Comments on: San Francisco Attorney Says Catholics/Baptists Unwelcome http://nomblog.com/680/ Just another WordPress weblog Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:48:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Chairm http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12076 Chairm Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:50:15 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12076 Exactly, no test for sexual orientation. That fits what I've said and stands against your emphasis on sexual orientation and gay identity politics. Thanks. Meanwhile: Why do you emphasize gayness as the basis for special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relationship types where children are being raised? You haven’t said what makes the gay arrangements more worthy to you. Exactly, no test for sexual orientation. That fits what I've said and stands against your emphasis on sexual orientation and gay identity politics. Thanks.

Meanwhile:

Why do you emphasize gayness as the basis for special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relationship types where children are being raised?

You haven’t said what makes the gay arrangements more worthy to you.

]]> By: jonathan http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12074 jonathan Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:23:44 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12074 Chairm, marriage equality is about due process and equal protection under the law for all Americans. One legal question is if you or anyone else should have to change their sexual orientation or sex in order to marry the opposite sex person in a civil marriage. Because this is the usual reason same sex couples apply for a marriage license. Not many "friends" of the same sex have been know to apply for a marriage license, heterosexual or homosexual. Civil marriage law does not test for this condition. Chairm, marriage equality is about due process and equal protection under the law for all Americans. One legal question is if you or anyone else should have to change their sexual orientation or sex in order to marry the opposite sex person in a civil marriage.
Because this is the usual reason same sex couples apply for a marriage license. Not many "friends" of the same sex have been know to apply for a marriage license, heterosexual or homosexual. Civil marriage law does not test for this condition.

]]> By: Chairm http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12065 Chairm Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:52:02 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12065 You think wrongly, Jonathan, read my comment again. I did not say that this or that class of children are "worth less" based on "same-sex couples". You clearly inject into the word, couples, some sexual meaning, right? Or, more accurately, gay identity, right? Why do you emphasize gayness as the basis for special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relationship types where children are being raised? You haven't said what makes the gay arrangements more worthy. You think wrongly, Jonathan, read my comment again. I did not say that this or that class of children are "worth less" based on "same-sex couples".

You clearly inject into the word, couples, some sexual meaning, right? Or, more accurately, gay identity, right?

Why do you emphasize gayness as the basis for special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relationship types where children are being raised?

You haven't said what makes the gay arrangements more worthy.

]]> By: Kevin http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12055 Kevin Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:33:07 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12055 Chairm: I think you’ve misread my comments. I’m not advocating special treatment for gay couples, but rather, equal treatment, compared to straight couples. Both legally and morally, it is impermissible to deny the benefits of marriage to one group but not others. And it is bizarre to try to link marriage to “good parenting,” since gay couples are always permitted to raise children together and society permits convicted murderers and rapists to marry, so long as they’re straight. Aren’t you uncomfortable advocating that only the children of opposite-sex couples deserve the security of having married parents, knowing that children are better off being raised by married parents? I guess I just don’t have the heart to tell the children of same-sex couples that they’re worth less than the children of opposite-sex couples! Chairm:

I think you’ve misread my comments. I’m not advocating special treatment for gay couples, but rather, equal treatment, compared to straight couples. Both legally and morally, it is impermissible to deny the benefits of marriage to one group but not others. And it is bizarre to try to link marriage to “good parenting,” since gay couples are always permitted to raise children together and society permits convicted murderers and rapists to marry, so long as they’re straight.

Aren’t you uncomfortable advocating that only the children of opposite-sex couples deserve the security of having married parents, knowing that children are better off being raised by married parents? I guess I just don’t have the heart to tell the children of same-sex couples that they’re worth less than the children of opposite-sex couples!

]]> By: Chairm http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12050 Chairm Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:47:05 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12050 What you've supported in your various comments, Kevin, is not marriage but the SSM idea. Even at that your comments have not shown how the one-sexed type of relationship you have in mind is different from the rest of nonmarriage. Sure, you pointed at gayness, but that's just you showing favoritism for a particular group. SSM is not about licensing gayness, is it? If not, then, why attach to SSM a special status that is not available to the millions of non-gay arrangements and relationships -- especially families with children -- outside of marriage? Protection equality is based on the vulnerabilities those families experience due to the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation in their circumstances. That includes one-sexed arrangements which are not gaycentric. Why the special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relatiionship types? What you've supported in your various comments, Kevin, is not marriage but the SSM idea.

