March 05, 2007
"The odd world of Val Stevens"

The Seattle Times called long-time Snohomish County legislator Val Stevens out on the carpet over the weekend. That's likely a good thing.

The tipping point in question for the Times seems to have been Stevens's mention of bestiality and necrophilia during the recent state Senate debate on same-sex domestic partnerships. It's tough to argue with their logic.

The traditional MSM attack point against those opposed to gay marriage, domestic partnership, et. al. in recent years has been that such persons oppose "equal rights" for gays and lesbians. Many conservatives rightly reject such a label as incorrect.

At the same time, it strains credulity to envision any circumstance where discussion of bestiality and necrophilia, no matter what the context, adds rhetorical strength to a well-intentioned argument against the domestic partnerships in question. The modern populace, even those firmly opposed to granting such rights, does not generally include homosexuality in the same class of moral outrages as sex with animals or the dead.

Good people can argue about same sex domestic partnerships and present passionate, principled arguments on both sides. Yet Senator Stevens did her party no favors in her choice of debating points, which only promulgate otherwise unfair, negative stereotypes which have been foisted upon Republicans writ large in recent years.


I'm particularly interested in reader comments on this topic, but attempt to keep any debate reasonably clean and civil, please.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 05, 2007 07:49 AM | Email This
1. I've got to agree with the Times on this one. Val's position isn't a new one, of course, but her rhetorical flourishes cross the line too often and are, in fact, offensive to nearly all of us who otherwise agree with her on this issue. Beyond that, that kind of talk just paints a bullseye on the heads of all people defending traditional marriage and re-enforces the arguments from the other side that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage are a bunch of ignorant, hateful bigots.

Posted by: NWconservative on March 5, 2007 08:16 AM
2. Wow, she really is out there. I would like to believe that most reasonable people on both sides of the issue understand that this is truly out there.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 5, 2007 09:30 AM
3. It may take longer to get there (personally I think the first place it will go is either lowering or eliminating the age of consent as well as multiple marriage partners because I already see organizations out there wanting both of these)

But I also know that when the divorce laws were loosened ("no fault divorce") it was warned that this would lead to certain things and people said that would never happen. and yet I am watching it happen.

I don't think there are really any depths that are too low to go once we decide that man is the author of morality. We each get to define for ourselves what is okay and is not okay to do.

I've been taking a glance through Peter Singers _Practical Ethics_ of late. And I know people that see no problem in saying that he's right, that it should not just be abortion of the unborn, but parents should be able to kill their children for even some period of time after birth if they realize they will not be able to raise them. And there was a time when that would have been unthinkable too.

Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on March 5, 2007 09:36 AM
4. Val has been known to go off the deep end occasionally.

Even for her, though, this one is over the top.

She generally is very consistent on family issues, but is one of those blocking the Shared Parenting bill in the Senate from coming to a committe vote, even though it is family friendly.

Maybe she was off her meds? or is it time to retire one of the most conservative of the conservative?

The Geez

Posted by: The Geezer on March 5, 2007 09:53 AM
5. Sorry to OT, but has anyone besides me seen the Brit news. They are blast the whole Warming thing.

I wonder where DM is? LOL

Posted by: Army medic/Vet on March 5, 2007 10:03 AM
6. At one point in history (up to recent history actually) homosexuality was considered by all to be on the same level as bestiality. I'm not so sure about necrophilia however. Society has a shown that it functions on the "slippery slope" concept all day every day. Put those facts together any way you wish.

If homosexuals wish to live together, they need an instrument with witch to bequeath, direct and interact on a legal basis. I personally have a problem with that being marriage. From the societal aspects unforeseen and because laws will need to be written to give special rights to yet another group and we are already up to our asses in special treatments already. When you give special rights to one group you always infringe on the rights of somebody else.

What is needed is a civil pact that acts like marriage on a legal basis. Individuals can then “decorate” (read that ceremony) it any way they like. In that way, all groups can use it (like atheists or those that dislike the religious overtones of marriage).

Posted by: G Jiggy on March 5, 2007 10:07 AM
7. Eric, how long are you going to continue with the lie that you are a Republican?

Val Stevens makes perfect sense. If society accepts one kind of sexual perversion how long until it accepts the next.

Why don't you go to the Democratic Party where you belong? Or are you waiting to do a Rodney Tom?

Posted by: Steve on March 5, 2007 10:37 AM
8. Seattle Times reasoning:

Thursday, Stevens argued on the Senate floor against the domestic-partnership law for gay and lesbian couples. We support the legislation but understand some people disagree with it. Stevens went beyond disagreement, recalling her attempts last year to amend a gay-rights bill to exempt such activities as bestiality and necrophilia, vulgarly implying they had something to do with gay rights.

I submit that it's just as vulgar to imply that sodomy based relationships are equal to traditional marriage.

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 10:41 AM
9. I have no problem with giving equal rights protection to people who spend thier lives with another person of the similar sex much the same way people of the opposite sex do.

The idea defintley unerves some people here as they seem to consider granting any rights to homoseuxuals a crime against God.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 10:41 AM
10. Abolish secular marriage and replace it with civil unions for all -- a piece of paper that says, "Yes, you can authorise procedures at the hospital. Yes, you can inherit the estate. Yes, you can pay the marriage, er, civil union penalty tax."

I wouldn't want a judge to perform a baptism, officiate a briss, lead a yoga class, etc.

So why should a judge factor into a covenant between two people and their God? Does the Lord need validation from the state?

Posted by: London on March 5, 2007 10:44 AM
11. Cato, "the similiar sex"?

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 10:48 AM
12. Michelle @ 8:
I submit that it's just as vulgar to imply that sodomy based relationships are equal to traditional marriage.

So basically you have a problem with the idea of sodomy. Because you dislike the idea of sodomy your willing to exclude a whole group of people who practice sodomoy from equal protection under the law. How about we ban marriage among celebrities, seems their marriages only end in well publicized breakups. One pop star in particular was married a mere 55 hours before getting a divorce. What kind of example does this set for our nation?

As you can see banning people from marriage because they practice sodomy is just as silly as banning marriage from people because they're famous.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 10:48 AM
13. I would need to do a little more research before condeming Ms. Stevens, I tend to get burned if I take the Seattle Times version of things as fact but hey, that might just be me.

I do have one question, if Ms. Stevens was saying first it is gay rights, then bestiality and then... the sloppery slope arguement, and I am not saying she did, why is it not ok for her to use that and why are we told it is not a slippery slope when gun laws are passed but any attempt to limit any abortion procedure is a direct path to back alley illegal abortions?

Posted by: AndrewsDad on March 5, 2007 10:50 AM
14. Cato: society places boundaries on marriage (supposedly) for a reason. You cannot marry your sibling or your son/daughter, and yet those people are normal "consenting adults". It's not about sodomy, it's about setting boundaries about what is good for society.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 10:54 AM
15. I'm also a little confused with Val's position on bashing gay marriage one minute and then taking a stand AGAINST Shared Parenting the next.

Her blocking a pro-family bill in committee that even had the support of ultra liberals in the 22nd is beyond understanding.

Leadership means finding areas where opposing sides agree and expanding that domain to a workable solution. Val- you're about as good as Gregoire on that front from recent experience.

I would hope GOP leaders would take note of this issue. This is why I don't donate to the party- rather I focus on specific candidates at specific points in a race- I'd never want to see my funding go to her campaign.

Posted by: Andy on March 5, 2007 11:00 AM
16. Palouse, explain to me why having celebrities marry is good for society? How many times has Elizabeth Taylor been married? Is Britney Spears a good role model for teenage girls? What is good for society here?

A true republican would expect that gay marriage would improve the economy and society since there will be more marriages and science has determined that people are happier when they are married. Hate to tell you this but homosexuals live much the same way heterosexuals do.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 11:03 AM
17. Traditional marriage has shown the best results for society in terms of stability and child rearing. Gay marriage has been legal in Scandavian countries for 10+ years and the marriage rate has declined steadily over that time, and now marriage there is viewed as "outdated" and children out of wedlock are commonplace.

Marriage in Hollywood is a joke, and Hollwood should never be held up as an example of anything to set general public policy.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 11:09 AM
18. Just to be clear, I have no problem with legal contracts that give gay couples the same rights as married people that they continually cite as examples of why they need marriage (hospital visitations, inheritance, etc), nor do I have any problem with their relationship.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 11:13 AM
19. he marriage rate has declined steadily over that time

The same could be said about Japan which does not allow gay marriage. You will find that in many countries where higher education is more prevalent that the birthrate will fall as people put off getting married to pursue higher education. Case in point. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.

Hollwood should never be held up as an example of anything to set general public policy.

So why not restrict marriage rights for celebrities? Its just as stupid as idea as baning gay marriage.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 11:20 AM
20. Cato,

If it's any consolation, I'm consistent. I'd be in favor of restricting divorce, undoing "no fault" divorce which would cut down all of the multiple marriages and divorces in Hollywood and elsewhere. But not granting marriage because they're celebrities? No. They can still have a marriage if it is between one man and one woman. This is not my arbitrary rule "because (I) have a problem with the idea of sodomy."

But back to the original reasoning of the Seattle Times, that equating bestiality and necrophillia with "gay rights" is vulgar, how is it any less vulgar than equating sodomy with marriage?

