Once again, legislation has been introduced in Olympia to legalize same sex marriage in Washington State. Companion bills have been filed in the House (HB 1727) and Senate (SB 5688) by State Representative Jamie Pederson and State Senator Ed Murray, two "out of the closet" legislators from Seattle districts. With Democrats holding large majorities in the Legislature and the Governor's chair, passage is likely this time.
The arguments in support of the homosexual lifestyle and same sex marriage are legion. Homosexuality is genetic and therefore normal. It's a matter of fairness, equality and civil rights. Anyone who opposes same sex marriage is homophobic and hateful. If two people are in love why not let them marry and, if they choose, provide a loving home for children too? Considering the divorce rate, traditional marriage is hardly a virtue. The church should not set public policy. Even at that, the Bible calls us to love one another and not judge. Plus, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. And the GLBT point of view continues with variants on the theme.
Against this onslaught, opponents respond. There is general agreement that gays and lesbians combined total less than 5% of the population. As to genetics, there are people prone to violence and other anti social proclivities but society is not expected to honor their actions. Same sex marriage contradicts hundreds, if not thousands, of years of tradition and we should be very careful before changing a basic foundation of society, one man with one woman. While same sex couples can adopt or artificially inseminate, homosexuality runs counter to the need to propagate the human race and denies children the emotional and balancing experience of opposite sex parents. As we lower societal standards to accommodate homosexuals, what other rules of good order will we compromise? Polygamy? Free speech? Free association? The Utah ACLU alresdy supports removing the prohibition on polygamy? The California Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Catholic Charities had to offer birth control in their employee medical plans even though birth control is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Remember the "thought police" that generated their own lexicon of "hate speech" that forced some universities to adopt ridiculous rules limiting free speech. Then there is our neighboring democracy to the north, Canada, which passed a law with a penalty of jail time if you make an anti homosexual comment. The Bible speaks of homosexuality only in the negative. Jesus never mentions it but he is recorded as honoring traditional marriage. Religious leaders asked him about divorce and he responded that Moses wrote law allowing divorce but only because man failed to live up to God's original intention: "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh." (See Mark 10: 2-9) We all are born with or develop imperfections. We yield every day to temptations that we know in our hearts are wrong. Yes, the Bible says to love one another, but love does not trump the ideal and forgiveness does not abrogate high moral standards.
We have taken the Moses approach in much of our culture and we may do it again with regard to same sex marriage. But will same sex marriage as public policy enhance society or debase it further? That is the question.
Posted by warrenpeterson at February 18, 2009 12:30 PM | Email ThisSo even if we get gay marriage this "basic foundation of society" will continue just as it has, though now some more people will have a chance to partake.
Posted by: Giffy on February 18, 2009 12:51 PMo Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts were forced to stop providing adoption services because they would not place children with same-sex couples.
o In New Jersey, a church had its tax-exempt status revoked because it would not allow its property to be used for a same-sex commitment ceremony.
o In Georgia, a counselor who declined to provide services to a lesbian woman who was having relationship problems was sued despite the fact that she gave a referral to a different counselor.
o In New Mexico, a photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony was taken before the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission and fined $6,600.
o In California, doctors were sued because they would not provide in vitro fertilization service to a same-sex couple.
Same-sex marriage may not impact your heterosexual marriage. But changing the law to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage requires the law to impose that belief system on those who disagree--by force of law if necessary. I suspect some people are just fine with that. But pretending there aren't real consequences to our freedom of conscience is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Posted by: joe on February 18, 2009 01:13 PMThough when it comes down to it I favor giving rights to gays even if it negatively impacts religious groups, but I think we can protect both.
Posted by: Giffy on February 18, 2009 01:17 PMThe other 90%+ of people just don't care and don't appreciate this kind of red herring being used by both extremes to take real issues off the table of discussion.
Posted by: No one cares on February 18, 2009 01:18 PMRecognizing the basic human rights of each member of our society is not an act of compromise and does not diminish the rights of others.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 18, 2009 01:26 PMFunny, they said the same thing about slavery.
While same sex couples can adopt or artificially inseminate, homosexuality runs counter to the need to propagate the human race and denies children the emotional and balancing experience of opposite sex parents.
So Britney Spears children have the appropriate emotional and balancing experience? The father left his wife and kid to marry Britney Spears, they had two kids together and the mother is an emotional train wreck. Meanwhile Dan Savage has been in a same sex relationship with his partner for something like 14+ years he also has a 10 year old kid which they adopted who doesn't seem to have any issues brought on by being raised by two openly gay men.
As we lower societal standards to accommodate homosexuals, what other rules of good order will we compromise?
How are lowering societal rules by allowing people who love each other to get married?
I think Britney Spears first marriage lasted less than 24 hours before getting an annulment, how many times has conservative icon Newt Gingrich been married?
How about we end divorce/annulments, would that make people think more carefully about choosing their life partner? Doubt it.
Gay Marriage != Polygamy. Here's a clue...people can have sex with multiple partners while married, they're called swingers. They have clubs across the country for those who are into that sort of thing.
Then there is our neighboring democracy to the north, Canada, which passed a law with a penalty of jail time if you make an anti homosexual comment.
Canada is not the US. We have a little thing called the 1st Amendment that allows people like you and I to debate freely on this issue from opposite sides.
The Bible speaks of homosexuality only in the negative.
