Gerry

The ad make the HUGE mistake of using the language of the enemies of marriage. I'll keep repeating it until I don't have to - the correct term is:

same-sex pseudo-marriage.

Karen Grube

Maggie sent out an email this morning about WPIX - the CW station in New York - refusing to air the ad! What is their problem? I've been calling and emailing and yelling all morning letting them know how outrageous it is that they're refusing to run the ad and that they need to start airing it immediately! I even called my local CW station and told them that they are now on my "DO NOT WATCH list until WPIX begins airing the ad, and I told them to contact the General Manager there at WPIX and let them know they got this very upset call from one viewer about their refusal to run the ad. I hope it makes a difference, along with my donation. Keep up the great work!

beetlebabee

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kids need a mom and a dad. It's pretty simple.

beetlebabee

Can you argue with their logic? The X and Y chromosomes are incredibly different. Parading around in a pair of pants doesn't make a girl into a guy. There's a huge difference.

john

Male chauvinism has contributed to the prevalence of an assumption by men in the US that same-sex marriage is not a threat to them or their lifestyle and is primarily about the union of men with men. Actually, same-sex marriage is not primarily about male homosexuality and never has been. Same-sex marriage is part of, and derives its energy from, the feminist movement, and its goal is the empowerment of women through the spread of lesbianism, which is to be accomplished in part by increasing its acceptance and in part by facilitating growing mistrust and gender division through arguments and images derived from lesbian marriage that are designed to convince women that men are unnecessary, harmful, and dangerous.

Based on such a common assumption by US men, combined with a fair amount of callous egoism and fear of retribution from women in their lives, the men increasingly accept same-sex marriage and refuse to consider the future risks to males or to human society. Those in the lesbian movement cleverly allow gay males to serve as the face of the same-sex marriage movement, as it is difficult to argue that male to male marriages threaten the social structure or much of traditional family life. They hope to avoid widespread recognition that a high incidence of lesbianism and lesbian marriage fundamentally will threaten that social structure and the traditional relationships, at least until lesbianism is so prevalent that stopping the movement would become politically impossible.

Part of the threat to traditional society posed by lesbianism arises from the degree to which women control the children in society, and lesbian couples with children will assuredly indoctrinate the children into their lifestyle. Also, with gains in technology, it will be quite easy for lesbian couples in the near future to make certain that all their children are girls, who then will almost certainly become lesbians themselves. The legalization of lesbian marriage seems like such a simple act but it is one that opens a floodgate that will be extremely difficult to ever close.

As lesbian marriage and lesbianism gain more and more acceptance, anti-male attitudes among women and girls will become more and more prevalent, the idea that lesbianism is the norm and is more healthy and leads to more happiness than heterosexuality will become mainstream, with political correctness preventing any rebuttals, creating positive feedback loops increasing the percentage of females choosing lesbianism year after year. And as the females become more anti-male and more lesbian, the males would receive fewer rewards and more punishment from the females so the males would become more anti-female and abusive towards the females, accelerating the trend, though most of the males will not likely become homosexuals but rather frustrated and bitter heterosexuals. These anti-male and anti-female attitudes, along with the mistrust and misunderstanding that will accompany them, will prevent males and females from creating the social bonds that traditional human society and civilization were built upon and serve to dissolve bonds already formed, leading to the unraveling of human society. Males will have much weaker attachments to a mainstream society dominated by lesbians and will be attracted to extremist groups of various natures and to violence. Furthermore, human solidarity will become impossible to achieve, allowing the most predatory and ruthless more opportunity to twist political, social, and economic rules to their benefit, as they pit group against group in a hopelessly divided society. And as human solidarity becomes more and more clearly unattainable, there will be less opposition to create splinter, possibly genetically engineered, human groups, greatly increasing the chances of cataclysmic and species-ending conflict.

Many of those leading the lesbian movement expect the men to just quietly fade away, but that is dangerous wishful thinking as that outcome is extremely unlikely. As the lesbian-dominated mainstream society offers them nothing, the men in that society, and particularly the young men, will have no reason to value it or the welfare or lives of its members, and will likely form criminal or rebel groups in opposition, leading to a chaotic, violent, hellish life for most. Also, a lesbian-dominated society will always be the enemy of heterosexual societies where men have equal or more than equal control, and the irreconcilable differences will almost inevitably lead to catastrophic conflict, which would likely pose great risks to future human welfare, with possible outcomes including the creation of fascist or other totalitarian male-dominated or female-dominated states, interminable conflict between dystopian societies, and even human extinction.

Is there a solution? It may be too late, at least in North America and Europe, as the issue of gender inequality should have been addressed long ago. The militant feminist movement, from which the lesbian movement sprang, grew out of frustration with centuries of unequal treatment of and abuse of women. What is too infrequently mentioned is that the strong virtually always dominate the weak, whether that strength is simply physical strength, wealth, political power, or any other form of power, and that domination often leads to abuse. That may be the undoing of human society, a flaw in the genetic programming that is inconsistent with the survival of a large, technologically advanced society. The only path to survival may be politically impossible to choose. However, assuming it is not too late for at least some human societies on some parts of the globe, strenuous efforts must be undertaken in such societies to ensure women's equality without lesbianism and to reassert the importance and necessity of heterosexuality and of male-female bonds. Women's equality need not be based on ensuring equal numbers of men and women in each profession, but may be based on ensuring the equality of professions and occupations which employ a greater number of women. However, for some professions, such as those involving the determination of public policy, provision for equal numbers may be warranted.

Any political/economic systems driven by narrow, short-term self interest will be ill-adapted to adhere to the policies necessary to ensure women's equality. A political/economic system must focus on implementing such policies to maintain human solidarity and avoid the descent into a dystopian future. It may be that some elites who are influential in North American and European political/economic systems, particularly predatory elites, have intentionally facilitated the acceptance of lesbian marriage for their own selfish reasons, ironically sometimes even to convince others that they are caring and altruistic individuals.

On Lawn

The antics of these mind readers is always good for entertainment.

Stephanie says,

I guess in OnLawn’s mind, anyone who knowingly gets married knowing they are unable or unwilling to produce children has a neutered marriage.

No, Stephanie. Knowing what is going on in my mind, I can definitively rule that out

What does neutered marriage mean?

Simply that you take the reference to gender out of the marriage definition. You go from one man and one woman to just two people. From gender meaningful, to gender neutral. That is a change, an action, a verb. And that verb is "neutered".

Or, perhaps you can find a better verb to describe the change

Jon says to John...

what are you talking about? children of lesbians will inevitably become lesbians themselves?

I know John's post is long, but read the whole thing before spouting off ...

Either way his point (as opposed to your point which has no real basis in what he said) is sound as I read it. Gender segregation simply feeds the fighting between genders. To call that equality is to fly in the face of the progress we've made in this country since the 50's.

concerned

"Most people (regardless of their religious beliefs) agree with NOM’s message."

No, they don't. It is predominantly ONLY those with religious beliefs. Take religion out of the argument and you have none.

"A great majorty of us find the idea of two gays playing husband and wife utterly preposterous."

So do gays. They consider themselves husband and husband or wife and wife (although they wouldn't use those terms anyway). The idea of them "playing husband and wife" is the same you "playing wife and wife" with your husband, Kate.

"however until now we have laughed it off and said we had better things to worry about it."

You should, we're in a depression/recession and two wars .. WAKE UP! There are better things for christians (and anyone) who "care about people" to protest.

"Well, it is good we are waking up and starting to see the consequences of gays trying to shove their agenda down our throats."

And the consequences that you've had to deal with from the (still legal) marriages that took place last year are........???

I don't believe Christians should be allowed to breath... I should start a petition to amend the constitution so you can't violate my rights and beliefs anymore! Your BELIEFS should have no bearing on anyone's RIGHTS. To propose anything else is unconstitutional. Gays getting married won't make straight marriage illegal... none of your rights are taken away.