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 11:29 AM
21. Palouse@14, there is an easy answer to your question -- IF you believe that homosexuality is generally inborn rather than a "choice". I believe that, and so do most scientists and researchers in developed countries, though some experts like Ted Haggard would disagree. If you accept that assumption, then it's only fair to let consenting gay adults form a relationship appropriate to their innate needs just as we let consenting straight adults do.

The big difference between gay marriage and polygamy (or marriage between siblings who are not at risk of getting pregnant) is that only gays are born that way. And while I'm sure some of you will have fun with my "appropriate to their innate needs" expression, don't argue that this is a slippery slope to meeting innate needs like rape and pedophilia, since those are harmful actions not involving consenting adults.

You say the issue is setting boundaries that are good for society. Good point. Do you think society is better off prohibiting a significant number of people from forming loving relationships with the same rights, responsibilities, and symbolism as the rest of us? If so, why?

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 11:34 AM
22. Funny thing, just twenty years ago the discussion of gay marriage would have been laughed about. Now that we are all convinced that homosexuals are funny articalute etc., how can we ban homosexual marriage?
I think Eric has been reading the MSM media far to long.
The same debate was made about no fault divorce thirty years ago and society is not better off!

Posted by: M&M on March 5, 2007 11:40 AM
23. From a legal (not religious) standpoint, what is marriage?
This is a key question in the debate, and one that is largely unasked. Many of the "benefits" (e.g., a voice in health care decisions) of marriage are not really controversial, and can be obtained by filling out appropriate paperwork.
Certain other "benefits" (e.g., tax-free inheritance, unified tax filing) are not available, but which of these are controversial issues?
Before we decide whether or not to extend legal marriages to cover gay couples, shouldn't we first understand what marriage is (i.e., what exactly are we considering extending)?
Does any one have a complete list of what a marriage entitles a couple they otherwise do not have?

Posted by: RDC on March 5, 2007 11:46 AM
24. Michelle:
The main difference being is that in necrophilia and bestiality the other person/animal is not consenting to the sexual act. With a homosexual couple it's pretty much a given that the sexual act is a consentual one. Much like consentual sex between a herosexual couple.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 11:49 AM
25. And Hollywood is run by the LIB's who always thinks they know it all for everyone.
You really want to keep going on this one Cato.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2007 11:51 AM
26. Val Stevens was right. All sexual relationships whether with beast or other are sexual choices. Why drawl a line with two people of the same sex. If you are are going to open up marriage or benefits then open them for all or you are discriminating.

Posted by: The Black Hand on March 5, 2007 11:51 AM
27. And Hollywood is run by the LIB's who always thinks they know it all for everyone.

And the Catholic Church long a bastion for conservative thought has a problem with molesting small children entrusted to their care. The Pope seems to think he knows what's right for everyone as well. You're point being?

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 11:54 AM
28. Ahhhhhhhhh Cato. TEDDY Kennedy is a Catholic.

Keep going... LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2007 11:55 AM
29. The modern populace, even those firmly opposed to granting such rights, does not generally include homosexuality in the same class of moral outrages as contraception. And yet they are essentially the same.

I suppose at the time the "modern populace" was debating the distribution and use of contraceptives it would have been vulgar to make that comparison.

Don't forget that Washington state is a bestiality travel destination as reported by the PI a year or so ago.

Posted by: Mary E on March 5, 2007 11:55 AM
30. Ahhhhhhhhh Army Medic/Vet. Rick Santorum is a Catholic and belives in Intelegent Design. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 12:00 PM
31. All goofy celebrity marriages don't take place in Hollywood, and with the liberals. Rudy Giuliani has been married 3 times, once to his 1st cousin- Newt is on number 3- the last one, to his congressional aide way younger than him, he married after a 10 year extramartial affair. Mitt's grampa was a polygamist; I worry about Ann Coulter- she's had 3 broken engagements and has never formally committed, unlike Mary Cheney who's having a baby girlchik with her girl chick. Other sodomists of note: CA Rep. David Dreier whose in GOP House leadership lives in a "committed" gay relationship; as does former Republican nat'l chairman Ken Mehlman.
Val Stevens' day is done.

Posted by: war weary republican on March 5, 2007 12:04 PM
32. 19. Cato

Cato have you ever lived or been in Japan?
If you had, you have never made your remark about Japan. You don't know what your talking about (again)

Posted by: Amry Medic/Vet on March 5, 2007 12:05 PM
33. Cato have you ever lived or been in Japan?
No, but how does that disprove the original point that sanctioned gay marriage leads to low birthrate as implied by Palouse at 17?

1) Japan does not legally recognize gay marriage. 2) Japan has a low birth rate.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 12:24 PM
34. Olympia's Jackass Stampede 2007 continues at a breathless pace, sucking away our freedom at the fastest pace deemed politically possible. But what REALLY has Eric Earling wound up is that one of the most consistent opponents of the Jackass Stampede, in one speech on one issue, has the audacity to use a slippery slope argument.

Still trying to rid the GOP of all conservatives, Eric? Keep trying. Good luck, and let me know how that works out for you...

Posted by: TB on March 5, 2007 12:38 PM
35. 33. Caro. Japan has a low birth rate.

Look it up. Gezzzz they have a low birth rate because not just anyone can move or become a citizen of that country, unlike ours.(having been there) Not only that look at most of Europe,( FACT) They too are going thru a low birthrate. Are the pro-gay? Heck yeah and it's done what for them????

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 5, 2007 12:39 PM
36. Attention all you clowns who blather about "traditional marriage."

Please go look up Loving vs Virginia and see what the previous definition of traditional marriage was.


If you so-called conservatives REALLY want to make us more godly and stuff, let's have a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce.

My marriage vows included "what God has joined together, let no man tear asunder."

So let's delete divorce entirely. When one considers the 50% divorce rate against a few thousand gay folks who want to get married . . .

Posted by: Jim on March 5, 2007 12:44 PM
37. RDC and Bruce bring up some interesting points that bear a closer look.

Often in these debates, we get lost in the rhetoric and can easily fail to look at the larger issues, fighting skirmishes and trying to score debate points and leaving the weightier issues unchallenged.

While we sit here and try to equate the different kinds of relationships and basis for allowing or not allowing recognized unions between or among various people based on rights or privileges or impacts to others, we seem to forget what it all means and why anything might exist in the first place.

For example, marriage as it seems to be argued by some boil down specifically to a set of rights and privileges that are granted to some and not others solely based on gender preferences of a sexual nature. In that line of reasoning, marriage has no meaning except to grant legal legitimacy to the relationship. Marriage simply becomes a legal state to allow easy transfer of resources between (or among) people. Often the arguments are couched in a language of love and desire and biological equivalences, but ultimately it still comes down to these people can have this, and these people cannot, and so it is not fair. Thus, in that line of reasoning, marriage is stripped of meaning and has no purpose independent of a legal civil union.

Thus, RDC’s question becomes quite relevant, but I expand it beyond the simple legal arena, which is too limiting. What is marriage? Does it have meaning beyond the legal arrangement between two people? Does it have purpose beyond creating a shared estate and mutual support agreement? If it does not, then why can‘t civil unions be sufficient to appease the activists? There might be two reasons for this. One, homosexuals crave marriage precisely because it IS more than a legal convenience. If so, then what is that “more” that they seem to desire? Or two, the homosexuals desire the dismantling of the differences between hetero and homo to force a recognition of legitimacy, and in doing so to dismantle the foundations of philosophy and belief that is the underpinning of the current preference for heterosexual pairings, namely the Judeo-Christian belief system. However, one must not discount the fact that nearly every society in existence prior to now has recognized the distinct arrangement of male/female unions, but the battle here and in Europe is primarily against J-C beliefs.

Bruce asks whether the desire for same sex partners is inborn or a “choice”. Again here we lose sight of the bigger picture. The very fact that something might be inborn does not give it an equivalent value with anything else. I understand that there is a distinct genetic component for many alcoholics. There are genetic based diseases, and there are mental conditions that follow a genetic pathway. In each of those situations we should neither judge nor condemn the person who is born with those conditions, but neither should we assume the need to grant certain protections for them. For example, if a person can prove that their alcoholism is genetically predisposed, do we then allow them the right to work and drive while under the influence? Do we allow them to live their life enslaved to the bottle when we know that sobriety holds much better prospects for a longer and more fulfilling life? I think not. We do our best to treat the disease, not legitimize it. It is neither in their best interest nor the best interest of society to let them indulge in their predisposition. So, the question might be, even if homosexuality is inborn, does it make it equivalent to heterosexuality and can you say then that drunkenness is then equivalent to sobriety?

On the issue of sexual preference. Is there an ideal sexual preference? Is there a “Darwinian inspired” ideal sexual preference? Are there good and bad sexual preferences? Are there limits to sexual indulgence? Can we place any value on sexual choices and sexual activity? Is there any responsibility of society as a whole to protect itself by discouraging the indulgence of certain sexual practices, and just what are those responsibilities? Is there any moral difference between a man’s desire for men and a man’s desire for little boys? I am asking DESIRE here, not practice. Is there any difference between the desire for humans verses animals? Live verses dead? If one type is a perversion, how do you decide that another is not? How do you determine what is normal verses what is abnormal? On what basis do you make your decision? Do you have a rational argument to say that desire for same sex is moral but desire for an animal is not?