The Bible also speaks positively of slavery. In fact the bible has long been used for discrimination (Mark of Cain anyone?) and to justify slavery. Do you want to bring slavery back as well? It's in the Bible.
"Slaves submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are conscious of his will." " (1 Peter 2:18)
I can name countless heterosexuals that are piss poor examples of a quality marriage. I see no reason to justify the continued discrimination of people based solely on their sexual orientation. If two people choose to be together for life that to me seems like a good thing regardless of their sexual orientation.
To be honest, I actually am willing to be diplomatic about this. When it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, if "separate but equal" means exactly that, I don't see the problem.
When you raise the specter of "separate but equal," people often harken back to the days of racial segregation when "separate but equal" was anything BUT. The facilities that blacks were forced to use were invariably substandard, and it became apparent that "separate but equal" was a farce.
What is more important: The word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it? I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. If all the roughly 1,100 federal benefits and responsibilities that are bestowed on married couples would be equally bestowed on Gay couples that have entered into "civil unions," I really don't have a problem. Any couple in question would still refer to one another as "husbands" or "wives" or "married." So when I use the term "marriage equality," I mean equal TREATMENT under the law. I'm not going to quibble over terminology.
FOR EXAMPLE: The problem with the civil unions that California offered Gay couples was that they differed from marriage in many legal respects. That's why the California Supreme Court correctly determined that there was no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
Something tells me you would be saying the same thing if we were talking about voting rights for women. In the 1920's the idea of black man running the country was an "abhorent and distasteful to the majority". Now the leaders of both major parties are black men...my how times have changed.
if my kid hates brussel sprouts, my freezing them on a stick and calling them popsicles won't make him like them and certainly won't magically change them from BEING brussel sprout to suddenly being benign popsicles.
Sounds like a fine justification for us to stop beating around the bush and let same-sex couples be legally married using the word 'Marriage'.
Your homosexual friends are free to have commitment ceremonies to honor that and their civil union. Their friend can celebrate and support them. BUT it is not and never will be marriage. The PURPOSE of marriage in the eyes of society is the furtherance of that society through the procreation of children. TWO men cannot procreate. TWO women cannot procreate. The cannot further society.
Brussel sprouts cannot be popsicles.
You're right. Religious freedom is so yesterday.
The founding fathers weren't wrong when they risked (gave) their lives to start a country that would allow them to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience.
They just didn't understand that giving state recognition to "non-traditional" sexual practices was far more important. Thank God for evolution.
Posted by: joe on February 18, 2009 01:50 PMNope, but I see no reason why homosexuals should not be legally married. Civil Unions is a good first step.
BUT it is not and never will be marriage. The PURPOSE of marriage in the eyes of society is the furtherance of that society through the procreation of children.
LOL!! So let's say the Rev. Ken Hutchinson becomes infertile due to his radiation treatments for cancer. By your logic he no longer has any justification in society to remain married.
A good friend of mine just popped out twins and subsequently had her tubes tied. Does this make her marriage null and void since she can no longer have children?
I find your argument rather odd, it sounds like your saying that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry as they cannot fulfill their "societal obligations". Should we identify those infertile marriages as civil unions?
The state is not in the business of enforcing procreation based on religious interpretations of legal partnerships. This is not true in some cultures we generally don't seek to emulate.
It doesn't stand to follow that the state aught to be involved, or rather entangled, in the romantic commitments of it's denizens with priority to how it recognizes their legal commitments. Or that the state should be involved with exactly what you do with your popsicles and brussels and whether that should have any binding legal impact on your rights to care for family members.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 18, 2009 02:07 PMSo you think the state should allow anyone to marry their sibling, or perhaps their offspring then. Good to know.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 02:10 PMYes, but no one is asking for those rights. I don't see Ted Haggard going out and boinking his sister.
Even if two siblings did choose to reproduce the genetic consequences would hurt their offspring more than themselves. Of course they could always adopt which would pose an interesting legal case since genetic reproduction would not be involved.
While I personally don’t give a rats, and believe they may as well have it as a civil right, Jamie disses the in excess of a million WA citizens by ignoring THEIR civil rights to parent their children.
The civil rights of the 5% or so are mega important, the civil rights of the huge number of parents who are no longer together to parent their kids, well, not so important.
Not to mention the recent study that says it costs the state $711 MILLON dollars a year in social costs.
So, while I would like to support the little man with the huge ego, I say fie on you, Jamie, for not hearing another civil rights bill that concerns a hella more folk than your 5-10%
The Geezer
Ooooohhhh...so now the number of people asking for a new right determines whether that right should exist. Funny, you'd think marijuana would be legal if that was the case.
Even if two siblings did choose to reproduce...
And there's Cato acknowledging that marriage does have something to do with procreation. It's a start...
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 02:40 PMIf you don't like my arguments you're free to ignore them. Supposedly God gave you free will. =P
No one EVER said anything about 'enforcing". It is in the states best interest that they do.
It is a very reasonable expectation that married heterosexuals will have children. Those that can't are a miniscule number and the possibility exists that their ability can change. There will NEVER be the same, or any, possibility with homosexual partners.