And even though gays WON'T force churches to marry them - if you really don't want to worry about that stop filing for tax exemptions...problem solved...

kate

As a post scriptum to my previous comment, It is quite unlikely we will ever manage to persuade gays that gay "marriage" will never legitimize their lifestyles, but will instead create problems and violate rights of people who reject such lifestyle for their own personal reasons, religious or otherwise. What we will continue to hear from the other side is personal attacks (I am surprised that Maggie has not yet been accused of being a lesbian) and bizarre statements, e.g., that Jesus approved of homosexuality but not divorce.
What we can and should do is help NOM spread its message by generously contributing to NOM. NOM's success in California and other states clearly shows this is money well spent. This week I made a very generous contribution to NOM and will continue to contribute. I feel I owe it to my own children and other kids out there. I urge you to do the same.

Larry

People for traditional marriage-phone in to talk radio shows, write letters to the editior-for newspapers, inform your government reps too. Concerning your support for marriage to be exclusively for a man and a woman. Also support the National Organization For Marriage and spread the word to friends, family and coworkers plus fellow church members too!!. Yes, Christ loves homosexual people too but not the same sex-sex act nor homosexual marriage. / One may not be able to control ones homosexual sexual desire but the action of it they can. All same sex-sex is not natural also morally and Spiritually wrong.

kate

Marie,

For your information, my opposition to gay "marriage" has nothing to do with religion, but rather with my personal beliefs about what marriage is and what it is not. It appears to me, however, that your argument in support of gay "marriage" is really a disguised attack on religion, or what you call "religious theocracy." Incidentally, religious people may very well perceive your comment as bigotry.

Marie

kate: It appears to me, however, that your argument in support of gay “marriage” is really a disguised attack on religion...

No, you need to talk to people like me who are on the fence about this. People who feel caught in a moral vice, where we both don't want marriage "neutered" as it were, but also don't want to see same-sex couples denied equal access to a civil institution.

Jeffrey

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Kids need a mom and a dad. It’s pretty simple."

Except the thing is, same-sex couples, and many single women, have children and will continue to do so. Fathers can voluntarily give up any contact with a child. It's all perfectly legal. So really, it's not about parenting, is it? You really just want to stop same-sex couples from marrying, for some reason.

If same-sex couples are going to have children, don't the children of same-sex couples deserve to have married parents, like most of the other kids?

Marty

keeping the names different seems to me mean-spirited, like something people do to distance themselves from people they don’t want to be associated with.

Yeah, i can see that. But whether you think it's "mean-spirited" or not, many of us DON'T believe that "husband and husband" is equal to "husband and wife". Those who insist that it is are demeaning the important and unique contributions of each sex to the relationship. We want nothing to do with people who think father's are unimportant, and a redundant "mom" can take his place.

Thomas

Marie, I think you may be forced of the fence by NOM and their supporters, and not onto the side they want.

Lily

beetlebabee, it is simply your personal opinion that kids need a mom and a dad. Show me scientific evidence that says this.
Everything I have or have ever seen shows that kids do best with two loving parents - gender doesn't matter.

Karen Grube

For many of us, it's just that we simply don't want a small group of partisan. too-easily-influenced politicians or jurists making such important decisions for us. We don't want the legislatures or the courts forcing anything like this on us. We want to make the decision for ourselves, mainly because these so-called representatives constantly misrepresent the intents and will of the people they supposedly represent and try to silence us by not allowing us to tell them at the ballot boxwhat we really want! They think they know better than we do what's best for the state! How DARE they think they can take away our right to make these decisions! That's just outrageous! I'm so glad the California Court upheld the right of the voters to amend their constitution! In the words of one of my favorite movies, Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" I hope that messages gets across to the legislature loud and clear.

Chairm

What is the purpose of domestic partnership, at law?

Marriage is not a negotiation chip. Neither are its legal incidents and special status.

But let's just consider what SSMers mean to emphasize when they talk about "gay marriage".

They point to the tradition of romance, even as they deride tradition as the sole reason for a law.

They point to the arbitrariness they perceive in the man-woman criterion and falsely equate it with heterosexuality. Yet, heterosexual people cannot marry people of the same sex. And homosexual people can marry people of the other sex. So the man-woman criterion is not the equivalent of a "heterosexual" criterion. Likewise, same-sex is not the equivalent of a "homosexual" criterion.

This is basic stuff and rather obvious.

But SSMers insist there is a distinctive importance to the category "same-sex". They claim it is gayness. Their emphasis, not mine.

Okay, so by gayness do they mean same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior or same-sex sexual romance? Is this what they mean by their euphemism, "same-sex"?

I think so.

Now, surely, they do not mean that all people of the same sex must be eligible for SSM. Or do they mean there are no eligibility criteria that can withstand their "equality" arguments?

Since there is no gayness requirement in the law for SSM, "gay marriage" is not really gay.

Since there is no sexualized requirement, it is not a sexual type of rerlationship, at law.

Since there is no romance requirement, romance is not definitive, at law.

It begins to look a lot like there is no special significance of gayness to make "same-sex" a legitimate synonymn for "gay marriage".

If we are going to talk legal rights, then, point to the definitive legal requirements of "gay marriage". Or stop talking about false equivalencies and arbitrarily excluding most of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements.

Marty

This is giving homosexuals equality, not segregating the genders in society.

SO when it comes to sex -- to moms and dads, husbands and wives -- separate IS equal after all. Is that it?

Nolan

Up in My great state of WA they passed the "everything but marriage act" giving almost all the same rights to domestic partners but not using the word marriage. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

beetlebabee

Martin, I believe the argument is not that children should not be taught about same sex marriage, but by whom it should be taught and in what context.

Homosexuality is not a secret. It's just not the ideal we want to see promoted.

kate

If the definition of marriage should be seen as fluid and therefore an easy target for manipulation to further one's agenda, why should we not allow marriages between parents and children, between siblings, pet owners and their beloved pets, young children (why not -- gay activists argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation). If a lesbian feels that she should have the right to marry because her sister can, why shouldn't a single woman feel that she has the right to marry her dachshund (presumably bright enough to consent)?

Common

The preservation of traditional marriage can only be a legitimate reason for the
classification if expanding marriage to include others in its definition undermines the
traditional institution. So far the 'anti same sex marriage forces' fail to explain how the traditional
institution of civil marriage would suffer if same-sex civil marriage were allowed [when pressed for stronger justification beyond strongly held opinions and religious beliefs]. While strongly held opinion makes great rationale in the voting both, jurisprudence requires a higher standard. Lacking any sufficient justification [whatsoever] courts are left with no alternative but to determine that there is no legitimate notion that a more inclusive definition of marriage will transform civil marriage
into something less than it presently is for heterosexuals or their families [none what so ever].

Main stream scientific peer reviewed research [usually overlooked in any anti same sex marriage debate] supports the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the
traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.

Jon

Chairm - I think Jeffrey summed it up pretty well.

Also, I'm not looking at marriage "through the lense of gay identity politics". I'm straight, but I just don't feel threatened at all by the idea of allowing gay couples to marry. "Gay marriage" just means the marriage of a gay couple. It doesn't mean that the marriage is somehow legally required to be gay.

For my definition of marriage, see Jeffrey's: "Marriage is about the legal recognition of a committed couple. There are specific rights and privileges that two married people possess. Procreation is never a requirement for marriage, although many people believe that a married couple create a more stable family environment for children. But that applies equally to opposite-sex and same-sex married couples. Society recognizes that marriage is first and foremost about the exclusive commitment of two people, and nothing about the sexual or personal attraction that brought them together in the first place."

Chairm

Jon said:

", I’m not looking at marriage “through the lense of gay identity politics”. I’m straight ..."

You don't have to be "gay" to view marriage through this filter.

You have used the argumentation that depends on this filter.

You said: "I just don’t feel threatened"

What has that got to do with this? I suspect you are mean to accuse others of something which you don't feel, right?

You said: “Gay marriage” just means the marriage of a gay couple. It doesn’t mean that the marriage is somehow legally required to be gay."

No, there is no legal requirement for gayness. So SSM is not "gay" at law.

Now, what would make it "marriage," at law?

Remember, SSMers argue about two categories. Opposite-sex and same-sex.

Clearly it is untrue that the entire opposite-sex category is eligible. Lines are drawn based on what marriage is.

So, with SSM, is the entire same-sex category eligible? If not, why not?