Bruce says that the only difference between gays and polygamists are that only gays are born that way. Is that an accurate statement? Is the fact that, many men, if given the freedom to do so would sleep with multiple women, either serially or at the same time? Is not the desire to have sex with women other than one’s current mate sufficient proof that polygamy is a born trait? If so, why the objections to it when discussing gay marriage? Is it because to admit that would be to weaken the argument in favor of gay marriage?

Posted by: Eyago on March 5, 2007 12:51 PM
38. Jim,

Read my comment at #20. I actually think that "gay marriage" activists bring up a valid point with the divorce rate. That's why I'm in favor of measures that attach penalties to divorce, (because of the dreadful effects on the institution of marriage and on children) thus discouraging it in the first place, thus encouraging couples to be sure this is really who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 12:52 PM
39. The results in Scandinavian countries has nothing to do with education. Since the legalization of gay marriage there, the problem of children out of wedlock has been exacerbated. Marriage there no longer has any value and it is viewed as outdated, which is what happens when we start changing the definition of marriage. You can read more about it here if you are interested.

Bruce, scientists have not identified a "gay gene", so I am unsure how you could say that most scientists agree - the truth is, like GW, they don't really know. If you've found one, please let me know.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 12:55 PM
40. Cato:

To be philosophically consistent, then, you must be in favor of abolishing the laws against polygamy and polyandry, as well. After all, those unions involve consenting adults.

Why cling to that old-fashioned "couples" concept? Why not a trio? A quartet?

Why not, indeed, a Tabernacle Choir?

Posted by: Rey Smith on March 5, 2007 01:00 PM
41. Army Medic/Vet look at Sweden, they're in a baby boom and have Gay Marriage. Meanwhile Italy which does not have legalized gay marriage has one of the lowest birth rate in Europe.

Much the same can be said for Vatican City which has a null birth rate and has a ban on gay marriage. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 01:00 PM
42. Palouse:
1. Sweden is a Scandinavian country with legalized gay marriage.
2. Sweden has a relatively high Birth Rate for Europe: 10.27 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)

1. Italy is not a Scandinavian country and does not have legalized gay marriage.
2. Italy has a relatively low Birth Rate for Europe: 8.72 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)

The country with gay marriage has a higher birthrate than one where it is banned. Both countries have about 99% literacy rate among their population.

Of course we could look at Turkey where the literacy rate is 86.5%.
Gay marriage is banned there but they have birth rate of 16.62 births/1,000 population (2006 est.).

My argument seems to be holding up better than yours.

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 01:33 PM
43. The question is not marriage versus no marriage.

It is societally enforced marriage laws.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious ceremony.

However, our society has encumbered it with taxes, benefits and other items outside of its religious aspects.

This helps those with mainstream marriages and excludes those who find the laws overly burdensome (as a true Conservative would) or exclusionary (as an alternative couple may).

The issue is that state enforced marriage is wrong and anti-Constitutional, plain and simple. No Conservative, no Republican should uphold these laws or restrictions.

As far as transference of rights, there are ample existing civil laws that can be explicitly used (rather than using the implicit marriage codes).

Regarding benefits and such, these point towards the inadequacies of our society to deliver ample benefits to all equitably. Civil union is overkill. We merely need to state that person can add, one to n number of people on his policy, regardless of who they may be. Why should it matter? I mean, if you are going to allow someone to add people to his health care why shouldn't he get to choose? What's the difference whether they're genetically related or not?

Posted by: John Bailo on March 5, 2007 02:19 PM
44. Ahhhh.... today's discussion centers around the PI's (and the leftists posting here) adherence to Rule #5 of "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

Val is entitled to her opinion. The PI is entitled to ridicule her for that opinion. Although they typically find themselves incapable of ridiculing any of the more ridiculous thoughts and opinions of those on the left (And face it, it isn't like they don't have anything to work with) at the end of the day, given the Pravda on the Sound's lack of balance in all things, I guess my question is this:

Who cares?

Why are we even talking about this? Because the PI says so?

The PI and their minions and liberal supporters routinely ridicule conservatives, or tell us that political success may only be achieved thru embracing leftist policies and concerns.

So what else is new?

The utterances of the leninites of Elliot are not going to be balanced; they are not going to weigh both sides of an issue with equal consideration because they seem "inately" incapable ofg doing so.

So, frankly, there's nothing to see here... move along.

Posted by: hinton on March 5, 2007 02:39 PM
45. Bruce brings up the argument that homosexuality is a trait you are born with, but did you notice that the rise in homosexuality started after the 60's. Perhaps the real reason that people are "born" with these traits is do to their parents over indulgent drug use that mutated their unborn child's DNA.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 5, 2007 02:43 PM
46. TrueSoldier - Are you implying that Dick Cheney did drugs? SHOCKING!

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 03:03 PM
47. Cato - you keep bringing up birth rate as if its proof of something. Birth rate is not my point at all - it's the dissolution of marriage as an entity and children born out of wedlock. If you read the article about it I linked to, it goes into alot of detail about it.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 03:47 PM
48. Oooh! Oooh! The Seattle Times editorial board has their collective panties in a bunch!

Oh dear, Val doesn't want to pander to pervs... So the libtard language police are in high dungeon and making sure everyone else knows they don't have any problems with the moral relativism standards that are so seemingly popular today in Seattle/King county...:lol:

Posted by: juandos on March 5, 2007 04:11 PM
49. dissolution of marriage as an entity and children born out of wedlock

I fail to see how Gay Marriage brings about the end of marriage as we know it. Even the article you linked too discounts your gay marriage theory by claiming "THE DECLINE OF MARRIAGE and the rise of unstable cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth are not confined to Scandinavia. The Scandinavian welfare state aggravates these problems." and goes on to say "Contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, spreading secularism, ascendant individualism, and a substantial welfare state are found in every Western country. That is why the Nordic pattern is spreading." Guess it's not Gay Marriage then.

According to your article gay marriage is really just the scapegoat while technology, and individualism appear to be the real contributing factors behind the "dissolution of marriage".

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 04:41 PM
50. It only gets better 'In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high.' How about that.

Now pair that with Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success. This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood.

First rule of stats:
Correlation does not imply causation

Posted by: Cato on March 5, 2007 04:53 PM
51. Read on - the dissolution of marriage and the rate of children born out of wedlock increased substantially right at the time that the push for gay marriage started and got worse after it was legalized.

If you're looking for more data, and a pretty graph, you can look here

No, it's not just gay marriage, but a secular progressive society in general (read: liberalism) that's the problem. Redefining traditional marriage only exacerbates it.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2007 04:53 PM
52. What about Hillary--sh's mixing church and state by appearing in a church pulpit yesterday! Doesn't the Left always say you're not supposed to mix church and state???

Posted by: Misty on March 5, 2007 05:25 PM
53. Eric---
Why don't you e-mail Val Stevens with a few questions and get her own words directly.
Frankly, this whole Gay Issue is out of control.
Most Gays I know just want to be left alone to live their lives. They want to be assured certain legal rights....marriage ain't one of them. Just certain legal rights with regard to each other. Frankly, I think they already have most of those rights available by contract or will. Not sure anymore what the argument is over.

I'm still at a loss about all this Gay Pride stuff. Not sure what exactly Gays do to be proud of? Pride isn't the term that comes to mind when I think about my heterosexuality. I also don't think having Parades to celebrate Gayness makes much sense. Know what I mean??

Posted by: dude on March 5, 2007 06:06 PM
54. 37. Excellent comment by Eyago

Who determines what moral code should be followed?or determines if an action is right or wrong?
Would if be God, Religion, Society, Ethnic Groups, Families or Individuals?

Palouse and Cato can slant whatever they want with statistics and "un"biased studies. In the end an individual chooses their personal moral code based on their specific experiences with "God, Religion, Society, Ethnic Groups and/or Family".

The slippery slope for a Society is when the moral code doesn't exist anymore. When personal gratification is more important than the individual responsibility to ensure a stable moral code exists in their society.

How can we expect children today to develop their own moral code in a gray society without right and wrong. Divorce, abuse, crime, drugs, gangs and addiction damage too many childrens lives and destroy their opportunity for forge their moral code.

It's obvious the direction we are going and it's not healthy for families, children, individuals or our society. That truth is so plain, except for those with such a driving personal desire to force everyone "down" to their level. They know their actions and desires are wrong, but the option that allows them to be "right" is to change the rules in this game of life - the moral rules in our society.

Sadly, the "im"moral activists are doing a darn good job of screwing with values in our society. But, there are many families and individuals who are digging in their heels and resisting the "urge" to put personal gratification first and sell-out their moral code.

Posted by: Mike J on March 5, 2007 06:43 PM
55. Wow, the fact that you guys are actually DEBATING this stuff speaks volumes. Ah, a gust of the good old Ellen Craswell -- Linda Smith days!

But pardon me...don't let me interrupt your delusional ideological fugue....

Posted by: bartelby on March 5, 2007 07:22 PM
56. Eyago, I appreciate your serious analysis of the questions I raised. But it's wrong to compare homosexuality to alcoholism; the latter (and not the former) is a disease that causes damage to oneself and society.

The analogy to polygamy is more complicated, and arguably man's difficulty with monogamy is an argument against marriage for anyone rather than an argument for polygamy. But I think there are good reasons to encourage monogamy over polygamy, and in most cases (unlike gay/straight orientation) it appears to be a choice rather than inborn. Also, it at least seems fair to say that anyone can form a monogamous marriage with the person they're biologically drawn to (provided they're consenting adults not closely related).