Those that lose the ability after marrriage is totally separate and an utterly stupid assertion for you to have made.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 02:46 PMIt's simpler, and not discriminatory that way. Everyone has the same rights this way, marry one person of the opposite sex. If that's not your thing, fine, then don't get married.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 02:59 PMNot state "mandated", not states "business".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 02:59 PMIt is a very reasonable expectation that homosexual couples will want to adopt children,
Those that can't are a miniscule number and the possibility exists that their ability can change.
How do you know? Are you a trained epidemiologist? I want statistics.
There will NEVER be the same, or any, possibility with homosexual partners.
Who cares, I don't. Did you enter into your marriage for the sake of pro-creation? Or did you do it because you were attracted to your future husband? Would you have married him if either of you were infertile?
How do you feel about arranged marriages?
Those that lose the ability after marriage is totally separate and an utterly stupid assertion for you to have made.
Why? You stated the purpose of marriage is "the furtherance of that society through the procreation of children". By your logic a heterosexual couple who don't want/can't have kids anymore have no reason or justification for remaining married in society's eyes.
It's simpler and not discriminatory if you allow same-sex couples to marry as well. Everyone has the same rights this way.
How nice. But that's no more than a zero sum game. It does not add to the population therefore does not benefit the state.
Arranged marriage? What the heck does that have to do with anything...oh I know: obfuscation by the obfusCATOr.
By your logic a heterosexual couple who don't want/can't have kids anymore have no reason or justification for remaining married in society's eyes.
Wrong. Because now you are advocating divorce which IS bad for society. AND it's a false analogy: apples and brussel sprouts, sweet cheeks.
Again, STATES BEST INTEREST.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:07 PMSociety has no stake in marriages that cannot produce children, so no, it's not simpler. But so as not to discriminate against those who cannot or choose not to have children, we make it simple and say one man and one woman who are not direct relation.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 03:08 PMSo now you are saying that adopted children don't grow up and pay taxes like everyone else? Tell that to my old college roommate who currently runs a very successful travel website, he was adopted as a child from Korea.
Seriously Ragnar, you are more delusional than I originally thought.
Arranged marriage
It's quite common in other societies, but generally frowned upon by American society. Does that mean it should not happen?
Because now you are advocating divorce which IS bad for society
In your view, yes. Maybe Britney Spears divorce was the best thing for society because it showed that even stupid rednecks who grow up to be singing superstars still make stupid choices with their lives. Thankfully, she is no longer a role model to young women everywhere.
People have the ability to learn from our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others.
Again, STATES BEST INTEREST.
States best interest is to collect the revenue generated by issuing same-sex marriage licenses ($64 a pop) and the sales tax collected from the same-sex couples wedding ceremonies. Face it, Same-sex marriages would generate extra taxable revenue across the board.
Same-Sex marriage, good for the State and private business everywhere.
Now you going to answer my question?
Did you enter into your marriage for the sake of pro-creation? Or did you do it because you were attracted to your future husband?
Your straw (and completely irrelevant) dog is quite amusing.
Perhaps you'd like to discuss the statistics of violence within the homosexaul community versus those within the population at large. I'm sure you'll have fun and entertaining excuses for the staggering differences especially when considering the incidence numbers in relation to the percentage of population.
Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:26 PMTo summarize Palouse:
Dan Savage's adopted kid will never grow up normally and will eventually lead to the downfall of society because this child has two parents in a committed long-term relationship who's only crime is being Gay and in love.
To me, no marriage = no children. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:31 PMStrawman, again. Adoption is another topic, and for the record, I'm fine with gay couples adopting.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 03:37 PMDan Savages kid was an existing kid. In as much as he did not bring new life into society it's a zero sum game. You aren't advancing the UAW when you buy a used Buick. Same thing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:37 PMIf I recall correctly Dan Savage's adopted a child from a woman who was 16 and living on the street and put her kid up for adoption because she didn't feel she could take care of it properly. His child is a future taxpayer as well.
To me, no marriage = no children. It's as simple as that.
So now your saying gay marriage threatens your ability as a straight god-fearing woman to have kids? LOL! Do you even think before you post?
Hopefully gay couples will have a more successful track record than a 50% divorce rate. They probably will since they will appreciate the right so much, having fought so hard for so long.
I have yet to hear a straight person give even one example how it infringes upon their liberty or in any way harms them if gay couples get marriage licenses.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 18, 2009 03:39 PMI have yet to hear a any person give even one example how it infringes upon their liberty or in any way harms them if brothers and sisters get marriage licenses.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 03:42 PMWith what delusion did you infer that from my post? You asked a question, I answered. I would not nor do I condone producing illegitimate children, hence no marriage = no children FOR ME.
Keep trying.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:42 PMWhat a ridiculously obtuse argument! Palouse, dear, we are talking about one thing and one thing only: about two consenting adults in love getting married. Not tables marrying chairs or cats marrying dogs.
And yes it is a civil right. Assuming you are straight, you have the right to marry any person you want as long as they are of age to give legal consent and are not related to you as first cousin or closer. Other than those few caveats, you are free to make a marriage home life with whomever you fall in love with. It's part of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happoiness' and no one can barr you from it.
Gay people do not enjoy that right.
As soon as someone barrs you from marrying the consenting adult of your heart's desire come back and speak up then, genius.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 18, 2009 03:46 PMSo let's hypothetically say a younger Dan Savage contributed his sperm to a woman in HS and she had the kid and died in a car accident or something, leaving the kid to Dan who entered into a long term relationship with another man.