Please don't point to concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation, since you are not talking about the opposite-sex category.

You have also acknowledged the lack of a "gay" requirement so please don't rely on some non-existent requirement for same-sex sexual behavior/attraction/romance.

SSM argumentation is about the boundaries of eligibility. So please address this forthrightly.

Jeffrey

Chairm,

My “odd ideas” about procreation are in response to your odd idea that marriage contains some connection to procreation. I’ll try yet again: a couple can get married with or without the intention of having children. A couple need not marry in order to have children. A single person can bear or rear children without benefit of a partner of either sex, and therefore without marriage. To try to force marriage into an opposite-sex only parenting paradigm is baffling, but I guess in these “threading the needle” attempts to discredit same-sex marriage, it represents a last best effort.

“Your remarks illustrate the arbitrariness of SSM arugmentation”

There’s nothing arbitrary about the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. Unless you think that the Equal Protection clause of the US, and state, constitutions are arbitrary; unless you think that wanting the children of same-sex parents to have the same stability that the children of opposite-sex parents enjoy is arbitrary; unless you think that one kind of loving, committed couple who shares resources and decision-making, compromise and caring, life’s ups and downs together, deserves fewer rights and protections than another couple is arbitrary. If you haven’t read the six-page summary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous decision making SSM legal in their state, I highly recommend it. It demonstrates the power, at least in Iowa, of Equal Protection.

The arguments against SSM are far more arbitrary than the arguments in favor.

Sexual orientation has never been a requirement of marriage. I’m not talking about anybody’s “supremacy” with regard to marriage, you are. I believe in marriage equality, where consenting adults choose their partner without the artificial limitation of opposite gender. Marriage confirms society’s value of committed couples, with or without children.

“You talked of the committed couple but you have not stated the core meaning of that commitment.”

Same-sex and opposite-sex couples share the same commitment: Life-long attachment to the exclusion of all others. For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.

“You have offered not one definitive legal requirement that would distinguish “gay marriage” from the rest of the nonmarital category.”

I don’t really understand what you’re fishing for here, but neither have you offered one definitive legal requirement that would distinguish “straight marriage” from the rest of the nonmarital category. You first!

Chairm

Jeffery said:

"marriage [as] an opposite-sex only parenting paradigm is baffling"

Sure it may baffle you, if you peer through the filter of gay identity politics. Put that filter aside and you might then be less baffled and enable yourself to see the actual disagreement.

Whether due to indifference or misreading, you have not actually restated the argument. Indeed, your stated disagreement appears to be thus premature.

* * *

I referred to SSM argumentation as arbitrary and how your previous comments illustrated this.

You still have offered nothing to distinguish "gay marriage" from the rest of the nonmarital category of arrangements.

You attack the meaning of marriage with rules you've invoked but which you have not used to test your own assertions that favor SSM.

* * *

I highly recommend reading the entire opinon of the Iowa Court, not just the summary.

Having read the entire opinion, I am familiar with its profoundly flawed reasoning.

If you depend on that stuff, then, you depend on the abuse of judicial review and on double-standards and on an arbitrary assertion of governmental authority.

The arguments in favor of marriage are based on its coherent whole -- its core meaning -- and not on the deconstruction of the social institution.

SSM argumentation is incoherent in regard to marriage. But entirely coherent in the one way in which the SSM campaign emphasizes: that is the assertion of gay identity politics as the trump card.

* * *

Defintive legal requirements:

1. The man-woman criterion. This stands for sex integration.

2. The marital presumption of apternity. This is what marriage entails. It stands for the provision for responsible procreation.

3. The social institution is recognizes and shown preference due to this core meaning.

I am not fishing.

I have been asking you to plainly state the definitive legal requrements. You can use the Iowa Court's reasoning, if you wish, to provide these.

Thanks.

Jeffrey

Chairm

“I did not say that procreation was forced by the marriage law. Maybe reread what I actually did say and then respond to that.”

Maybe explain how you think procreation and marriage are related beyond the inscrutable “presumption of paternity” concept. The state makes no demand that married couples reproduce. The state makes no demand that reproductive couples marry. I’m struggling to find a link between marriage and procreation.

“Sure it may baffle you, if you peer through the filter of gay identity politics”

Not using any filters here! In fact, without gay or straight identity politics filters, it’s hard to view marriage as necessarily the province of either sexuality. But if the state offers it to one kind of couple, it has to offer it to all couples. And any reasons for excluding couples must square with legal principles. I think if you read the “talking points” section of this website, you’ll find a number of arguments against same-sex marriage based on a child’s need for a father and a mother. This argument is a non sequitor, as same-sex marriage, whether legal or illegal, does nothing to discourage same-sex couples from becoming parents. No couple in the US, regardless of gender composition, is required to marry in order to become parents. Similarly, no citizen of the US must marry in order to bear or raise children; there is no legal requirement to provide a male/female parenting environment for children.

“SSM argumentation is incoherent in regard to marriage. But entirely coherent in the one way in which the SSM campaign emphasizes: that is the assertion of gay identity politics as the trump card.”

Not in the least. No mention of “gay identity politics” or homosexuality need ever be made. The more troubling question is, why is the state granting privileges to one set of adult couples and not to others? Established Equal Protection doctrine would cast a suspicious eye on such a circumstance, and demand an explanation. Well, turns out, the reasons for discriminating against same-sex couples are not legally substantial enough to offset the constitutional demand for equal treatment under the law.

“Definitive legal requirements?”

Consenting adults. For about the fifth time. You can create artificial requirements if you wish, and certainly, you can apply those artificial requirements to your own life. If you are a gay man, you can make yourself marry a woman, or abstain from marrying. It’s your artificial legal requirements that are crumbling under constitutional scrutiny.

“Indeed, it seems to me that your remarks are more about the elevation of SSM not for what it is but for what it is not.”

Then let me be absolutely clear: there is no need to “elevate” anyone or anything when it comes to marriage. Currently, opposite-sex couples are accorded unique status with regards to marrying, in 45 states. I recommend de-commissioning that special status, by eliminating gender determinations in issuing marriage licenses. We can recognize that the rights and obligations accorded opposite-sex couples are every bit as valid to same-sex couples.

Exactly how do you think the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision is flawed?

Jon

Chairm, I really just don't understand what you're after here. You said that marriage is not defined by its byproducts when Jeffery talked about marriage being defined by the rights that it gives couples (rights that don't have anything to do with procreation, financial rights, rights to visit in the hospital, etc.). These are not "byproducts" of marriage, but are really the main reason to get married, aside from demonstrating one's commitment to another adult. I know you're just gonna throw "gay identity politics" my way, and accuse me of being a proponent of "non-marriage", but I don't think anybody besides you really understands what you are getting at with all this wordy nonsense. Jeffrey has defined marriage over and over again for you -- with a definition that would include allowing same sex couples to marry.

But please, another snooty retort is gladly welcome!

Marie

Chairm: I highly recommend reading the entire opinon of the Iowa Court, not just the summary.

I read it. I started crying (joy!) half-way through it, lol... I was just SO relieved and happy to see that someone finally "got it," and that mob rule (like with Prop doesn't always win.

I think we get lost in this personal debate about what marriage is or isn't, should or shouldn't be, and forget that in the end it's a civil, secular institution which the state must grant fairly.

Arguments about "identity politics" and the bible and parenting and so on are very interesting, and may sway someone to think differently about what marriage is for themselves, but I don't think it really has any relevance to the state's considerations whatsoever.

Marie

beetlebabee: Look at the facts, what is marriage?

Are you asking my personal opinion? Or my legal opinion?

See, I fear we're confusing the two questions together, trying to give one answer to both questions.

For me, in my life, marriage is about the intimate union of a man and a woman.

But legally, I can't think of any valid, legal reason to refuse same-sex couples access to the civil institution.

My personal beliefs are rooted in religion, experience, my being heterosexual, etc.

My legal opinion is based on a love of pluralism, and a desire to do what's fair for everyone.. rather than simply what's right for me.

