcing existing lawyers to marry and reproduce.  You don’t get new right-wing commentators that way, with the exception of William Kristol.  People join up in maturity.  Or, as the case may be, rank, stunted immaturity.

It’s different and here’s why

“Different,” eh? The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Bob, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

“3) The homosexual identity group is not based upon an immutable characteristic.”

...oh really?  I wonder if any of those “cured” gays can’t stay “straight” and who’ve gone back to be true to themselves would care to comment on this…

Being a bigot is not an “immutable characteristic”, at least as far as we know.  Would you like to risk your civil rights in a round of Kalifornia Konstitutional Roulette?…

“1) Homosexuals are not politically powerless
2) Homosexuals are not economically oppressed.
3) The homosexual identity group is not based upon an immutable characteristic.”

Wrong on all three counts.
Racial minorities, and religious minorities are not politically powerless. Hell, you can’t discriminate against Christians simply for being Christian (religion is a suspect class) and don’t EVEN try to tell us they are politically powerless.

Gay people sure as hell are certainly singled out for negative impact financially. Hell, the biggest impact of denying us marriage is financial, both with benefits, no access to social security, taxes on insurance benefits, legal costs for pasting together the best protections we can for our families, etc. Add things like no federal protection from getting fired, inability to join the military (and subsequent access to education, medical benefits, etc) - we’re financially disadvantaged compared to a similarly situated straight person in thousands of ways. The majority denying equivalent benefits to the minority IS oppression.

And being gay sure as hell is immutable. Not that immutability is a requirement. See: religion.

Nice try. Thank you for playing. We have a lovely copy of the home game for you.

3) The homosexual identity group is not based upon an immutable characteristic.

So, like the religious fantasists, you’re arguing that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” rather than an immutable characteristic? Is heterosexuality also a “lifestyle choice”?

The flood of disingenuous language covering up some truly anti-scientific and anti-democratic positions and assumptions in that one post is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, also.

3) The homosexual identity group is not based upon an immutable characteristic.

So we can fire you or deny you voting rights just because you’re Christian? After all, that’s not an immutable characteristic.

By the way, every time intellectual punks and fantasists like Bob and McGreevy and the rest show up here attempting to defend this amendment, I feel more and more confident that it won’t be around 2 years from now.

I don’t even know what to say to people like Bob anymore. I get so angry at the intentional stupidity on display. Knowingly discriminating against people and then trying to justify it with blatant bullshit. I thought when I left Tennessee I was done with this kind of shit, but I guess there are assholes everywhere.

ah, Lymis got to the religion non-immutability thing first. I am slow.

I don’t even know what to say to people like Bob anymore.

Unlike the MSM, you channel your anger and call them on their BS in clear, straightforward, reality-based language. They’re usually hit-and-run punks and trolls, anyhow, but it’s fun to watch the ones who think they’re clever tie themselves into pretzels.

Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members.

Huh? So if your parents aren’t married, you aren’t a member of society??

Homosexual acts are depraved, but that’s not the same as saying that homosexuals are depraved.

what’s a “homosexual act”? and why wouldn’t doing something that is depraved make you depraved?

what’s a “homosexual act”?

Oral or anal sex, singing show tunes, admiring Judy Garland, having good colour coordination, and owning a cat instead of a dog.  You know, the things undermining civilization as we know it.

(And, yes, I’m ignoring lesbian stereotypes).

Oral or anal sex, singing show tunes, admiring Judy Garland, having good colour coordination, and owning a cat instead of a dog.  You know, the things undermining civilization as we know it.

Good grief.  I did not know that.  Thanks to this handy guide, I’ve unmasked several so-called heterosexualists who were apparently infiltrating my beloved Butte with their devious gay ways.

Oral or anal sex

Well, only if the person you do it with is of the same gender. Doing either of those things with an opposite sex partner is A-OK. It’s when the genders are the same that it magically becomes bad.

Doing either of those things with an opposite sex partner is A-OK.

Careful - you’re going to overload RiM with new ideas…

Above all and even above this issue, the people of California had their say. It’s democracy and sometimes it’s a jagged little pill to swallow (no pun intended).

Above all and even above this issue, the people of California had their say. It’s democracy and sometimes it’s a jagged little pill to swallow (no pun intended).

I see you’re still too cowardly to address the question I posed above, Bob. Until you can provide a coherent response to it, your “democracy at its best” argument isn’t easily swallowed, either.

Keeping trying to BS, though. Every time you do, I (or someone else) will pose that question and educate more people than you confuse.

Oral or anal sex, singing show tunes, admiring Judy Garland, having good colour coordination, and owning a cat instead of a dog.  You know, the things undermining civilization as we know it.

Wow! I think I’M gay and never even knew it!

I see you’re still too cowardly to address the question I posed above...

Gracchus,

The reason why you can’t discriminate against Christians even though their characteristic is not based upon something immutable is that the Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion. It does not specifically protect homosexuals.

Clear now?

The reason why you can’t discriminate against Christians even though their characteristic is not based upon something immutable is that the Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion. It does not specifically protect homosexuals.

It doesn’t protect/mention anything about genitals (except for the stuff about “men") or where they can be put (except in regards to “the pursuit of happiness"). Freedom OF religion requires freedom FROM religion to have any real meaning. We are not obligated as citizens to pay any particular lip service to Judeo-Xian mythology (save the “IN GOD WE TRUST” nonsense - clearly a falsehood)

As was said by Gracchus -

Just a reminder: the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution establishes that the RC Code of Canon Law is about as legally meaningful to non-Roman Catholic Americans as are the rules of Dungeons and Dragons.

The reason why you can’t discriminate against Christians even though their characteristic is not based upon something immutable is that the Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion. It does not specifically protect homosexuals.

Clear now?

No, because once again you’re too frightened to answer my question.

The Constitution specifically protects non-immutable characteristics like religion or opinion because those choices need protection. The framers covered protection of immutable characteristics of all people (at the time, white male heterosexuals) in other sections of the Constitution, not to mention the language of the Declaration that founded this country.

Over time, the definition of “all people” has changed. When certain bigoted groups objected to, say, African-Americans or women being considered full people due those rights, the Constitution was legally and properly amended to reflect those changes.

So another question, Bob: do you consider homosexuals to be people?

Oh, and Bob, before you try to dodge my question with your “immutable or non-immutable characteristic” argument in future threads, keep in mind that, in terms of the question, all that tells us is whether Prop 8 supporters like yourself are (respectively) the Seaborn Roddenbery kind of bigots or the Adolf Hitler kind.