Dan Savage could marry her at 16 but now he can't get married to his long-term partner of 14 years because he's not reproducing? LOL, Ragnar your logic gets dumber every time you post!
So you support a brother and sister getting married too? Good to know, sweetie.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 03:49 PM
obfusCATOrs "hearts desire" could be his mother, his ferret aAND his hound dog. It could be the triplets next door.
What limits "hearts desire"?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:50 PMKeep trying.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:53 PMAre you saying that if a gay couple adopts a child (or has one via in vitro fertilization or surrogacy) that you would then favor allowing them a civil marriage license?
If your only point of contention is child-rearing then you must acknowledge that some gay couples raise children also.
On Saturday I attended a wedding of a young straight couple. They dislike children and have zero intention of ever being parents. Would you take away their marriage license? Would you give them more, less, or equal right to marry compared with a gay couple who does want to have children?
Of the committed gay couples I know today, more are raising children than not. Better face up to that. Those families deserve equal rights and protections as much as you do.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 18, 2009 03:55 PMAs ugly an analogy as it is, buying a used Buick (adopting and raising an existing child) does not further the UAW (nor "stimulate the economy") the way buying a new car does.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 03:59 PMThis is the only part of your post that hasn't already been addressed earlier, so you can read above for the response to the rest. In vitro and surrogate pregnancies among gay couples are such a small percentage that they don't justify redefining marriage, and again, we don't want the state in the business of checking your future child rearing plans before signing off. That is discriminatory.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 04:01 PMNeither was I. Follow your own advice.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 04:03 PMHe is refusing to give a hearing for shared parenting legislation.
The left wants to redefine family- and that vision has no place for heterosexual fathers spending time with their children.
Rot in hell Jamie.
Wrong. If it was, you'd be able to marry your sibling, or your parent. But you can't. Therefore, not a civil right. Get it?
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 04:06 PM
Sure we are. YOU brought it up with your "hearts desire" argument.
How dare you try to suggest or judge what someone's "hearts desire" may or may not be appropriate?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 04:07 PMI have yet to hear a any person give even one example how it infringes upon their liberty or in any way harms them if two people of separate races get marriage licenses.
Same old tired arguments, brand new target.
I would not nor do I condone producing illegitimate children, hence no marriage = no children FOR ME.
So for you illegitimate children just don't exist and should be shunned by society as long as they live. Nice to know that you've reverted back to the moral sensibilities of the Dark Ages.
"Hearts desire" is not a right
Nor did I claim it as one. To me it has everything to do with equal rights under the eyes of the law.
obfusCATOrs "hearts desire" could be his mother, his ferret aAND his hound dog. It could be the triplets next door.
*yawn*, same old tired arguments, brand new target.
No one is redefining a family, I know it sucks that your wife left you for a better man but you still have to pay your alimony.
Now back to gay marriage. =)
Completely different. See previous posts regarding procreation.
Posted by: Palouse on February 18, 2009 04:16 PMSorry but rights are about balance and ones right to silly beliefs does not trump others rights to be full citizens.
Posted by: giffy on February 18, 2009 04:16 PMAgain, delusional "interpretation".
*yawn*, same old tired obfuscating, same old tired obfuscCATor.
1. The operative words were FOR ME.
2. Never said anything about shunning anyone.
3. Petty insults from a small mind don't bother me. Promoting, rewarding and celebrating bad decisions, such as purposefully producing illegitimate children, does. I don't scorn the illegitimate child, I scorn the selfish person that purposely makes him so. Take notice of the word "purposely"... it's the one that counts.
The arbitrary and selective lack of reason on opposing same sex marriage implies that a marriage license must be viewed as a procreation or family making license or the whole argument tanks. There is still no sound or cogent response to the double standard of the state allowing marriage between some couples who do not procreate and not to others.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 18, 2009 04:26 PMAnyone with a college education and a brain knows there are absolutely no logical, secular arguments against gay marriage. Which is why the EDUCATED people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists) overwhelmingly support gay marriage. That includes everyone from the American Psychological Association to the American Anthropological Association. Survey after survey keeps showing the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage.
Clearly there is some kind of correlation here: the dumber they are, the more anti-gay they tend to be.
If these uneducated bigots/homophobes would spend a little more time in school (where they can learn some science and logic) and less time sticking their noses into other people's personal lives (which don't affect them one bit), maybe they'll earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.
NEXT!
Posted by: smack_the_homophobe on February 18, 2009 04:29 PMWhy is it even relevant to the conversation? No one has asked for the right to marry their sibling.
ay love and incestual love aren't radically different, one is just more accepted in society than the other
They're are completely different, one is marriage between two people from the same mother, the other are two people who met the same way any straight couple would meet.
If the incestuous couple were to reproduce their kids they would have serious genetic defects. That seems to me the most plausible reason. Also in a world of six billion plus people in the world why would you marry your sibling?
Now if two separate but homosexual individuals had their own child through scientific means the child would be perfectly healthy.
Besides it's totally unrelated to the point of two non-related individuals who are equal to all individuals in every legal right but are banned from marrying because of their sexual orientation.
Ever since Vegas, I've kept wanting to smack the sh*t out of another phobe. I'm such a bad boy... :P
Posted by: smack_the_homophobe on February 18, 2009 04:37 PMI have yet to hear a any person give even one example how it infringes upon their liberty or in any way harms them if two infertile people of separate races get marriage licenses.