Rich

I don’t understand the opposition to same-sex marriage. Just because you (those who oppose same sex marriage) feel a certain way, why does EVERYONE have to feel that way? I don’t see how same-sex marriage effects you in a detrimental way. Not allowing homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals is the same as denying rights by race or gender.

beetlebabee

Rich, the opposition to same-sex "marriage" stems from the definition of what marriage is, and why it is.

Position 1 from these threads: Marriage is a public blessing on the feelings of two people.

Position 2: Marriage is the fundamental to the building of society. Marriage and families, children and parents are the building blocks of society. What's best for society is what's best for marriage.

Marie

Kate: Religion and morality aside, we all know that homosexual lifestyle is self- and otherwise destructive. HIV, AIDS, syphillis, Hepatitis A (due to feces transferred during sodomy), depression, suicide, the list goes on and on.

Ever think that's because they're made to feel like outcasts and lepers, unwanted and unacknowleged by our society?

That maybe if we gave them access to a noble institution that encouraged a sense of belonging and self-worth, that maybe that would be a GOOD thing for all of us?

Expect the best from people, give them a way to express it, and they'll often live up to it.They'll have a reason, an inspiration to strive for.

But demean them, tell them they're immoral perverts no one wants to be around, and... what do you really expect?

kate

Marie, please read the last line of your comment. You must be projecting because these descriptions are nowhere to be found in my comment or in NOM's campaign. I am very impressed with your idealism and humanism, however, you miss the point. The point is not what I or anybody else think of homosexuality. The point is that gay "marriage" will violate our rights and beliefs, including yours -- whether you see it or not. I mentioned the variouse epidemics among homosexual men (irrefutable medical data) to show the basis (aside from religion and morality)why I do not want the schools to promote homosexuality. These epidemics are on the rise despite gay "partnerships", "marriages" in some places, and over 25 years of education in the case of HIV. Depression and suicide are mostly linked to HIV and underlying psychological problems which are associated with homosexuality. These are not moral judgments, these are medical facts.

Chairm

Jeffery said,

All consenting adults?

No one can be denied a license to marry, according to your viewpoint.

You clearly have failed to offered definitive legal requirements for the type of relationship you have in mind.

And no boundaries whatsoever.

And yet it is licensed, is a public relationship, and is a sexual relationship -- even according the Iowa Court opinion you have lauded.

You must disagree with its reasoning.

Chairm

Marie said: "mob rule (like with Prop"

The amending process is not mob rule. It is the very opposite of that.

Jeffrey

Beetlebee says:

“…the opposition to same-sex “marriage” stems from the definition of what marriage is, and why it is.
Position 1 from these threads: Marriage is a public blessing on the feelings of two people.
Position 2: Marriage is the fundamental to the building of society. Marriage and families, children and parents are the building blocks of society. What’s best for society is what’s best for marriage.”

I’m a supporter of SSM and I believe in both positions. Neither position requires knowledge of the gender composition of a married couple.

Secular Heretic

Jeffry, you are invoking laws which prohibit under age participants and the number of people you can be married to, yet complain about laws which prohibit same sex couples from entering into a marriage.

If marriage was just two consenting adults then any combination would be permitted including parents and children.

It is human nature which decides what a marriage is. Every living person is a testimony to the both sexed nature of marriage. The physical characteristics of the sexes gives witness to the compatibility of male and female not to mention the psychological differences between men and women which gives rise to a complimentary within marriage.

Chairm

Jeffery said:

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, well, it would be unsurprising to learn that IT’S A DUCK!"

And if it does none of these things like a duck?

It is not a duck.

See the core meaning of marriage. See the lack of a core meaning for SSM.

Quack-quack, bow-wow.

Jeffrey

Chairm

“You insisted on separating responsible procreation from marriage”

No I don’t. I don’t really think I understand what it is. What’s responsible about it? It sounds like something that relates to parenting to me. Or something that relates exclusively to opposite-sex married couples. If I don’t understand it, I’m betting that a lot of other people don’t understand it. And that makes it a pretty weak piece of the anti-SSM argument.

I think your references to other groups or couples and their perceived right to marry is a red herring. These other groups can petition the government for redress and see what happens. I think you might be inferring that acceptance of same-sex marriage will lead to a flood of other, undesirable marriage arrangements. I don’t see how or why, because any couple or group that wants to marry doesn’t have to wait for same-sex couples to get the right to marry to pursue their own claims.

“Your dismissal of this core of marriage is arbitrary, Jeffery, and not the slamdunk you imagine it to be.”

Your belief that anyone understands the “core of marriage” concept is no slamdunk either. Actually, the slamdunk, if there is one, for SSM is Equal Protection, especially in light of the Iowa decision.

Chairm

Jeffery said:

"What’s responsible about it?"

The first principle of responsible procreation (as expressed in the vigorous enforcement of the presumptin that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage) (and as expressed in the unwed imitation of the presumption) each of us, as part of a procreative duo (necessarily a man and a woman) is directly responsible for the children we create, barring dire circumstances or tragedy.

This principle applies before sexual union; it applies during and beyond childbirth; it is continued as the children become adults and form their own families.

It does not force people to procreate.

But it provides for the caring, well-being, socialization, and education of children born of the union of man and woman. Marriage has an overlfow effect where the principles of responsible procreation are imitated outside of marriage. Also where adoption policy shows preference for parents who integrate fatherhood and motherhood for the sake of children in need. Also where step-parent adoption is based on the integration of husband and wife (step-parent adoption being based on marital status). Other examples illustrate this overflow effect. But no such effect would exist if not for the core meaning of the social institution of marriage which is the most pro-child social institution we have.

What is responsible about it? It provides for the best outcomes, on average, for children and for parents.

It treats children as having value in their own right. It recognizes the birthright to be born and raised by the people who created the child. It makes normative that the man who impregnates the mother sticks around to be more than just a "bio" dad but also the social father of his own progeny. It means he acts on the marriage idea whereby he bonds with his wife and they bond with their children -- bond in terms of the most private intimate level but also on the most public societal level as well. And, like human procreation, it is not sex-neutral.

Now, sure, in modern times marriage has taken a battering and has been weakened by nonmarital trends. No marriage is an island, of course. But it is remarkable that even after more than three decades of having been undermined, the core of marriage still has weight and girth in our society's mores, our legal system, and in our traditions of showing preference for the nongovernmental entity known as the family founded on the union of husband and wife.

There is no good reason to destroy the societal preference for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.

Sure, make some accomodations to protect vulnerable people due to the increase in families outside of marriage, but the best longterm remedy for the rising nonmarital trends is not to encourage that rise but rather to recognize marriage for what marriage is, at its core, and to strengthen the preference for that.

This is responsible not just in the here-and-now, not just for this or that particular marriage or particular child, but also for future generations to whom we pass on a social institution of which the universal features have remained despite the coming and going of many cultures, societies, and systems of governing. The social institution of marrige is pre-governmental and is foundational to civil society.

As such, it is responsible to reaffirm that government does not create nor own civil society's foundations. Put another way: the People have a government, not the other way around.

Making marriage mean less is less responsible, I think.

Jeffrey

Well, gee, In Lawn, thanks for letting me know how ignorant I am. I guess the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court, on whose decision future state supreme court justices will refer and hopefully rely, are ignorant, too.

A marriage is a contract between two people. To say that I can only form a contract with someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory and irrational. Imagine if the states said you could only form a contract with someone of the same race! Oh that's right, they used to do that with marriage!

Maybe you aren't so bright!

Tom Siebert

To those who relentlessly link marriage to procreation, so oppose SSM because we can't procreate without some form of assistance, you're right. We can't. Now here's the flip side to that argument.

You can and do have large numbers of unplanned pregnancies. We have very few.

You can and do have large numbers of children born into homes ill equipped to raise them. Because ours can't be "accidental", we have few such instances.

On both sides, not counting those where it was a deliberate decision, you can and do have large numbers of children born to single mothers. We have few such instances.

A fair number of your unplanned and unwanted pregnancies result in abortion. Since out unplanned rate is so low, few of ours end that way.

So much of your rhetoric is about the sake of the children, but with the evidence above, which side is really going to have the higher percentage of children born to loving homes where they were planned and wanted? And is your "sake of the children" reason just a smokescreen masking the bigotries you can't bring yourself to admit to, but which are quite obvious to the rest of us?

beetlebabee

How is a relationship that excludes one gender equal protection Tom?