Dude, while many gays (and straights) want to keep their sexuality private, I suspect the Gay Pride thing is an effort to counter the people (religious leaders, etc.) who declare that gays should be ashamed of themselves. Seems reasonable to me.

Finally, MikeJ and others who worry about a slippery slope: I think it's disingenous to go 95% of the way down a slope (i.e., allow 95% of the population to marry the person they're drawn to) and then say "Oops! We can't go the rest of the way down this slope and give the remaining 5% the same privilege, because it makes us uncomfortable." By allowing marriage for anyone, we're already on the slope.

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 07:28 PM
57. How soon we forget. Stevens was vocalizing what most people think unless you live in Seattle.
Look up the psych definition of "perversion". It does not turn on consenting adults and includes "transexuals". It used to include "homosexuals" a few short years ago until it became politized. A sexual perversion is any sexual act practiced outside the mainstream and looked upon as disgusting by the mainstream. That is not word for word but pretty close. Google it for yourself.
Only Washington State, could find Val's words wierd. Well, so could San Francisco, but that hardly the standard to shoot for.
Eric, you are really an ass to bring this up. No wonder Snohomish County has been in decline. Val is from Snohomish County and her constitutents obviously don't hold your views.
You are using your position here for points in Snohomish County among those that don't like her.
Tough luck neo. You've been undone.

Posted by: thatcher on March 5, 2007 07:34 PM
58. The modern populace, even those firmly opposed to granting such rights, does not generally include homosexuality in the same class of moral outrages as sex with animals or the dead.

Perhaps we should do a little survey of the "modern populace" here.

1) Do you oppose the "domestic partnership" legislation in question?
2) Do you "generally include homosexuality in the same class of moral outrages as sex with animals or the dead".
3) Do you see granting acceptance of homosexuality within the law, as in "domestic partnerships", as setting a prescedent for granting acceptance of bestiality and necrophilia?

I am particularly interested in Eric's answers. (So much for pleasant dinner conversation.) But others, on both sides of the issue, please participate too.

Here's mine:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

Further, while the "general populace" may have varying opinions, Val might not be too far off from the Opinion that matters most:

Leviticus 20:13
13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Val is not advocating putting people to death, just arguing against special privelages for those engaged in such activities for their committment to such activities.

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 08:37 PM
59. Palouse@51, you could just as easily make a graph connecting gay marriage to global warming. You can't show or even make a serious case for causation. Would gay marriage make you less likely to be married? How?

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 08:46 PM
60. Michelle@58, since you apparently believe in taking all parts of the Bible literally, do you favor putting gays to death? If not, why not?

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 08:52 PM
61. From Romans chapter 1

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

By the way for those who desire to track me down and kill me for posting this I've been dead for 12 years so any such efforts will be a bit futile.

Toodles. :-)!

Posted by: Jericho on March 5, 2007 09:05 PM
62. Bruce,

My primary point in making the comparisons I did was to demonstrate the logical fallacy of the arguments being used to defend homosexuality as being normal simply because a) it might be biologically based, and b) it is an attraction that was not "chosen" by the person.

These might be mitigating factors when one wants to determine the level of compassion given to people who have sexual desires that are not consistent with the Darwinian model of natural selection, but they are completely insufficient to address the moral issue or the question of what constitutes societal good.

To do that, one must go back to the big questions again. Put another way, is there a purpose to encouraging and favoring monogamous heteralsexual unions that are permanent? If there is not, then society has no business regulating any "union". If there is, we should be bold enough to state that certain arrangements are favorable and have the guts stand by them dispite the minority who might feel slighted by the discrimination. That is different than saying that certain unions are illegal, for that is a different question. The question I ask is should society encourage permanent heteralsexual unions above all others or not?

What are your good reasons to favor monogamy or polygamy? How can you say that it is not inborn? The only reson it is not practiced now is that society has roundly condemned it, not because man has not predisposed toward it. In fact, in a survey done by the Kinsey Institute titled Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, 43% of white, homosexual males estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners. A study done by the American Journal of Public Health showed that study participants said they had averaged seven sex partners in the last 6 months, and an Associated Press report showed that 50% of "gay" men in Los Angeles County reported they had sex with an average of 28 men in public places over the previous six months. In the gay community, there is little social pressure to be monogamous. We have two ways, as I see it, to take this data. Either homosexuality comes part and parcel with promiscuity, or social pressures have a curtailing effect on male sexual promiscuity. Neither of these conclusions support the gay marriage argument. I still maintain that male desire to have sexual contact with more than one person is as much biological as with what gender that patner has. I would be interested in any sort of argument or data that would refute that assertion.

As for the comparions to alcoholism, the argument is more closely linked than you might give credit. Again, social pressures often do help alcoholics to limit the effect of the disease, but not allways and not completely. But if given more lattitude, many more who are afflicted would succomb to the effects of their disease. But the bigger question is the "harm to self and others" argument. Most alcoholics do not harm others, though when they do it is certainly tragic. The same can be said for promiscuous sexual activity. A Canadian study estimated that a 20 year old homosexual male today would have a 50% chance of contracting the aids virus by the age of 55 if the early trends of sexual restraints were used when Aids was first linked to homosexual activity. Unfortunately the trend has reversed and sexual activity among homosexual males has become less restrained lately. Additionally studies in the Netherlands and New Zealand show marked increases in psychological disorders such as depression, increased suicide, obsessive compulsive, anxiety and others. There are also much greater instances of physical abuse from homosexual relationships compared to heterosexual relationships.

It seems to me that in the rush to legitimize these realtionships, we may be, in fact, purposefully sweeping under the rug real and serious issues faced by homosexuals, issues that are resulting in serious physical, and mental health problems. Just like the alcoholic, we do the homosexual no favors if we simply try and ignore the problem in effort to try and accept him into society "as is".

Posted by: Eyago on March 5, 2007 09:30 PM
63. Bruce,

Of course not. I'm a Christian, and accept the Bible as a whole. The redemptive work of Jesus Christ (crucifixion and death in our place!) offers salvation through repentence and acceptance of Him, which prompts us to live a lifestyle making every effort to obeying His laws which are just.

His redemptive work did not give us permission to create a society in which these behaviors are to be considered on the same level as His design for Holy Matrimony or rewarded as such. When we fall from grace, we should confess and do penance, not get rewards from the government.

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 09:33 PM
64. Eyago, you write: "In the gay community, there is little social pressure to be monogamous."{

Gosh, do you think wanting to get married would be evidence of desire to be monogamous? And would passing laws and constitutional amendments against marriage be a sort of pressure against monogamy?

If you want gays to be monogamous, why on earth would you oppose their marriage?

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 09:50 PM
65. Michelle@63, Your God has spoken to you, and I won't try to compete with that. But since you have decided not to take Him literally (about the slaying and blood and so on), I wonder how you have decided which words to follow literally and which ones to subordinate to "the Bible as a whole". I think the answer has more to do with your own personal prejudices than anything.

Posted by: Bruce on March 5, 2007 09:57 PM
66. My personal prejudices, Bruce?

I do take Him literally, every word in context. In Leviticus, God tells us what outrages Him (acts that are contrary to how He designed us) and the sins that deserve death. The New Testament tells us of His Love and His willingness to be the "Scapegoat" or "Sacraficial Lamb" for our sake, "slaying and blood and so on".

First, I'm "guilty" of taking the Bible literally, and now I'm guilty of not?

Posted by: Michelle on March 5, 2007 10:54 PM
67. Doug Parris, here, and I have materialized to settle any remaining questions.
I. Re: Poll at post 58: 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. yes.

II. Re: Cato's arguments: No, buddy, none of what you say is logical. You begin with the assumption that there is no moral problem with homosexuality and argue from that to the conclusion that there is no moral problem with homosexuality. How BRILLIANT! Your real problem is that you think there is no such thing as morality to begin with, and as long as that is your position, there is no point in discussing politics with you. By your logic, politics is just an exercise in personal preference. No one is right or wrong.

III. The suggestion that beastiality and necrophilia are in a different category than sodomy because they are "non-consensual" is absurd. Acquiring consent, in the case of necrophilia, is precisely as problematic as proving it didn't exist. As crime, it has that in common with Euthanasia. Is bestiality non-consensual? What studies are you quoting? Can I read the comments of the animals interviewed? In the case of bestiality, in fact, the passages in Leviticus, above, suggest the contrary with some authority.

IV. Re: Bruce's comment, at 60: "...since you apparently believe in taking all parts of the Bible literally..."
This has to be one of the most vacuous phrases I've read in months and I read Sound Politics. Do you actually know what "taking something literally" means? The passages Michelle quotes are, without controversy, UNIVERSALLY interpreted as civil laws of the Jews, at the time of the writing of the book of Leviticus. They were historical realities. NO ONE thinks anything else. You may disagree with those precepts as law, but I've never met anyone so stupid as to proffer that they were written with any FIGURATIVE meaning. Everyone understands, whether they agree with it or not, that it was meant literally. They actually put people to death for certain crimes. If I say, "A stitch in time saves nine," I'm speaking figuratively, not actually about mending anything with needle and thread. If I say, "Honey, I couldn't find that brand of detergent you wanted." I'm speaking literally - actually about soap. If my superior officer, in a combat zone in war, tells me, "If the enemy comes over that hill begin shooting," I would be an idiot to think he didn't mean it literally and was actually talking about spewing derogatory phrases at the enemy.