I don't scorn the illegitimate child, I scorn the selfish person that purposely makes him so.
Well not everyone live by the pure Christian biblical morals that you do, and good thing too. Do you scorn slavery even though the bible says that slavery is moral and that beating your insubordinate slaves is a moral act in God's eyes?
Time after time gay marriage has lost on statewide votes throughout the country. Most recently last November in California in spite of the Obama landslide.
A statewide vote on gay marriage would lose in Washington as well. Democrats know this so they will try to sneak it through in the Legislature.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 18, 2009 04:47 PMWas he your friend before or after you told him you thought he was going to hell and tried to convert him to the lord's will and set him on the path of holy righteousness. =P
It amuses me when you trot out things about which you know nothing in attempt to bolster your arguements.
Enlighten us, sweetcheeks...Old Testament or New? Which is provides history for Christianity and which provides the guiding principles under which to live?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 04:51 PMCourse, u'd be bitching like a cut cat if it had been the other way around, eh, scumbag?
We'll be in another prop 8 before the ink dries... With the same outcome.
Posted by: hinton on February 18, 2009 04:58 PMI bet if you put interracial marriage on the ballot in states in 1958 (same year as Loving vs. Virgina) it also would have failed and Conservatives everywhere would be celebrating. Thank goodness for the courts. =)
Supreme Court ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Further, I don't 'convert'... and with a one Catholic parent and one Mormon parent, he has no need of my take on "holy righteousness"... whatever that might be.
Do you know how utterly ridiculous you sound with comments like that based in pure ignorance and bigotry? Do your being oh so clever and cutting edge urban? Epic fail, dude.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 05:03 PMWhich is provides history for Christianity and which provides the guiding principles under which to live?
That my dear Ragnut depends on your particular religions interpretation. I'm just asking a question which you rather conveniently answered with another question and did not give an answer.
We'll be in another prop 8 before the ink dries... With the same outcome.
That's what they said about Proposition 6 in 1978. Seems that each time Gay Marriage is presented to the voting public the amendment fails by a smaller and smaller margin.
Just like in the end, the initiative war will break out; and it will wind up the same way... with no gay marriage.
Posted by: Hinton on February 18, 2009 05:18 PMMaybe you should take him up on that. =P
Further, I don't 'convert'.
Homosexuals don't convert either despite what the various branches of Christianity claim. =P
Do you know how utterly ridiculous you sound with comments like that based in pure ignorance and bigotry?
Do you think I care? You make it so easy.
Epic fail, dude.
LOL, your kid's teach you that? =P
Yes, regarding interracial marriages. The function of a man and woman has nothing to do with their skin color. Nothing.
And you made the argument for us: fundamental to our very existence and survival. BINGO! There is no survival of society with a coupling that has NO CHANCE to breed. NONE.
That YOU would make that argument is further amusing in light of your advocacy of one "thing" (abortion) that destroys life and another (homosexuality) that cannot possibly perpetuate it. Why do you hate mankind so?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 05:26 PMOdd statement coming from a most likely Probort. You must have missed the importance of the term "life" in that statement above there, chief.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 05:32 PMIt's a lot harder to take away a civil right once it's on the books. California had Gay Marriage for several months before it was striped away...and we're still one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for some (but not all).
I still haven't seen any logic justifying why you should be able to discriminate against an individual because of their sexual orientation.
Homosexuals are equal to heterosexual individuals in every way except that they can't marry their partners.
Separate but equal has never worked in the past, don't see why it would work now.
As a society, we recognize the advantages of keeping the parents and children together and have decided to provide benefits to those that choose to get married, rather than choosing to "shack up" with the possibility of producing children out of wedlock.
Since gay couples can't procreate (accidentally or otherwise), there's no advantage for society to provide this benefit to them.
I might be going out on a limb here, but to me the gay marriage issue is seemingly less about benefits and more about the justification of an alternative lifestyle. It's an attempt to force society to treat a gay relationship as having the same benefits to society as a straight relationship, and I'd argue that this is not the case, since only one of these can produce children.
Posted by: Smoley on February 18, 2009 05:43 PMCivil unions? Fine with me. Same with gays being allowed to adopt.
Marriage? No. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 18, 2009 05:43 PMI do not accept the premise that they are discriminated against. They have the exact same right I have to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they choose not to excercise that right is their problem and their decision.
I haven't seen any logic the justifying special rights or the redefinition of an institution that has served society well since the beginning of society.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 05:45 PMI doubt most people would even notice the difference, it's not going to seriously effect your life. Maybe your son/daughter will have to compete for a wedding venue with a gay couple. There may be a few discrimination lawsuits but for the most part life will go on as it always has and same-sex couples will have the same rights as their straight counterparts.
And you made the argument for us: fundamental to our very existence and survival.
LOL, so you are going to put a check box on a marriage license?
- Do you plan to have kids. Choose one: Yes | No
By your logic we can't issue marriage licenses to straight people who choose the No box.
Why do you hate mankind so?
Why do you hate America so much that you want to erode an individuals freedom based on a 2000+ year old book of fairytales? We may as well let Mother Goose run society by your logic. =)
Intersting dodge inlight of the fact that I have not once mentioned God, faith or the bible to make my case. You on the other hand seem a bit obsesses with it.