Jeffrey

Secular

“It is human nature which decides what a marriage is.”

The state decides who can marry, and what rights and obligations a married couple has. “What marriage is,” is up to the married couple to determine. Is it a marriage of convenience? A marriage of love? A marriage for money? Who knows? Who cares, besides the couple themselves?!

“Every living person is a testimony to the both sexed nature of marriage.”

No, it’s reproduction that creates each living person. Marriage is unnecessary to reproduction, just as reproduction is unnecessary to marriage. Sorry. I know it sounds like a “silver bullet” to stop SSM, but it isn’t. Marriage and reproduction are coincidental.

Jeffrey

Beetlebabee asks:

“How is a relationship that excludes one gender equal protection Tom?”

How is a relationship that excludes a race or a religion or a sexuality equal protection? A marriage is a private relationship, and unconstrained by legal prohibitions against discrimination or unequal protection.

On Lawn

A marriage is a private relationship, and unconstrained by legal prohibitions against discrimination or unequal protection.

Thanks Jeffrey. I'll take that as an admittion that there is discrimination and unequal protection in an all-male or all-female marriage.

Of course, while I appreciate once more the candor, there are two things wrong with that statement.

1) Marriage is a public relationship. It is publicly recognized, recorded, and verifiable.

2) I agree that there is a freedom of association. The problem is not the outlawing of discrimination, but the support of it. If we were to create an all white school and ask for the same public recognition and resources we afford all other public schools (which require racial integration) we would not call the equal protection.

These are public institutions which expect integration as a measure of equality. Marriage expects gender integration to promote the equality of the responsibilities and rights involved in the human mating practice.

Its a public purpose, a rational purpose, a needed purpose.

beetlebabee

how about equality in parenting? How can you explain to children that they have the equal opportunity to a mom and a dad when one is denied them by design?

beetlebabee

So, because some traditions have been abandoned with good result we should abandon others willy nilly?

In our house, it's a tradition to eat. another tradition is to sleep. How about drinking water? Loving children?

On Lawn

And arguments involving parenting are irrelevant as marriage and parenting are unrelated institutions.

That you believe that, I have no doubt.

That others believe that, I expect they will come to the same conclusion you have.

That you expect the government to take that view, and hope to convince others of that opinion, shows the sad state of degradation we can expect from neutering marriage into just a contract between adults.

relief from having to testify against a spouse (a wonderful, gender-neutral term)

It definitely shows how wonderfully equal marriage already is as one man and one woman, each the other's spouse.

We've fought long and hard over the past millenia to make marriage more equal. How tragic a step backward to re-institute marriage (with the quill of a Supreme Court justice as much as a vote of the legislature) as an adult-centric exchange which equally promotes gender segregation with integration.

On Lawn

Marie,

You ask a good question...

How does the AFTER definition exclude a gender?

Do you deny that without the expectation of marriage equality, that gender segregation is supported alongside integration? That is a step backward from equality.

On Lawn

If you don’t have a marriage license, you aren’t married.

Far be it from me to tell two people who refer to themselves at a party as "married" as not married. Such references are not outlawed, and I believe respect dictates some tolerance of their attempt.

I know it must seem like the “gotcha!” argument, since two same-sex couples can’t reproduce using traditional methods, but apparently it hasn’t worked in the courts.

So wrong in your facts, so often. That argument has worked in more cases than it has not. For instance, regarding Arizona,

P35. Petitioners more persuasively argue that the State's attempt to link marriage to procreation and child-rearing is not reasonable because (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to procreate in order to marry, and (2) same-sex couples also raise children, who would benefit from the stability provided by marriage within the family.[...] However, as the State notes, "[a] perfect fit is not required" under the rational basis test, and we will not overturn a statute "merely because it is not made with 'mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.'" Big D Constr. Corp., 163 Ariz. at 566, 789 P.2d at 1067 (citations omitted).

P36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-86; Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453-54; Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (recognizing government inquiry about couples' procreation plans or requiring sterility tests before issuing marriage licenses would "raise serious constitutional questions"). Second, in light of medical advances affecting sterility, the ability to adopt, and the fact that intentionally childless couples may eventually choose to have a child or have an unplanned pregnancy, the State would have a difficult, if not impossible, task in identifying couples who will never bear and/or raise children. Third, because opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, which is not readily apparent.

P37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. See Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (rejecting challenge to same-sex marriage prohibition on basis that opposite-sex couples not required to prove or declare willingness to procreate in order to marry); Baker, 291 Minn. at 313-14, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (same).

P38. Likewise, although some same-sex couples also raise children, exclusion of these couples from the marriage relationship does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman. The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could also reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships.

And even before marriage was threatened with being neutered, (more on that later)...

On Lawn

I honestly want to find a solution that’s fair for everyone, and which is in the interests of the state, both legally and socially.

And as best I can tell, removing the opposite-sex requirement does so.

You say that while closing your ears to the cries of equality and protection of everyone. As you state when such concerns are brought to you, "LOL, I’m not gonna fall into these semantic traps. I’m not concerned with “winning” an argument. I don’t care if it fits this definition or that, if it “means” this or that."

Well, if that is your claim then there it is for everyone to evaluate.

Jeffrey

Beetlebabee wonders:

“beyond current legal twistings, how do you explain equality in marriage when one gender is excluded by design?”

Your question drips irony, since equal means “the same.” It sounds like you’re trying to equate diversity and equality? I’m not really sure. In terms of marriage, I think equality is reflected legal in terms of 50/50 property sharing after a divorce. Or equal sharing of chores around the house. Or maybe you’re just trying to make the case for polygamy, with at least one member of each gender represented.

“how about equality in parenting? How can you explain to children that they have the equal opportunity to a mom and a dad when one is denied them by design?”

Are you thinking about a same-sex couple or the single mother whose lover was an anonymous sperm bank donor or the divorced couple where the custodial parent creates roadblocks against child visitation rights? It’s entirely possible for the opposite-sex parent to be involved with a child inside or outside of marriage. Just ask divorced parents.

beetlebabee

equality is achieved in marriage through homogeneity?

On Lawn

Just so you apply that belief to the white woman who will only date and marry white men.

The question is interesting. I'm sure there are many, many lines we can find discrimination. They can be different races, but the same blue eyes. Discrimination? Perhaps. They can be different religions but have the same belief about murder. Discrimination? Perhaps.

Whether those are important to marriage or not is a great discussion to have. Lets start with gender.

Is equally recognizing the rights of the man woman and child that are all related through the act of procreation, marriage equality or not?

I say it is. Do you disagree?

I can see from the rest of your post that you’ve gone down an absurd path.

LOL, you have trouble getting basic facts correct from one post to the next. But your judgment, for what its worth, is noted.

“Marriage is crucial for good parenting!” (unless the couple is a same-sex one with children, then, having married parents is of no benefit to children)

Marriage encourages equality in the practice of parenting (from before conception on).

Study after study shows that all else being equal, the best environment for raising a child is their actual parents (the ones who shared their identity to create the child) raising them in a loving committed home recognized formally in marriage.

Studies show that after that is broken down, it doesn't much matter if the parents are married or not. Same-sex care givers have been shown (though without any access to state recognition) to be about the same as step-parent, divorced, or even single mothers with live-in boyfriends, have they not?

There is something about marrying, and its not the label, its what the label encourages people to recognize. Something you want to have removed from marriage.

And there, as we have it, is the harm you intend to do.

Again...

“Marriage is a foundational institution of society!” (unless the married couple are of the same-sex, then whatever foundational benefits marriage provides to society disappear)

Its a foundational institution because man+woman creates a child.

Every time you point to something, there seems to be a reason why man+woman engenders that recognition. You keep avoiding it, and running into it all the time.

And for that I appreciate the entertainment value of your posts here

On Lawn

I’m saying that encouraging gays to marry is in the best interests of the state, just as encouraging heterosexuals is.

Yes, but they'll be the first to tell you a gay cannot marry a woman. Or a lesbian cannot and should not marry a man.

In leiu of that, their stability is important. So is the stability of the following...