Even at that your comments have not shown how the one-sexed type of relationship you have in mind is different from the rest of nonmarriage. Sure, you pointed at gayness, but that's just you showing favoritism for a particular group. SSM is not about licensing gayness, is it? If not, then, why attach to SSM a special status that is not available to the millions of non-gay arrangements and relationships -- especially families with children -- outside of marriage? Protection equality is based on the vulnerabilities those families experience due to the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation in their circumstances. That includes one-sexed arrangements which are not gaycentric.

Why the special treatment among nonmarriage arrangements and relatiionship types?

]]> By: Kevinn http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12042 Kevinn Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:35:13 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12042 I strongly support marriage and believe it is too important to restrict to any group, especially children. Children do better with married parents, and that includes the children of same-sex couples. I strongly support marriage and believe it is too important to restrict to any group, especially children. Children do better with married parents, and that includes the children of same-sex couples.

]]> By: Chairm http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12036 Chairm Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:13:49 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12036 That is a straw man argument made by SSMers, Michael, and convinces no one, not even most SSMers. Do you oppose the special status of marriage? If yes, okay, that is a logical conclusion of SSM arugmentation, as Olson recently indicated in his opening argument and answers to Judge Walker. If no, then, plainly state the special reason for the special status of marriage. And show how your answser does not also apply to the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. I ask these questions of you Michael Adrian, who is in search of arguments that convince, because Marty is right on target when he said: We’re not voting on “gay rights” rob, but on the meaning of marriage. That is a straw man argument made by SSMers, Michael, and convinces no one, not even most SSMers.

Do you oppose the special status of marriage?

If yes, okay, that is a logical conclusion of SSM arugmentation, as Olson recently indicated in his opening argument and answers to Judge Walker.

If no, then, plainly state the special reason for the special status of marriage. And show how your answser does not also apply to the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements.

I ask these questions of you Michael Adrian, who is in search of arguments that convince, because Marty is right on target when he said:

We’re not voting on “gay rights” rob, but on the meaning of marriage.

]]> By: Michael Adrian http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-12011 Michael Adrian Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:10:14 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-12011 @Marty: The only people who should decide the meaning of marriage are the two people getting married. Two men or two women getting married has absolutely no effect on any other marriage between a man and a woman, and any argument to the contrary has yet to be convincingly made. @Marty: The only people who should decide the meaning of marriage are the two people getting married. Two men or two women getting married has absolutely no effect on any other marriage between a man and a woman, and any argument to the contrary has yet to be convincingly made.

]]> By: Marty http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-11994 Marty Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:38:10 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-11994 We're not voting on "gay rights" rob, but on the meaning of marriage. Just because you "don't care" doesn't mean the rest of us can't either. Who gets to decide the meaning of legal marriage, if not We The People? You? Me? 7 judges? We're not voting on "gay rights" rob, but on the meaning of marriage. Just because you "don't care" doesn't mean the rest of us can't either.

Who gets to decide the meaning of legal marriage, if not We The People? You? Me? 7 judges?

]]> By: rob http://nomblog.com/680/comment-page-1/#comment-11989 rob Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:10:57 +0000 http://nomblog.com/?p=680#comment-11989 Marriage is between one man, and whoever he wants to love and committ to the rest of his life. And I don't care if that's a man or a woman. I also don't care if gays have never been allowed to marry until recently because of thousands of years of persecution, hatred, and falsehoods. It's time to end discrimination against them. They're good people, and we straight people have made a complete mockery of marriage. We're the last people who should be voting on gay rights. Marriage is between one man, and whoever he wants to love and committ to the rest of his life. And I don't care if that's a man or a woman. I also don't care if gays have never been allowed to marry until recently because of thousands of years of persecution, hatred, and falsehoods. It's time to end discrimination against them. They're good people, and we straight people have made a complete mockery of marriage. We're the last people who should be voting on gay rights.

]]>