One more time. Heterosexual couples getting married are presumed and have proven (by the sheer percentage and number that HAVE) that they will reproduce. Homosexual couples cannot. Homosexual couples will not. It cannot be presumed or extrapolated or wished for: it is a physical impossibility. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with intention, or God or "hearts desire" or (boo hoo) fairness. Till such time as Freddy gets a womb and Eddie imnpregnates him, or Cher produces sperm and impregnates Clare, their coupling is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 05:58 PMThe Return of Blago redux: Cowardly Lyin' senator Roland Burris refuses to give up senate seat. How far does the corruption seep within the Democrat party anyway?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 06:01 PMBtw, this is the best argument you've made yet and yet it still has "epic fails" written all over it.
Equal rights would state they could marry someone of the same sex. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the Lord. =)
That they choose not to excercise that right is their problem and their decision.
A lot of people choose not to execute that right. I had a co-worker with five kids with his partner, he was married in every sense of the word. Yet he and his life partner just had no desire to get legally married. Some people choose to marry, some people don't, some people want to marry the opposite sex, some people want to marry the same sex. I don't see the difference.
I haven't seen any logic the justifying special rights or the redefinition of an institution that has served society well since the beginning of society.
Nice, but equal rights are not special rights.
The Supreme Court redefined marriage with Loving vs. Virgina, no one has any problems with that decision.
Slavery was a institution that had served society well since the beginning of society but Lincoln abolished that in 1863, no one seems to have any problems with that one either.
Not with liberals in charge, celebrating, rewarding and promoting illegitimacy.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 06:06 PMNope, doesn't have to be. But gay marriage is still unlawful in Washington state by RCW 26.04.020
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
(a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
(b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or
(c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.
(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c), or (2) of this section.
Perhaps you should be out collecting signatures for a state initiative to be put on the ballot for the voters to decide instead of whining about it on Sound Politics blog. Just a thought.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 06:09 PMProducing children outside of marriage is not the issue. The ABILITY to produce them is.
Has Freddie grown that womb and produced those fertile eggs yet? How's Cher coming with that penis and sperm?
I don't see the difference. PUHlease. You either a massive fool or willfully ignorant... but you are fooling no one.
Futhermore, the black community is incensed and outraged when the homosexual try to compare themselves. They were discriminated over an immutable characteristec: the color of their skin. They could not CHOOSE to be white. To attempt to make that comparison is cheap and ugly.
The reason why direct initiatives like Prop 8 tend to pass is because it's quite easy to rally uneducated sheep to the polls. Sheep have shown time and again that they don't have the ability to think independently (of their church, pastor, cult, etc.)
I say we raise the level of education required for voting! That sure would eliminate the votes of these uneducated bigots, rednecks, homophobes, and trailer trashies, who make up 80% of the Yes on 8 crowd.
Put the issue before highly educated people (judges, professors, lawyers, scholars, scientists) and the results are almost always the complete opposite. I suspect it's because highly educated people have that thing called a brain, which allows them to use reason and logic, to think outside the box and to think on their own.
That said, I look down on most Christians. :)
Nuf said.
Posted by: smack_the_homophobe on February 18, 2009 06:29 PMThe American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China ALL say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
Need I go on? So, before you make a monumental fool out of yourself, make sure you have the backing of the medical/psychological community.
Sorry. Don't ever dare compare a person's sexual orientation (which is not a choice) to a person's obvious CHOICE (a bad one at that) to be part of a cult like Mormonism and Catholicism.
No wonder most educated people look down on bible thumpers...
I agree! Especially given that the majority of votorers that cast their ballot for bambi didn't know that the democrats held congress since 2006!
Hells bells an educated electorate is what the democraps FEAR.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 06:43 PMFurthermore, whether homosexuality is a choice or not isn't relevent. Choosing to act upon it is.
Some might claim the killing cops is 'in their nature'. Maybe it is. BUT they they make a conscious CHOICE to perpetrat the killing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 06:49 PMPresident Obama! Damn, I love how that sounds! :)
Oh, thanks for the reminder that we "democraps" also control both houses of Congress.
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 06:51 PMThat would certainly explain why Obama was able to get a large percentage of the vote in this state,including the Christophobe troll above.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 06:55 PMThat said, no one thinks twice about Leviticus at an oyster bar, let alone over a shrimp louie at a fundraiser.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 18, 2009 06:56 PM
Oh geez... Acid is desperately playing the "compassion" card.... let me warm up ... la la la la... "Feelings. Nothing more than feelings..."
Exercising "compassion" for them, are you?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 07:08 PMROTFL. Let's not forget to mention wearing clothes made of mixed fabric, stoning adulterers, selling your daughter into slavery, and a whole list of other biblical commandments which the bible thumpers so conveniently ignore.
Here's a beautiful YouTube video for your viewing pleasure (warning to thumpers: may cause heart attack)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
Posted by: smack_the_homophobe on February 18, 2009 07:09 PMRegardless of my personal feelings on this issue, this:
As to genetics, there are people prone to violence and other anti social proclivities but society is not expected to honor their actions. Same sex marriage contradicts hundreds, if not thousands, of years of tradition and we should be very careful before changing a basic foundation of society, one man with one woman. While same sex couples can adopt or artificially inseminate, homosexuality runs counter to the need to propagate the human race and denies children the emotional and balancing experience of opposite sex parents. As we lower societal standards to accommodate homosexuals, what other rules of good order will we compromise? Polygamy? Free speech? Free association?