Those of us who believe the Bible is true only interpret it "literally" if a particular passage is meant literally and fully understand the use of metaphor, allegory and figurative language, of which there is plenty. I was born on the campus of an evangelical Christian College where both my parents taught. My father held his doctorate in philosophy of religion and we discussed theology regularly while he lived for 40 years. I was raised in the Church, attending regularly. I attended Christian schools. I am a believing Christian who has studied the Bible and historic Christian writings, daily, for 27 years and I have interacted with a full range of Christian thinkers since the '50s. I HAVE NEVER MET ONE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN TAKING ALL PASSAGES OF THE BIBLE "LITERALLY." It is the theological liberals, in desperate pursuit of a religion with out the supernatural, that strain logic and seek to misinterpret the literature to fit their materialist presuppositions.
So what the hell do you mean by accusing Christians who are your intellectual superiors of some universally "literal" interpretation?

V. Now, Eric, to you. You begin by a vulgar insult to the woman who is arguably the best elected official at any level in Washington State government and having done so, then ask the rest of us to be civil. You have not been civil. You have not given us the text of Val Stevens' quotation and do not even consider that her remarks might be TRUE. You measure everything according to whether or not people like to hear it that way. But the greatest in politics have the courage to speak the truth when it is unpopular or hard to hear. Such is Val Stevens. We do not know, since it was excised from your report, what connection Val made between the three different types of universally destructive SEXUAL PERVERSIONS, but I'm confident she was quite accurate. I know Val. I know you. You do not have the courage to tell us you find homosexuality acceptable. But you do, don't you? I hope, someday, to sup with you as you report you did with Michelle and I expect, in that context, to find you both civil and conversationally engaging. But after dinner I would be gratified if you would accept my invitation to a contest of our fists where I might have the pleasure of upholding Mrs. Stevens' honor at the expense of your liberal soft tissues. Please accept this invitation in lieu of a slap in the face with my glove.

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 6, 2007 12:09 AM
68. Doug Parris, my point was that Michelle is citing scripture as the basis for today's law, yet she's saying we shouldn't really follow scripture and slay the offenders. If you're so sure this is God's law and is meant literally -- and you want to impose God's law on the entire country -- why don't you (or Michelle) insist on following it in its entirety?

I don't expect to convince you of anything regarding homsexuality, but I am genuinely curious how you would answer that question.

Eric can defend himself against your blustering attack, but I am curious where you think his "vulgar insult" toward Val Stevens appears. I was amazed at his restraint in discussing such a hateful nutcase.

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 12:56 AM
69. Be careful Doug. (#67, Numeral V) I know you're just having fun, while understandably letting off steam, but you might get banned from another Republican function. The "moderates" may not take the Bible literally (where it was intended to be) but have no trouble taking your sense of humor literally, (or taking it out of context) as we've seen in the past.

Especially with the new King Co. bylaws in place, be careful. (Attention KCGOP language police: he was kidding!)

Posted by: Michelle on March 6, 2007 01:06 AM
70. I'm still waiting to find out why gay people getting married or not is affecting my life even 1/10000th as much as the S&P 500.

I also haven't met a person who believes in taking all passages of the bible literally, but I also haven't met a person who checks up on local/state/federal laws and statutes before making all their life decisions to ensure they're all in line either. So I don't consider the gay marriage thing to be of any _practical_ effect beyond being one of the current go-to fundraiser issues for the major parties.

re: the poll

1) I dislike pretty much every inequity in terms of property rights (let's go flat tax!) so no.
2) No. Maybe when there's no more genocide, totalitarianism, mass starvations, etc around, but I have a limited outrage pool and need to prioritze allocating it. (what's-his-face the weirdo in Enumclaw does not score high on the list of global evils)
3) That's just weird, yo.

Posted by: brent on March 6, 2007 01:09 AM
71. 56. Bruce - The law allows 100% of people to be married - they just need to follow the law (one man & one woman). Marriage is certainly not for everyone - nor should it manipulated so it is. Is this really about 5% forcing our society to accept a lower moral code under the guise of equal protection.

Actually, the real number is probably much greater than 5% to account for presidents, senators, swingers, adulterers, fornicators, pedofiles, and all those who can't control their sexual urges whether they're married or not, or if it's legal or not. It boils down to whether someone will choose to control their sexual actions or if they make their sexual choices their priority and defining purpose in this life.

Civil unions are simply a stepping stone to gay marriage. Both are being pushed to force society to accept "perverse" sexual activity as normal. My position is that that our over-emphasis on sex in our society is destroying the family, children and individual lives similar to alcohol and drug abuse.

Maybe beastiality and necrophilia will never gain legal protection like other sex perversions, but why not? For some, sodomy, incest, rape, homosexuality, bestiality and even masturbation fit in the same category as inappropriate sexual perversions. But our liberal society has embraced some of these as healthy ways to express one's sexuality rather than learning to control it. Maybe in a 100 years or so we will have genetically engineered our pets to communicate their sexual needs to their human partners so sex can be consensual. Why not? We have certainly socially engineered humans to express their sexuality in many depraved ways - and they want it to be legally recognized as acceptable behavior.

Some people feel sexual intimacy is literally sacred and carries with it great societal, religious and individual responsibility - such as bearing & raising children. Why do we have so many abortions and single mothers each year? Is it because the birth control didn't work or a persons sexual control didn't work? Unrestrained sexual activity is simply not healthy for society. Marriage, family and children are casualties. If Eyago's statistic of 50% of homosexually active men will get Aids by 55 is accurate wouldn't that be unhealthy for society?

If we stopped alcohol consumption (like prohibition) there would be no drunk driving deaths. But we can't give up liquor, so we have to literally sacrifice some lives for the right to wet the whistle - so to speak. Who should care when someone has a sexual itch to scratch? They think it is only affecting them and their partner, but it also affects society by legitmizing sexual activities deemed perverse by the majority.

As a society is it our business to judge what's sexually perverse or not? Or is it a reality we must accept - like drunk drivers. Sexual over-stimulation has clouded many minds into making poor choices with devastating consequences. I used to hear that as long a persons sexual choices only affect them and a consenting adult partner(s) it is not my position to judge or be concerned about their choice. But now I'm being asked to acknowledge homosexuality as an acceptable norm in society, have it taught in schools and grant civil unions and eventually marriage to gay couples. Based on Judeo-Christian and many other beliefs systems, the behavior is wrong. If a person speaks out against homosexuality or compares it to other sex perversions they are dismissed as a hateful bigot or nutcase.

Posted by: Mike J on March 6, 2007 04:00 AM
72. Mike J 71--well said. Val's statement was silly. Silly, but not deserving burning at the stake. It's out there for all to judge. Enough said.

Like any occasional slip of rationality/sensibility. Any such slip should be derided. Like Jesse's "Hymietown" quip or Sharpton's utterings or Rodham's fake southern accent in a church.

Point is, most people do not want the government-sanctioned (i.e. FORCED) aceptance of a lifestyle many believe is wrong. There are basic, rational arguments and outlandish quips like Val's.

Most of society does NOT want to be FORCED to re-define a historic tradition, religious/civil custom and personal belief that effectively pretends a giraffe is now a butterfly.

To many it will NEVER be a "marriage," and the continued insistence of a group to force it so on everyone is the crux of the issue and the burr in most saddles. As an aside, how much of the gay rights issue is given support/momentum/press in Muslim countries? I wonder why. Is there a media/special interest group double standard of respect for religion there, but not in the West?

Many view it not as a basic civil rights issue but yet another specially-& newly-defined rights issue based on a preferred lifestyle of a very narrow group of society.

Could this result in another devisive special treatment/preference issue that further dis-assimilates us like diversity/multi-culti issues and results in us pigeon-holed into thousands of little niches without an overall national/cultural unity?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 6, 2007 06:09 AM
73. My Dear Doug,

You say, "You have not given us the text of Val Stevens' quotation..."

What, did Google break? You can't do a little research on your own? Must I provide links for everything? The Times and the P-I covered the original story late last week. TVW makes such debates available online, as the debate in question is (see March 1st at the link).

My goal is not to fully report every event I comment on here, especially if it's already readily available to readers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be commentary.

Meanwhile, if we're going to engage in a pleasant round of fisticuffs, could we at least set it up as some sort of fundraiser? We'll each dress in the superhero costume of our choice for added effect. Proceeds split between a charity and the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee. I think we could get quite a crowd and raise a healthy piece of coin under such circumstances.

Posted by: Eric Earling on March 6, 2007 08:17 AM
74. Bruce said:

Gosh, do you think wanting to get married would be evidence of desire to be monogamous? And would passing laws and constitutional amendments against marriage be a sort of pressure against monogamy?

If you want gays to be monogamous, why on earth would you oppose their marriage?

I addressed that point in my first post when I asked whether the desire to have homosexual marriage was because either marriage had greater meaning than just equal protection or that it was a political tool to force acceptance of a lifestyle. There are, in fact quite a large number, in terms of percentages, of homosexuals that do not want marriage as being a vehicle to monogamy. One statistic that I did not quote but is relevant to your argument is that in a study of Dutch homosexual men, published in the journal Aids revealed that gays coupled in long term relationships still had an average of 8 additional sex partners a year outside the monogamouns "union."