1) A young single mother living with elderly benefactors
2) An orphanage (charitable organization)
3) Foster parents
4) A gay or lesbian couple raising a child they had with someone of the opposite sex in another relationship
5) Step parents
6) Two sisters or friends who band together to raise their children
7) Polygamist camps (like Texas, but also not unheard of in Muslim sub-cultures in the US)
Polyamorist communal (we had a woman who we talked to at Opine who felt that there could be communal of multiple people all in the same marriage, all taking care of everyone's kids, and pointed to some kibitzes in Israel which have such sub-communes among them).

So your line of reasoning means all of them are marriage, or not?

Tom Siebert

On Lawn #97, since the italics is what you copied from me, I assume the rest is your own argument. In which case, interesting way you completely twist my argument to support your own. Then again, given most of your other posts, such distortion is par for the course.

You said, apparently as your own argument (I can't find how to italicize here): "Because ours can’t be “accidental”, we have few such instances."

Ummm, huh? Excuse me, but every unplanned pregnancy is an accident, and opposite sex couples have LOTS of them. Your assertion is the highest level of delusion. And the rest of your post is just gibberish.

Jeffrey

On Lawn

“I’m sure there are many, many lines we can find discrimination. They can be different races, but the same blue eyes. Discrimination? Perhaps. They can be different religions but have the same belief about murder. Discrimination? Perhaps.

I don’t think you know what “discrimination” means. That’s how you ended up in your dead end.

“Whether those are important to marriage or not is a great discussion to have. Lets start with gender.
Is equally recognizing the rights of the man woman and child that are all related through the act of procreation, marriage equality or not? I say it is. Do you disagree?”

I reject the false premise that marriage and procreation are related. No one has to procreate to get or stay married. No one has to get married in order to procreate. I wish we could put this issue to rest but it must mean something to you and Chairm because you keep bringing it up. If something magical is created when an opposite-sex married couple bears a child, that’s marvelous, but it doesn’t apply to, or affect, same-sex couples.

“LOL, you have trouble getting basic facts correct from one post to the next. But your judgment, for what its worth, is noted.”

I’m responding to some of the strangest proclamations I’ve encountered in various websites where this issue is discussed. I think I’m pretty good at sticking to the facts. I invite you to point out specific circumstances where I’ve made a false statement. And just a reminder, an opinion is not a fact.

“Marriage encourages equality in the practice of parenting (from before conception on).”

Marriage offers a consenting couple certain rights and obligations. Period. Marriage doesn’t “encourage” anything, other than maybe keeping a couple together, which I’ve stated a zillion times is a benefit to children of either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. But evidently the children of same-sex couples are undeserving of the same kind of security that the children of opposite-sex couples are. Do you think the children of same-sex couples are less worthy than the children of different-sex couples?

“Study after study shows that all else being equal, the best environment for raising a child is their actual parents (the ones who shared their identity to create the child) raising them in a loving committed home recognized formally in marriage.”

I agree. So let’s stop same-sex couples from bearing or adopting children, as well as single people. And let’s stop parents with children under 18 from divorcing.

“There is something about marrying, and its not the label, its what the label encourages people to recognize. Something you want to have removed from marriage.”

Not at all. I want for same-sex couples the same as I want for different-sex couples: the right to recognized by society as a committed couple, with each partner off limits to outsiders, and with certain rights and obligations to each other. You want same-sex couples to go unrecognized, vulnerable, not really seen as a serious relationship. And if that makes the relationship less stable, and that lack of stability creates a less stable environment for their children, well, those kids are worth less, maybe even worthless, for having the dumb luck of having same-sex parents. Did I get that right?

[Marriage] is a foundational institution because man+woman creates a child. Every time you point to something, there seems to be a reason why man+woman engenders that recognition. You keep avoiding it, and running into it all the time.

We’re back to denying infertile couples, including senior citizens, and couples who refuse to have children, the right to marry. And I think that’s wrong. Why don’t you want seniors to marry??

“And for that I appreciate the entertainment value of your posts here ”

And watching same-sex marriage opponents trying to craft a logical argument against SSM is like watching a blind man navigate a maze. While threading a needle. I can hardly stay away from this website, in anticipation of each day’s new and bizarre proclamation about male/female marriage. The organization represented by this website doesn’t even know what it stands for: it says “marriage” when it promotes “opposite-sex” (or as NOM spokesmodel Carrie Prejean says, “opposite”) marriage, and is against same-sex marriage!

In terms of entertainment value, the only thing better would be to watch these lame “arguments” presented before a supreme court. The sight of serious, black-robed judges rolling their eyes would be priceless!

On Lawn

I don’t think you know what “discrimination” means. That’s how you ended up in your dead end.

So, what makes you think that? I wonder...

I reject the false premise that marriage and procreation are related.

It certainly shows what you are opposed to, that is for sure.

However, the relationship to marriage and procreation is anything but a false premise.

Parading the same old discredited arguments as if they are fresh and new simply reminds me of a particular definition of insanity

I’ve stated a zillion times is a benefit to children of either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

Marriage is a benefit because it directly ties the man and woman to the child they create together. That is a proven benefit for children and parents alike.

When you understand that, then you understand marriage. Studies have shown that link over and over again, the very link you seem so oblivious to.

Imagine that.

So let’s stop same-sex couples from bearing [...] children

Um, perhaps you need to talk to someone you trust about how babies are born?

I want for same-sex couples the same as I want for different-sex couples [...]

Yeah, that talk about where children come from. You should do that soon.

You want same-sex couples to go unrecognized, vulnerable, not really seen as a serious relationship.

Not true. I want to see all arrangements of mutual trust and reciprocal benefits to be recognized. Don't you? I mean where do you draw the line? Which of these "unrecognized, vulnerable" situations should not be seen as a serious relationship?

1- A young single mother living with elderly benefactors
2- An orphanage (charitable organization)
3- Foster parents
4- A gay or lesbian couple raising a child they had with someone of the opposite sex in another relationship
5- Step parents
6- Two sisters or friends who band together to raise their children
7- Polygamist camps (like Texas, but also not unheard of in Muslim sub-cultures in the US)
8- Polyamorist communal (we had a woman who we talked to at Opine who felt that there could be communal of multiple people all in the same marriage, all taking care of everyone’s kids, and pointed to some kibitzes in Israel which have such sub-communes among them).

We’re back to denying infertile couples, including senior citizens, and couples who refuse to have children, the right to marry.

If you want to throw the disabled under the bus, go ahead. But I don't. I support handicapped parking, handicapped access to anything they can get. Including marriage.

Again, what malice of yours really needs to be checked.

And watching same-sex marriage opponents trying to craft a logical argument against SSM is like watching a blind man navigate a maze. While threading a needle.

Wow. Did you come up with that?

That was quite an analogy there...

Jeffrey

Well I guess the New Hampshire governor is signing same-sex marriage legislation into law in a few minutes. That makes six (?) states that now offer SSM?

Any guesses which state will make #7?

On Lawn

[...] to continue to prohibit same-sex marriage.

There you go again. Prohibit means to stamp it out, like Elliot Ness and Alcohol.

The worst you get by recognizing marriage equality (man+woman=child all considered) is that same-sex couples form contracts together. Which isn't a bad plan since commentators such as yourself think marriage is just a contract anyway.

Marriage is a benefit because it directly ties the two people doing the parenting together. That is a proven benefit for children and parents alike.

Again, your same-sex studies would contradict that conclusion. They showed same-sex couples doing just as well.... etc...

Yet when marriage is measured along in-tact family lines (i.e. kinship and procreation), we see the dramatic improvement.

Having produced two myself, I kinda understand the process [of what it takes to make a child]

Good. You had me worried there thinking that children come from same-sex couples.

I wonder how the lesbian couple down the street have those two boys that look so much like the one that was pregnant those two times?!

Well, then again it seems there is reason to worry.

Again, ask someone you trust where babies come from. And ask the Lesbian couple why they felt the need to discriminate against the childrens' father(s), and the children themselves for being denied a father.

Something about intollerance of his gender or something, I suspect.