...is an impressive chain of logical fallacies, with an occasional supposition or two thrown in. And it is exactly what is wrong with the ensuing debate.
I'm also disappointed at how many in this topic are interested at proving the opposing side's motivations as hypocritical or evil. Are we this threatened by each other? I understand that we live in a culture where we've decided that internal consistency is enough to validate an opinion, and everything on top of that is a race to prove how godawful flawed your opposition is. But that's idiocy.
I have seen plenty of that idiocy in this thread so far. I haven't seen much at all in the way of defending the philosophical or evidentiary grounds of any of these sacred Opinions. That's kind of an unfortunate for a debate ostensibly about ethics and morals, isn't it?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 07:19 PMLife just doesn't seem to be going too well for homosexuals in the land of fruits and nuts.... and bambi.
Thank you for proving my point within ~5 minutes.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 07:27 PM"The Bible is only good for tearing the pages out and wiping one's butt with it whenever one runs out of toilet paper." - Jimbalaya Gumbo.
Mr. Gumbo is a deliciously mean one. Even *I* wouldn't go that far (maybe)... :P
Again, only its haters are quoting the bible to bolster their case. Quite revealing.
And I wonder, can you explain what is "educated nor civilized" about mocking the beliefs of a majority of the WORLD population?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 07:43 PMThe basic flaw with the gay marriage argument is whether it should be a "natural and legal right" versus an "inalienable right"- as Dannie McNamara did above when citing "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in his argument for gay marriage. Too many conflate the two and try to make the argument identical. Being against abortion or "pro life" is an inherent inalienable right while Mel sleeping with Stan and wanting their ahem "Marriage" to be recognized and sanctioned by the state is more of a desire to have a "legal or natural right" bestowed upon them.
Most libertarians don't even opine on this issue as they don't agree with the state sanctioning of marriage, legal or otherwise, last time I heard.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 07:49 PMFinish that refresher course on English 101, then maybe we'll talk.
Posted by: smack_the_homophobe on February 18, 2009 07:54 PM"For liberals, the issue is straightforward. If routine mockery of Christianity and abuse of its symbols, both in the U.S. and Europe, is protected speech, why shouldn't the same standard apply to the mockery of Islam? And if the difference in these cases is that mockery of Islam has the tendency to lead to riots, death threats and murder, should committed Christians now seek a kind of parity with Islamists by resorting to violent tactics to express their sense of religious injury?"
Basically, liberals are cowards and hypocrits, as aptly demonstrated by the ignorant poster trying to claim elite status in post #121.
Geert Wilders Is a Test for Western Civilization
Posted by: Bill H on February 18, 2009 07:54 PMGod, liberals are "fun".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 08:02 PMOh please, sweet cheeks. The typos are a function of the fact my computer crashed and I'm on another in a room with a less friendly "gaming" keyboard and far less lighting. I don't do change well.
Regarding my crash: I had several programs opened when everything locked up. I should have been able to control/alt/delete to shut them down and reboot but it wouldn't bugde... so after waiting forever (15 min) I pulled the plug. When I restated I had my background screen and NOTHING else: no task bar, no icons, no nothing. My explorer.exe file was G O N E. InfoTech is backed up with crashed computers.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 18, 2009 08:19 PMGod's word says of such people, "Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)
And while you're reading true wisdom provided by the Creator of the universe, you may want to continue down to verse 27, where His word states, "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Posted by: Saltherring on February 18, 2009 08:24 PMWashington state is fairly secular by most standards so this "religious oppression" red herring is meaningless and without merit.
"You do what you want to do, and let the rest of us do what we want to do."
Sure, as soon as you're able to get the initiative signatures needed to put it on the ballot, the initiative put before "the people" and the initiative becomes law.Simple really. Last time I checked, the "rest of us" was "we the people".
So what exactly is it that the "gay marriage" proponents are afraid of?
That is a fair argument, completely unnecessary flippancy aside. However, proponents of gay marriage could very well argue that their cause falls under "pursuit of happiness."
Semi-o/t: The inalienability of rights is, I imagine, not dictated to you exclusively by the Constitution. I mean, the Constitution does not make prescriptions about many areas where we hold deep senses of ethical obligation. And yet we obviously do. I agree that, because people will reject results on the basis of being "natural*" as opposed to "inalienable," oftentimes they are posed that way, even if it entails intellectual half-assery. It's an emotional manipulation -- it's easier to make a call to action when something is dictated (as "inalienable"), than when it simply follows (as "natural.")
But I'm rambling. I don't understand how your comments, while they provided the interesting "natural"/inalienable dichotomy, related to anything I said. I also don't see any basis for "self-enumerating"/natural/whatever rights to be inferior just because they are not explicitly dictated/inelienable. They are, being natural, that is originating from a baser philosophy, no less valid. They simply are less effective in getting people energized over an ethical issue.
* - I use "natural" here to mean relating to a natural extension of philosophy; that is, inherent. I don't mean "natural" as in "existing in the unmanipulated environment," since that would basically make that whole argument meaningless.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 09:39 PMIf gay marriage became legal, then the rest of us ought to be able to marry whatever or whomever we want like sheep, a dog, a goat or a deer, tree or a bicycle. The institution of marriage doesn't need to be distorted here. Give them civil unions and leave marriage to what it has always been traditionally. One simply needs to ask what are those who want same sex marriage fighting for ?