The argument that marriage will mitigate a lifestyle is not compelling, especially since marriage itself in our society is being degraded on every level with no-fault divorce, vows that include "for as long as our love shall last" and other such conveniences to take the focus off of permanent, committed unions.

As a counter argument, most heterosexual non-marriage unions are generally very monogamous (ie no extra-relational sex), despite the lack of the "piece of paper."

But I will ask again, is there any value in a society favoring and encouraging committed, monogamous, heterosexual life-time unions or not?

Is sexual liberation more important than the stability of the family structure or is "family" simply an outdated, white, eurocentric, patrilineal, anacranism that should be tossed away like last week's leftovers? I ask because the trend of SELF-actualization that is occuring in society moves us away from personal reponsibility and toward selfish demand for acceptance. It is not a society that I think will be healthy at all, and that is the core of the debate.

Posted by: Eyago on March 6, 2007 08:35 AM
75. Palouse @ 51:
the dissolution of marriage and the rate of children born out of wedlock increased substantially right at the time that the push for gay marriage started and got worse after it was legalized.

So because a trend that was on the rise prior to gay marriage increased at a steady pace upon the introduction of gay marriage they must be related. Your cited graph only covers one country yet they use it to make a statement about all the Scandinavian countries.

Again, the first rule of stats is:
Correlation does not imply causation

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 10:01 AM
76. Palouse:
It appears Americans have the same problem as the Duth...we don't have gay marriage. Maybe the Canadians and thier "secular progressive society" are to blame. ;)

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 10:20 AM
77. Again you miss the point Cato. Bruce and many others who advocate gay marriage say that it will *increase* monogamy and promote stable relationships among hetero and homosexuals alike. Well, the Scandinavian experiment clearly proves that is false.

Marriage is crumbling in those countries and the problem of children out of wedlock has gotten worse since it's introduction.

Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent.

Now, you can post that correlation does not equal causation all you like, but such is precipitous increase is not just chance. So maybe it was combination of factors that attributes part of that change, but certainly gay marriage is one of them. And without question, gay marriage did NOTHING to improve the problem.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 10:30 AM
78. I agree there is a problem here too. And as the Scandinavian countries prove, the introduction of gay marriage only makes it worse.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 10:32 AM
79. And as the Scandinavian countries prove, the introduction of gay marriage only makes it worse.

Based on the articles you quoted I'd say it's not. I'd say this girl quoted in the times is spot on:
"Marriage ruins life," Roach said. "I saw how much my parents fought. I saw how miserable they made each other."

People learn from their parents.

gay marriage did NOTHING to improve the prolem.

And inversley gay marriage had nothing to do with the trend that was steadily climbing for years before it was introduced. Thank you for proving my point that Gay Marriage is a red herring issue.

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 10:38 AM
80. Yes Cato, I'm sure it was some other major societal change that took place in those countries during that time that caused such a steep increase in those societal problems.

The bottom line is that there are actual examples of countries who have implemented gay marriage, and enough time to analyze their results, and they are poor. Take whatever you want from that, but it tells me that it's not good for society in general.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 10:45 AM
81. Cato, you are sometimes an outright fool. Marriage does not make partners fight. Choosing the wrong partner does, and not working hard at marriage makes marriages fail. The message Ms. Roach should have taken from her experience was not that marriage is not good, but that maybe her parents blew it. But then that goes into the area of personal responsibilty, doesn't it? And we can't have that. Much easier to blame a system or custom or tradition. No one's fault for anything.

Posted by: katomar on March 6, 2007 11:02 AM
82. Take whatever you want from that, but it tells me that it's not good for society in general.

By your logic I could argue that Michelle is not good for society because she a a Bible Thumper who quotes scripture to promote her point. Bible thumping has increased in the last six years. Meanwhile the number of out of wedlock births has also increased in the last six years. By the logic your quoting from Bible Thumpers like Michelle have caused "a steep increase in those societal problems". You're equating two things that are completley unrelated.

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 11:19 AM
83. Neither statistics nor common sense suggest how gay marriage could affect monogomy or marriage among straights. And I don't even think Palouse and his ilk ("Palice"?) see the irony in saying it's sinful to have sex out of wedlock and sinful to have lots of partners, but when two gays want to sanctify their loving relationship by marrying each other, we will prohibit it and even change the consitution to make sure it can't happen.

If you oppose gay marriage because you are sure God wants you to, your position is by definition beyond rational discourse. But if you oppose it because you think it hurts monogamy, you are just being ridiculous.

Fortunately the homophobes are on the losing side of history here.

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 12:35 PM
84. Cato, put your head in the sand all you want, but when you take it out, perhaps you can explain how the average annual INCREASE in out of wedlock births doubled after Registered Partnerships and then Same Sex Marriage passed. Marriage is becoming a thing of the past there, if it hasn't already. Implementing it here is not going to produce better results.

Bruce, you and your ilk ('Bob?') don't need state sanctioning of your relationship in order to be monogamous.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 12:51 PM
85. I wonder if I am the only one who caught the Irony here in Bruce's comment #83:

If you oppose gay marriage because you are sure God wants you to, your position is by definition beyond rational discourse.
Fortunately the homophobes are on the losing side of history here.

I don't suppose calling your opponents homophobes makes YOUR position by definition "beyond rational discourse?"

I see that this discourse has followed the same sniping skirmishes that all have and continues to pointedly ignore the bigger issues.

So, when all you polyphobes out there are confronted at the next front of the culture war I hope you will be consistent in your postions and be willing to accept the label from all the progressives who will be arguing that your only reason for opposing polygamous relationships is that you are polyphobic.

Posted by: Eyago on March 6, 2007 01:33 PM
86. Bruce, you and your ilk ('Bob?') don't need state sanctioning of your relationship in order to be monogamous.

You're right, but the symbolism surrounding our marriage is a source of comfort to my wife and me, and we wish the gay couples we know could enjoy the same.

Eyago, I like your term "polyphobes"! While I suspect that personal discomfort with homosexuality is the source for most opposition to gay marriage, I agree that my use of "homophobes" was gratuitous. Please substitute "gay marriage opponents are on the losing side of history".

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 01:50 PM
87. Good points Eyago.

The bigger question is, what is marriage for? The 'traditionalists', of which I am one I guess, believe it's for creating children and ensuring they are raised with a mother and a father. Children born out of wedlock and to single parents have the odds stacked against them, and are far more likely to end up in poverty or in legal trouble. And anecdotal evidence in one case in a Times article aside, there's plenty of studies to back this up.

When we introduce gay marriage into the equation so that a few people can satisfy their desires for recognition of their relationship, it guts the central assumption of every child deserving a mother and father.

The gay marriage movement depends heavily on separating marriage from procreation, and this will have disastrous effects on our society and only further the welfare state (which many in this state have no problem with).

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 01:51 PM
88. So Bruce/Cato - do you believe two adult siblings should be allowed to marry so that the state can recognize their relationship as well? Let's assume they are in love and committed and all that. If not, please explain why.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 01:56 PM
89. the average annual INCREASE in out of wedlock births doubled after Registered Partnerships and then Same Sex Marriage passed.

Got proof the two are related? No you don't.
I've already proven how flawed your linked neo-con study is. Did your actile actuall talk to one Scandinavian? No it did not.

don't need state sanctioning of your relationship in order to be monogamous.

So why the sudden concern about out of wedlock children? If they have monogamous parents does it really matter if the state has sanctioned their marriage?

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 02:01 PM
90. If they have monogamous parents does it really matter if the state has sanctioned their marriage?

Absolutely. Do some reading about children born out of wedlock compared to those who are born to parents who are married. While some of them may get married later, many split up and then you have children with only one parent.

As for the study, absent of another factor which would lead a DOUBLING of the annual increase in out of wedlock births, which you also cannot provide, since it coincides exactly with when registered partnerships were legalized it's 'more likely than not' that it's the factor.

Marriage is no longer valued there - any two people can get hitched, and most are now choosing not to and having kids anyway. That's not the type of society I would want to live in.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 02:13 PM
91. The study supports its facts by limiting the factors it considers. It only takes the facts it wants to support its own conclusion. It does not examine tax structure, it does not interview a single Scandinavian, nor does it bother to examine the divorce rates among Scandinavian parents. Nor does it examine the social stigma that having a child out of wedlock tends to bring.

I bet if Scandinavian countries approved laws sanctioning the stoning of all un-married mothers with out of wedlock children you would see marriage rates greatly increase. Then I could use the same stats to show that gay marriage actually decreases the number of out of wedlock children. That statistic would be just as flawed as the one that you're quoting because it fails to take into account other contributing factors.

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 02:39 PM
92. Why would more people than ever choose to have children out of wedlock other than they don't feel marriage is a necessary factor in having children? That's what happens when marriage has no meaning when any two people can get hitched.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 02:51 PM
93. I don't know, I don't have access to a vast array of Scandinavian stats. I can tell you the logic behind your studfy is flawed. That is why I know it does not hold water.

Maybe you should ask why have out of wedlock children risen in all industrialized countries? Most of these coutries don't have gay marriage, yet the wedlock rate contiunes to rise. Could it be the Scandinavians have ruied marriage for the rest of the world?

No because it's quite likely that out of wedlock children doubled in industrialized countries after the introduction of gay marriage in Scandinavian coutries. Does one cause the other? NO!