[...] can marry one of her benefactors. Done. [...] can’t marry. Done. [...] are they adults? They can marry. Done. [...] yes, they can (and since there’s a child involved, should) get married. [...] can marry. Two sisters? I dunno. [...] Are they adults? Sure, they can marry. [...] I don’t think a camp can marry but I’m not sure. [...] Not sure.

Well, the gay can marry the mother of the child, and the lesbian can marry the father of the child. Done. No need to neuter marriage for the sake of the child.

Simple as that

Just noting your different reactions to each arrangement where children are present, it does not seem so simple. Arguably, marrying the other person you created the children with is the best idea for the children's sake. Beyond that it seems either you don't think "marriage" really does help all situations where children are in the care of adults, or you don't care about them.

I’m willing (obviously) to speak up for same-sex couples. Somebody else will have to publish pithy insights for groups.

What bigotry on display, yet again.

Jeffrey

On Lawn

“Yet when marriage is measured along in-tact family lines (i.e. kinship and procreation), we see the dramatic improvement.”

Then your argument should be to prohibit, i.e., make illegal, same-sex parenting. If you agree that same-sex parenting is ok, then you should also follow through, for the sake of their children, and encourage the same-sex partners to marry: it bonds them, to a greater extent, and therefore it gives their kids greater security.

“And ask the Lesbian couple [with two sons] why they felt the need to discriminate against the childrens’ father(s), and the children themselves for being denied a father.”

I don’t know their relationship with the father(s) of their children. Karen may have gone to a sperm bank, where men offer their sperm, with no expectation of, or desire for, paternal involvement. Or maybe a friend, with whom they share a close bond, donated sperm. And no, it wasn’t me LOL. I’m not THAT close to them. They were a couple before the kids came along, so I doubt there is some man out there disgruntled that he mated with a woman he wasn’t married to and who now has no access to the kids he fathered. Call me crazy but there are actually men who will willingly give their “seed” to a woman for the pleasure involved in doing so. And a lot of times, those men aren’t too happy when the good times result in a baby.

As far as the children being denied a father, well, that seems like a valid concern. I certainly think kids should be able to know who their biological parents are, whether they are encouraged to have a relationship with them or not. But I don’t see society pressuring single women from having kids without a man, or pressuring divorcees or widowed women to remarry. Essentially, Karen is a single woman raising two boys with the help of a roommate. If she and her friend were heterosexual women, no one would object.

Stefanie, Texas

beetlebee, chairm, onlawn:

Saying that ssm is discrimination would be the same as saying when two white people or two black people marry it's discrimination.

Chairm

Stefanie, there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

Marriage includes both sexes, integrated.

You referred to white and black people. Did you mean to say that there are subspecies of humankind based on skin color or other superficial features?

How would such a view be relevant to 1) sex integration and 2) provision for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole?

There are no "interracial" marriages except if viewed through a filter that divides humankind into racial subspecies.

SSM arugmentation emphasizes sexual orientation. Surely, then, you would acknowledge the significance of sex differentation.

A one-sexed arrangement (sexualized or not) excludes the other sex. It is sex-segregative.

The anti-miscegenation system that promoted "white" supremacy was an assertion of the supremacy of a racialist version of identity politics. It was repudiated.

The gaycentric version of identity politics would do two things, at least, that are closely analogous with the anti-miscegenation system.

It would selectively segregate the sexes. SSM merged with marriage would bring sex-segregation under the auspices of the social instiution that unites the sexes.

Also, SSM argumentation would invoke the power of social stigmatization and social taboo by insisting that the sexual orientations should be segregated, under the auspices of marriage. SSM arugmentation emphasizes sexual orientation in a pure sense. People are supposedly purely this or purely that and never the two may mix.

Meanwhile, SSM arugmentation derides the provision for responsible procreation which is also something it has in common with the anti-miscegenation system.

I dunno if your view is so favorable toward selective sex-segregation and so favorable toward the undermining of the unity of fatherhood and motherhood. Can you explain please?

On Lawn

Stephanie said:

Saying that ssm is discrimination would be the same as saying when two white people or two black people marry it’s discrimination.

So, tell that to the Loving court. I happen to agree that it is discrimination. How can you say it is not?

Perry

Once again, On Lawn, you cant use "family" as a crutch over and over when it comes to marriage. You can have marriage without a family (other than the two people in the marriage). And you can also have family without a marriage (just look at the thousands of pregnant teenages out there)

And then you use the term: "Family design"? Let me guess...your idea of the ideal family design is a husband, wife, a girl, and a boy, a cat, and a dog and a white picket fence?
I think the problem with so many people is that they would much rather view things so narrow-mindedly that they refuse to see any other family "model".

I still think all of these anti-SSMers should be dumping all their time and energy to feeding kids in Africa and other struggling countries..if they really so much about taking care of "families". Because frankly, they are on the losing side of history. The percent of younger people who believe in SSM increases every year, and the older generation eventually fades away, the majority will drastically slide to fade SSM. It's almost like SSMers are constantly trying to bail out a sinking boat with a hole in the bottom; the effort is commendable, but ultimately futile. Just look...6 states now recognize SSM most of which happened in the year....you cant ignore the facts that tides are turning

On Lawn

Perry

You can have marriage without a family (other than the two people in the marriage). And you can also have family without a marriage (just look at the thousands of pregnant teenages out there)

Oh I agree with that entirely. I'll note you said that for future use.

Let me guess…your idea of the ideal family design is a husband, wife, a girl, and a boy, a cat, and a dog and a white picket fence?

Well, that is certainly a guess.

they refuse to see any other family “model”.

Oh I see it alright.

But then again not all of those models are marriage. I mean after all, you just said...

You can have marriage without a family (other than the two people in the marriage). And you can also have family without a marriage

Because frankly, they are on the losing side of history.

When I look at history, asking for state endorsement of personal discrimination has always been the losing side.

All-male and all-white schools. All-white legislatures. All-male and all-female marriages.

All have great initial support from the states. And are filed in the same round-file of history sooner or later.

On Lawn

Shorter Perry,

"la la la la, I can't hear you"

I do have a question you haven't answered....

By choosing a wife, I’m choosing to include the other gender.

And in choosing the very same person I intend to have children with, I’m choosing to include the other half of the identity of all my children.

Marriage encourages us to be inclusive in the best possible way for our family design.

Is that so wrong?

Seriously, someone answer, is that so wrong?

On Lawn

There is nothing wrong that, and I encourage you to fullly embrace that family design if you feel that is right for YOU.

If nothing is so wrong, then I don't see what is wrong (in your eyes) of a government program targeted for the equal recognition of everyone's rights and entitlements in how children are made? Its the same concept.

But not the same concept that you present...

By choosing a husband, I’m choosing to include the same gender

A.K.A excluding an entire gender just because of their gender.

And in choosing the very same person I intend to have children with (by however means necessary–surrogate, adoption, etc)

A.K.A excluding the other parent(s) of the child, and again a whole gender represented in your house governance.

Marriage encourages us to be inclusive in the best possible way for MY family design.

And that is the problem. Its your design to facilitate your own discrimination and vulnerabilities.

The other design is based on the commonly held principles of science and humanitarian concern. Its the human design -- our humanity.

Concerned

On Lawn,

By choosing a husband, I’m choosing to include the same gender

"A.K.A excluding an entire gender just because of their gender."

I found this an odd response in your otherwise intelligent posting. Shall we call you out by saying that in your previous post, where you say "I include a wife to include the other gender", that you are discluding males by not choosing another of that gender? This argument lacks many a thing, the key being it doesn't make sense and it doesn't aid your argument. According to your argument, then, is it reasonable to say that it would be OK if two men in a same-sex marriage had a female roommate lliving with them, so that both genders are including under one roof? I thought your argument was that keeping the nuclear family structure of one man and one woman intact was a key to child development, but now you have thrown your argument largely off base by including this honestly strange response about discluding genders. What if we put two men and two women under one roof then, by your argument the child should develop twice as fast/well? Gender inclusion/disclusion has little to do with your argument, so it would be safe to say you should avoid referring to it in future posts for mere stabilization of your main point. However, lovely post besides this issue and I found it to be very noteworthy as a whole.