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 03:13 PM
94. Those industrialized countries are at around 40% (not great), but it's upwards of 55% to 60% in those Scandinavian countries, and getting worse.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 03:39 PM
95. If there really are hetero couples who are so uncertain about marriage that they will be deterred by the existence of a few married gay couples (as Palouse insists depite the absence of evidence or logic), then those hetero relationships have much bigger problems than can be solved by a marriage certificate.

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 03:48 PM
96. Hey Palouse, C-Sections in the US went up after gay marriage was approved in a Scandinavian countries. Maybe gay marriage is having an adverse effect on woman's birthing choices. That in turn could account for the doubling of out of wedlock children in Scandinavian countries. ;)

"he C-section rate rose to 30.2% of all births in 2005, an increase of 1 percentage point from the previous year. The rate has risen by nearly half since 1996." - Source

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 04:05 PM
97. Societal problems don't manifest themselves in neat and tidy causal statistics. They occur gradually, as peoplee' attitudes about marriage, family and children are notoriously hard to measure. As stated above, we have to decide what marriage is for and decide what bests serve society as a whole, not what's good for a few people who want the state to recognize their relationship.

There's a question in #88 for you Bruce and Cato that I am interested in your answer to.

Posted by: Palouse on March 6, 2007 04:07 PM
98. Why would you compare the approval of gay marriage to a single case of incest? There's no logical or factual corilation between the two.

Besides evolution pretty much dictates that incest is a disatorus undertaking if you have children.

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2007 04:22 PM
99. Bruce,

You continue to follow the skirmish path, focusing on a hypothetical couple today as if that were a factor in the big picture. The attitudes of society and its moral and philosphical tenants are a product of long-term reinforcemnts by the family, the greater community, the external influecens of structured organizations such as school and curch, the laws of the land and how they are enforced, and the cultural infulences of media such as books, movie and music. Do you think our society's acceptance of gay marriage is at its level today (though well below the majority if evidenced by ballot measures from past years) simply because a light went on in 50 million people's heads virtually simultaneously? No, the attitudes have changed due to a constant and incessant campaign to affect the attitudes of people. If you can understand that, then you know your gibe in 95 is entirely without merit.

Society's attitudes about marraige, parenting, realtionships, etc. are constantly being steered toward a liberal interpretation that devalues the life-long hetero model. Homosexual marriage is simply one stage in the cultural battle. It is the failure of people like you to either understand that or if understanding it to admit it that is a sad commentary on the liberal mindset.

It is not the conservatives that are trying to change things, it is the liberals, and they seem so shocked and derisive when people protest the mad dash to a totally unproven societal model. You attack and demean those who have not seen the "light" that you and others seem to see but apparently did not see for the 10s of thousands of years prior. You may still be right, but it is mean spirited of you to attack those who simply do not want to change what has been to what is not yet proven.


Your comment on evolution is rather comical given that homosexual unions provide a much more severe penatly toward procreation than incest. As good an argument aginst the "natural order" of things as any. Therefore, you still need to address the question in #88.

Posted by: Eyago on March 6, 2007 05:02 PM
100. Eyago- You are right that subtle, gradual changes are reducing the importance of marriage in many western countries. I agree that that is an unfortunate trend. However, I feel that gay couples choosing to make a long-term commitment through marriage help to counter that trend.

Just curious -- have you ever attended a gay marriage or commitment ceremony? Have you ever been friends with a gay couple who was part of a marriage or long-term relationship? If so, how did that affect your attitude on this subject?

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 06:42 PM
101. I once asked an acquaintance who's a judge whether she ever performs weddings. She said she doesn't because most of the people who ask judges to perform weddings don't take their weddings very seriously, and as a lesbian who's unable to marry her long-term partner, it's too painful for her to perform weddings for people who don't take it seriously.

I wonder what Palouse or Eyago would say to her.

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 08:50 PM
102. Bruce,

You must be bioogically incapapble of addressing the big issues. Every point you make is a side show and a skirmish, and never confronts the questions that matter.

I cannot fault you for having a heart, for having compassion for people who want something they cannot have. It is the trademark of mercy and is commmendable if not taken to the extreme. However, when one seeks to accomodate the dreams and desires of every person, one can find that they have headed down a path with no end. I would wish that everyone could have their heart's desire if it would truly result in happiness, but often what one wishes for may not always be what is good for them, or might be harmful to someone else.

In fact, it is my belief that the persuit of individual happiness is destructive to the person and to his society.

The forceful change on a centuries-old institution, complete with marginalization of entire groups of people and their faith is a high price to pay for your friend's happiness. In addition, it can result in a negative backlash that would counteract any positive benefits. It's sort of like winning a contest knowing that you had to tear down your opponent to do so. It is hard to lie to oneself, and often the rationalization to assuage the guilt results in a negative emotional spiral.

Life is full of disappointments, the test of character is how one deals with those disappointments. Not kowing your friend, there is no way I could adequately answer your question, so I have to generalize mightily and risk your tearing it apart because it might not fit the person.

What I might first do is acknowledge the validity of the loss that they feel, but I would not stop at a pity party. I would then address the issue of why they would be letting other people determine and thus have control over their joy. Only they can take away their own joy. No one has the power to do so unless they grant them that power. In lamenting what they cannot have and turning on those who might "prevent" it, they give away their own power for joy and hand it to thier antagonists. Finally, I wouild ask them at what price would their joy come. Would they be willing to create strife and discord for their own purposes? And, if they would, does that make them any different than those for whom they might hold contempt for denying them THEIR desires?

I admit I am offering a bitter pill, but it is rooted in my own understanding of what true happiness is. It is when one becomes content with what they have and ceases to strive for what they cannot and knows that their actions and impacts on this earth were done with integrity and with compassion for others, even those with whom they disagree. It is the root of the beattitudes and one of the most important aspects of Christ's teachings.

Posted by: Eyago on March 6, 2007 10:09 PM
103. The forceful change on a centuries-old institution, complete with marginalization of entire groups of people and their faith is a high price to pay for your friend's happiness.

Give me a break.

How does letting gay people marry marginalize anyone or their faith?

Maybe you don't want them to get married and believe your God says they shouldn't get married. But heck, some religions say people shouldn't marry unless they've had counseling, or if they're not virgins, or whatever. For that matter, as long as your church and your God don't recognize these marriages, why do you care what the government says? We're talking about someone else's marriage; how does that affect you?

It is incredibly self-centered to say you are worried about being marginalized. In fact, you are trying to keep other people marginalized.

You write: it is my belief that the persuit (sic) of individual happiness is destructive to the person and to his society.

Fine. Don't pursue happiness. But don't tell me, or anyone else, not to.

I won't argue with you about what your God wants. But don't give me this crap about protecting people from their own happiness, or how gays are trying to interfere with your rights. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Bruce on March 6, 2007 11:52 PM
104. So Bruce and Cato - will you answer the question in #88 or just continually posting side show answers?

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 07:57 AM
105. Bruce,

I did not say that legalizing gay marriage marginalizies opponents of gay marriage.

I think you should go back and reread this thread and the many others that dealt with this and tell me again that the people advocating gay marriage don't use as one of thier tools the marginalization of people of faith. The denigration of other's beliefs and the name calling that is used to shut them down is what I am talking about. It is used liberally by the left. It was apparent in your own freudian slip in #83, and is used again in your most recent reply (#103.) I never once argued from the religious positon, never used Biblical authority to back a point and never once mentioned what I believe God says on the matter, but all of a sudden you have to try and shut me down by trying to demonstrate how the God argument is invalid.

You prove my point in your reply, and you are one of the more civil debaters on this topic (so far.)

You reject any faith or religious argument for social and moral issues, and thus you seem to feel you have the right to reject the people who hold them and to assume a postion of moral superiority because you believe your system of values is superior to the outdated notion of religion. At least that is how you come across. Parden me and all others who believe otherwise. You are as dogmatic in your belief system as you accuse your opponents. Kettle and Pot, indeed.

I am no more marginalizing homosexuals than you are polygamists and necropheliacs(sp?). Progressivism is a train that runs with no end in sight, the difference between the enlightened and the bigot is when they decide to get off the train. Progressivism has no end by definition because once it stops progressing, it ceases to be progressive. Use a little intellectual honesty and think about that for a while before you start accusing people of being bigots just because they got off the train before you did. In 20 years, your position today will be considered very bigotted.

Finally, I know you were going to lay into me about your friend. You asked what I would say, and you then used it like a hammer. I think you have a lot to learn about happiness, politeness and respect. I hope you learn it sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Eyago on March 7, 2007 08:45 AM
106. Palouse @ 88 & 104 - I already addressed marriage between siblings in #21 and addressed the slippery slope in #56.

Posted by: Bruce on March 7, 2007 09:26 AM
107. Actually Bruce, you don't answer the question directly, you just make an end around argument about whether being gay is innate.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 09:33 AM
108. Eyago- I said I made a gratuitous comment, not a Freudian slip. A gratuitous comment was one that I believed to be true, but was unsupported by evidence and unnecessary to my point. A Freudian slip is your user name spelled backwards.

You say you "never argued from the religious position" but your last post talked about "Christ's teachings". Forgive me my confusion.

Slippery slope arguments are always the last refuge of those with indefensible positions. That argument has been discredited in this thread and many other places, but you continue to drag it out. And it is effective in scaring the logically challenged.