Reaching out,

Concerned

Chairm

Perry said:

"By choosing a husband, I’m choosing to include the same gender."

And excluding the other sex. This is sex-segregative. It is not marriage.

You said:

"And in choosing the very same person I intend to have children with (by however means necessary–surrogate, adoption, etc)"

Such means are not necessary. Your choice to exclude the other sex is not a sound basis for adoption nor for use of third party procreation.

Besides, neither adoption nor the use of "donors" (of the other sex) makes your proposed ideal a sexual type of relationship.

So what, if anything, makes it more than a good loving and caring friendship?

Marie

Chairm: Do SSMers here believe there is no need for this foundational social institution today and into the future?

Of course there's a need, but I guess where I'm having trouble is in understanding how SSM will erode or prevent opposite-sex marriages?

Yes, I understand how SSM will "redefine" marriage as a term, "neutering" it's definition and so on. But are we saying that changing the *idea* of what marriage is will cause less opposite-sex couples to marry, or increase the divorce rates, etc.?

Perry

Then why vote against SSM if there is no personal gain/reason behind it? Why fight for or against it? Why not just sit back and let the chips fall where they may if you have no personal stake in it....

Did you get appointed to the board of the Morality Police for the entire country and I somehow missed the memo?

On Lawn

Then why vote against SSM if there is no personal gain/reason behind it?

Marriage is a gift we give the next generation.

I for one do not want to see it neutered for their sakes.

Besides, how poor would the world be if people only were interested in what was in it for them.

Not that your self-centered approach is lost on me either, mind you.

Perry

I take issue with the "self-centered approach" term that you seem to have coined.

Choosing to not interfere in other people's happiness or decisions they have made in their life is hardly self-centered. On the contrary, I support those people who I may not agree with entirely because I have no say in what is "right" or "wrong" in another person's life (and before we open a can of worms--I am not speaking of murder, rape, etc--because those are things that do not involve consensual adults). Marriage is consensual, and if two ladies want to marry eachother so they can have the same rights as everyone else, and they are consensual and committed, and it would honestly make them happy... Who am I to control another person's happiness?

Perry

On Lawn said: Marriage equality simply means we have equal recognition of the righst and entitlements of the man, woman and child they might create together.

Marriage has nothing to do with a child a couple "might" create. Marriage is not about hypothetical children that dont exist. It's about the relationship/love/bond between the two people involved...That is where we will continue to differ..and we can talk in circles about it time and time again and go round and round and round. Your definition of marriage involves 3+ people in it. Mine doesnt.

Perry

On Lawn: what is the exact "meaning" of marriage if we're going to get technical....?

It's not something tangible, after all, its an idea or ideology..and ideas are fluid after all...ever changing.
Ask people what "dating" means or "dating exclusively" and I'm sure you will get a whole slew of answers.

We just have different ideas of the idea of marriage...neither one is "right" or "wrong" in the grand scheme of thngs...except to the individual because an individual's perceptive of an idea varies from person to person.

So please tell me what the "meaning" of marriage is and why you are so sure that it is the definite meaning?

On Lawn

Right, no one is saying that your relationship model should be outlawed.

But that marriage is important to society to ecourage everyone to equally recognize each other's rights and entitlements in how we create children, is nothing to dismiss.

Especially not as actively as you wish to.

Let marriage be marriage, and let homosexuality be homosexuality. They can co-exist, and we should treat them each according to their intrinsic properties and humanitarian concern.

Besides, historically you can probably extrapolate the same ending...

All-male schools as gender equality
All-white and all-black schools as racial equality
all-white marriage as entitled to white identity
all-male legislatures as gender equality
all-male and all-white voting as representative equality
all-male and all-female as marriage equality

Those ideas are all the same at their core. I see no reason to believe any of them will be spared the final resting place in the round-file of history.

On Lawn

Those rights and entitlements are there..it’s called paternity/maternity.

No vague attempt at hand waving will amount to an argument here.

When you say "those rights" I don't think you understand at all what that encompasses. For instance you present a direct paradox of "those rights"...

A father doesn’t have to be married to a mother to challenge custody/child care/monetary support/etc

Challenging paternity (custody/monetary care) is a move to remove yourself from support of a child. And even at that, at best, it reduces fatherhood to a sum of money.

Neither of those simplifications are fair for the child or father. A child needs more from a father than money. And a father needs to support more than just monetarily. Love means much more than that.

So when you say "those rights", meaning the rights and entitlements of everyone involved, you are falling far short of true equality and respect.

On Lawn

And yet “support” (whatever that means), love, and money can still be provided without marriage.

Bingo, so tell that to your buddies who want to remove the most valuable part of marriage from everyone else, just to suit their own ideals.

On Lawn

This has always been about rights. Hospital rights, visitation rights, funeral rights, inheritance, citizenship, the list goes on and on…. Marriage legally encompasses all of those things.

Wow, you didn't mentione love in that statment of what "always been about.

Exactly, and specifically the equal recognition of rights and entitlements in the act of creating a human being.

But to say that recognizing just the subset of rights that make sense for you and your buddies is enough for everyone, is a fallacy.

Wanda

The United States was founded on Christian beliefs. If those beliefs are biblically-based, then we must not ever permit the legalization of same-sex marriage. According to the Bible, the homosexual act is an abomination. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (from the Old Testament - Leviticus 18:22). There is no contradiction in the New Testament. In other words, Jesus did not change anything regarding this declaration by God via Moses. The more "liberal" we become, the more we move away from the true teachings of God. We must stand up and speak out for Christianity that helped shape our Constitution (which is being ignored more and more) and our Bill of Rights. "God, help us to survive the next four years of Obama and elect a Christian Republican. Amen."

On Lawn

I think he is confusing us, but I can't be sure since that isn't even what I said...

After he got through saying how marriage is not to ensure equal protection of everyone involved in the creation of a child, that he is interested in only two of the parties and only (at best) three of the four principles that these rights are based, I noted that...

But to say that recognizing just the subset of rights that make sense for you and your buddies is enough for everyone, is a fallacy.

That probably shows another of the harms in neutering marriage, btw. To claim that same-sex couples have "all" the rights means to say that the ones they don't need or aren't relevant to them don't exist for anyone.

On Lawn

Jeffrey,

Same sex relationships are allowed just as divorce and adultery. They are even equally considered "marriage".

Jeffrey

On Lawn, why do some folks use the biblical definition of marriage as applicable in the discussion of whether SSM should be legal or not? Wasn't that the whole thing with the strong Mormon church involvement in Prop 8 in California? That God wants marriage between a man and a woman? Well, doesn't God forbid adultery in the Ten Commandments? Didn't Christ say that divorce is all but impossible?

Let me ask again: why are gay people expected to live according to the Bible, while straight people can do as they wish, in the law?

On Lawn

The question is not the legality of a same-sex relationship, no one is making it 'illegal' any more than wholistic massage is illegal without a Doctor's certificate.

Its whether or not you should neuter marriage from its goals of gender inclusive equality, and the equal recognition of the rights and entitlements of the man and woman and child they might have.

Stefanie, Texas

Onlawn, the problem with equating same-sex marriage to some sort of legal inequality is unfounded.

If that were the case, we would be forcing everyone to marry, but we don't. Also, I'm a heterosexual married woman and I don't know anyone that views marriage as a way to make the sexes equal. Was I somehow less equal to men when I was unmarried?

On Lawn

Stephanie,

So many problems, where to start...

in order to protect the equality of the races would mean we shouldn’t allow people of the same races to marry

Its a wonder the Loving justices weren't as smart as Stephanie.

Or maybe they weren't as ignorant.

What she just argued is a good way to get rid of all races, but at least its equal...

There biologically there are more than two genders

False (entirely).

There are only two genders. There are no "three genders" biologically in nature, anywhere.

Just male and female.

Combinations of the two are not a "third". Its simply a combination of the two.

Moreover, cultural recognition of multiple genders is very different than biological.

And its after that display of ignorance she judges...

Onlawn, the problem with equating same-sex marriage to some sort of legal inequality is unfounded.

Seperate but equal, is not equal.

Man and Man is not equal to woman and woman. Neither are they equal to man and woman.

Sex segregation is not equality.