I am touched by your concern that I learn manners. Hopefully I can one day grow respectful enough to participate in the polite conversation that characterizes SoundPolitics.

Posted by: Bruce on March 7, 2007 09:41 AM
109. Gay marriage is a slippery slope, so we are already there Bruce.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 09:44 AM
110. Palouse @ 107:
Who the hell cares if it's inate or not. Much like incest it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 10:10 AM
111. Will you answer the question or not? It's quite comical how both of you refuse to answer a direct question and your reasoning for it. Please go and reread #88. If you want you can make the two siblings male, and explain whether and why you oppose that as well.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 10:23 AM
112. I'm sorry, I just don't see a time when two siblings are allowed to marry each other (even if they're gay). I don't see how incest can be compared to gay marriage since they are two different things. One is a marriage between blood relations another is a marriage between two non-related people of the same gender.

Looks like Germany has issues with incestuous marriages. Face it, they're gay marriage and incest marriages are not even close to the same thing.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 11:34 AM
113. Palouse, on second thought you are absolutely right! If we start allowing straights to marry, we will be on a slippery slope toward allowing family members to marry each other and create genetically defective babies! To prevent this terrible danger to society, we must ban marriage between straight people immediately!

Posted by: Bruce on March 7, 2007 12:13 PM
114. You fail to understand Bruce that the slippery slope STARTED with "registered partnerships" and civil unions. Gay marriage is just another slip down that slope.

Cato and Bruce - two siblings of the same gender cannot produce a child, yet you are still opposed to this, why? They love each other, correct? They are in a "committed relationship", correct? So what if they are related - marriage and procreation have nothing in common, right?

I will give France credit, at least they are consistent when they repealed their laws preventing siblings to marry.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 12:33 PM
115. You're really are going out on a limb here aren't you Palouse. The fallacy of your argument started back when you pointed to an article that had its facts wrong. Since you cannot defend the article you must resort to childish comparisons of gay marriage to incest. Two totally unrelated responsible adults should be allowed to marry each other much like heterosexuals do now. Gay Marriage is equal rights for unrelated consenting adults.

Maybe we should go back to your great-grandfather who likely believed that blacks and whites should not marry. Or maybe it was Catholics and Jews? It was common belief at the time but is now widely recognized as a marriage barrier that was overcome. Your great grandfather would likely argue the slippery slope started back in the 50's when interracial marriage was no longer frowned upon by society. Different eras present different attitudes and eventually your attitude will loose out in the end.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 12:56 PM
116. The article I linked to is absolutely accurate, and you provided nothing to discredit it or even a plausible cause as to why the marriage rate and out of wedlock births are so much higher in countries with gay marriage.

The interracial marriage argument is a compelete non-sequitor.

Two unisex siblings are consenting adults, and cannot procreate, yet you oppose this, which is completely inconsistent with your arguments for gay marriage.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 01:01 PM
117. Or maybe Bruce will argue that the desire to love one's sibling is a "choice" but somehow the desire to love one of the same sex is not. Probably not, because then all of his arguments fall apart as well.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 01:16 PM
118. The article I linked to is absolutely accurate

Go take a statistics course, any person with a high school education should know the basic rule: Correlation does not imply causation.

There are so many factors that were not taken into account. For all we know the increase in cesarian section births in the US could have been caused by gay marriage being approved in Scandianvian countries. All you have is a year and an increasing number.

The interracial marriage argument is a compelete non-sequitor.

So is your moronic incestuious marriage comparison.

yet you oppose this, which is completely inconsistent with your arguments for gay marriage

They're two totally seperate issues, I see no reason to compare them. No one is figting for insetious rights, except those morons in Germany.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 01:43 PM
119. What's moronic is your argument for gay marriage. Two siblings marrying is not a non-sequitor because it's the same premise your argument for gay marriage - two consenting adults in loving relationship who want to get married. The premise for gay marriage is that procreation has nothing to do with marriage because obviously two people of the same sex cannot procreate. If your argument is that two siblings cannot marry, then obviously you agree that procreation *is* something that marriage is for, which is not consistent with your gay marriage argument.

As for the article, there is a CLEAR pattern of out of wedlock births increasing at DOUBLE the rate they were previously after the approval of registered partnerships. You simply want to ignore that pattern and explain it away as chance, but yet provide nothing of substance other than repeating the same line that it means nothing.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 01:58 PM
120. You can argue till your blue in the face that two numbers put together arbitrarily are a cause and effect ratio. I'm still not going to belive you.

Examples of how
Correlation does not imply causation.:
Fact: The Sun rises on weekends
Fact: I do not work on weekends
Merge: Because the sun rises on weekends, I do not go to work.

Fact: Gay Marriage was approved in 1996
Fact: Out of Wedlock births have increased since 1996
Merge: Because gay marriage was approved, out of wedlock births have increased.

BTW, here is somones blog where somone checked the facts behind the article you cite. Turns out Kurtz left a lot of factors out which is what I'd been claiming all along.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 02:17 PM
121. What? That some of the bars during 1993-1998 should be red as well? So what. The campaign to legalize gay marriage and other unions here is already having the same effect with people here having kids outside of marriage at a higher rate than ever. Marriage is being separated from procreation, which I have been saying all along is the problem.

The bottom line is that marriage is dying there and out of wedlock births are increasing precipitously. Gay marriage did nothing to help with that, and in fact their rates are worse than countries without gay marriage.

Nice job avoiding how inconsistent your argument regarding siblings marrying are.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 02:38 PM
122. I give up, you obviously can't see beyond your stupid bar graph which I have proven time and time again is statistcally incorrect. Two facts placed together randomly do not equal another fact.

Here's another stupid stat using the same type of analysis.

After you read that, here is yet another rebutall proving how incorrect the article you cite is.

It also appears that Scandinavians do get married after they have kids. How about that.

Also I'm not going to talk about incest relationships because it's 'a compelete non-sequitor'.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 03:15 PM
123. I spelled out why your argument is inconsistent, but you either cannot comprehend that argument or more likely you just don't have an answer because it's true.

I am getting to the deeper meaning of marriage, you are arguing using someone else's rebuttals to something which is irrefutable - gay marriage did nothing to help the problem of people having children out of wedlock. We can argue ad nauseum whether it was the factor that made it worse or not, but we know for certain it did not help it. So "promoting stable relationships" is a false argument for gay marriage.

Posted by: Palouse on March 7, 2007 03:31 PM
124. Let's see: the liberal argument about gay marriage is that society has no right to impose any preference in lifestyle upon people. (Especially if that preference is based upon religion (escept when John Edwards or Hilllary Clinton do it)). So exactly how does this argument not apply to bestiality or necrophilia? Are you bestiophobic or necrophobic? To say nothing of polygamy and polandary.

Posted by: Bill on March 7, 2007 03:42 PM
125. I spelled out why your argument is inconsistent

You put incest and gay marriage in the same category which they are not. They're two totally unrelated things.

but we know for certain it did not help it.

True, but you can't prove the opposite that it had any effect on it at all. All you have is a statically inaccurate graph saying X happened because of Y. Without taking in other factors your argument holds no credibility.

Now Palouse, can disprove that Republicans are NOT the leading cause of obesity among Americans? obesity in America has obviously doubled since the Republicans gained control of Congress.

"promoting stable relationships" is a false argument for gay marriage

Is that because Dutch people don't feel like getting married? Give me a break. Homosexual relationships are just like Heterosexual relationships. They have their ups and downs, only difference is that some people unfairly discriminate against them and blame them for causing a rise in out-of-wedlock babies.

Posted by: Cato on March 7, 2007 04:14 PM
126. Why are they unrelated Cato - you saying it is does not make it so. I've explained why they are, but you provide nothing, which is par for the course for you on this thread.

Gay marriage is in the same category as marriage. When marriage is no longer valued as the premise for procreation, you have more out of wedlock births. So you saying that something completely out of the category of marriage like obesity is a causal factor is specious. Here's a tip - if you smell smoke in your house, don't check for a leaky faucet.

Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 07:39 AM
127. When marriage is no longer valued as the premise for procreation, you have more out of wedlock births.

ROFL!! In your view marriage is strictly about procreation? Now I know your full of it.

if you smell smoke in your house, don't check for a leaky faucet.

Or if you see a Republican check for obese people. Since the two go together like gay marriage and out-of-wedlock children.

Posted by: Cato on March 8, 2007 09:48 AM
128. The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure an an aim independent of it.

- Sigmund Freud
In The Sexual Life of Human Beings

Even Freud, no friend of religion, saw the relationship among bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality, and even contraception.

We in the Western world have done a marvelous job at separating the procreative aspect of sexuality from the unitive & pleasurable side of sexuality. As such, we socially conservative folks are impotent to condemn such practices (that are devoid of any procreative aspect) when the majority of us are engaged in sterile sexual activities ourselves.

Posted by: Big Tex on March 8, 2007 12:54 PM
129. Yes Cato, it's about procreation. I say again, what is marriage for if not a successful medium for having children and raising them with both of their parents? If that is not what marriage is, then have something called a partnership contract and two people can go sign it at city hall and commit to give each other half their stuff if they split up.

Posted by: Palouse on March 8, 2007 01:54 PM
130. Good work! Thanks!
low apr credit card
[url= ]bad credit home loan[/url] [url=]navy federal credit union[/url]

Posted by: Mihar on March 8, 2007 02:55 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?