Posted by: KS on February 18, 2009 10:04 PMRespectfully, that is a question that is answered constantly in the dialogue over this issue. They see the non-recognition of "gay marriage" as a tacit implication that equating their unions with heterosexual unions would be harmful. They see it as a symbolic spite analogous to (but not equated to) "separate but equal" busing, etc.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 10:12 PM"That is a fair argument, completely unnecessary flippancy aside."
Perhaps you can point out the flippancy part, apparently I'm too flippant to have recognized it.
"However, proponents of gay marriage could very well argue that their cause falls under "pursuit of happiness."
Why? The government is not restricting them from having a relationship, it's merely not recognizing said relationship as a marriage before the law and placing it on par with traditional marriage between a man and a woman which has existed for ages.
The rest of your post was gibberish so I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson"
So, like I said, if they want "the people" to alter the existing law prohibiting this type of marriage in this state, put it on the ballot and the people will vote up or down...consent of the governed if you will. It's what the founding father's would have demanded afterall, wouldn't you agree Benjamin?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 18, 2009 10:33 PM2 gay guys getting married has nothing to do with my marriage - It will not hurt the sanctity of my marriage. Only I can do that... or my wife.
The only arguments against it aren't based in logic.
Not that you guys will agree. But there you have it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 18, 2009 11:01 PMPerhaps you can point out the flippancy part, apparently I'm too flippant to have recognized it.
I was assuming that "Mel sleeping with Stan and wanting their 'ahem' marriage" was flip. I guess you could very well have an equally jaded view of heterosexual marriage.
Why? The government is not restricting them from having a relationship, it's merely not recognizing said relationship as a marriage before the law and placing it on par with traditional marriage between a man and a woman which has existed for ages.
The rest of your post was gibberish
Hmm, really? Re-reading it, it follows fine to me. Whatever, maybe it's the Nyquil. Here the crux of my assertion:
Your distinction between "inalienable" and "natural" is interesting. However, "natural" rights are arguably derived from nature -- that is, how things are. The philosophical "nature" would imply the underlying bases of our ethical beliefs and legal system. I use this in opposition to the "natural" that would involve hantavirus and the urge to murder, and not vaccination or golf clubs.
Your argument seemed to juxtapose "inalienable" rights -- those defined in the Constitution -- against those "natural" rights. It also seemed to imply that distinction caused a "base flaw" in the argument. Why?
"Natural" rights are implicit extensions of those fundamental bases. "Inalienable rights" are, in theory, direct application of ideals (in theory) based on "natural" rights. Other than entailing an extra degree of separation, why is the latter inferior enough to cause the difference to constitute a "base flaw"?
And how does any of that relate to anything I said?
So, like I said, if they want "the people" to alter the existing law prohibiting this type of marriage in this state, put it on the ballot and the people will vote up or down...consent of the governed if you will. It's what the founding father's would have demanded afterall, wouldn't you agree Benjamin?
I'm really trying to make an ethical, not a political, argument. I do not like forcibly imposing my ethical beliefs on others, whether they are a majority of a minority. I do not like when people violate my ethical principals, either. In extreme enough cases, I, like most people, think that there probably should be protections against a majoritarian tyranny. What those cases are, and what those safeguards should be, are difficult to say.
But, again, I'm making an ethical argument. 50%+1 being a pretty arbitrary number, I am much more interested in changing minds than forcing my way. Whether that is the ethical recourse, I do not know.
(I don't want to seem like I'm dodging your question, but I did not think the truest response actually involved "yes" or "no." If you really care about a "yes"/"no" after that, I'll be more than happy to give you one.)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 11:02 PMDoh, missed an important part of your post.
Why? The government is not restricting them from having a relationship, it's merely not recognizing said relationship as a marriage before the law and placing it on par with traditional marriage between a man and a woman which has existed for ages.
Well, some gay folks are dissatisfied with that non-recognition. Like I've said, they feel that it implies inferiority or a damaging element to their union. And I'm sure you appreciate the idea of the "pursuit of happiness" being a deeply subjective thing -- that is why Tom Jefferson did not write it as "the pursuit of fishing, riding, violin, horticulture and walking." Your personal disagreement with its happiness-justifying does not remove the ethical onus to consider varying preferences.
As for the tradition argument. There are reasons tradition is beneficial, and they may manifest themselves in other arguments. But an appeal to tradition, in and of itself, is fallacious. It still must meet the burden of a demonstrable harm.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 18, 2009 11:09 PMI'm not going to waste a whole lot more time on this topic as I think my point has been made. The thrust of my argument is that this is a states rights issue and each state should be able to dictate through "the people" whether or not this 'union' is recognized. They've chosen not to put the issue before the people, but rather backdoor through an order by a few bureacrats which is cowardly and highly undemocratic. You, as a libertarian should be able to appreciate that even though your position is contrary to your claimed affiliation of limited government involvement in our lives. Color me confused, sir.
Opposition to gay marriage and abortion are going to increase, not shrink. Republicans are on the right side of both issues.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 07:16 AMDemocracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, so don't give me this 'cowardly and undemocratic' bit.
It's cowardly to actively resist removing restrictions on liberty that have no affect on anyone else in myI opinion.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 19, 2009 07:37 AM"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, so don't give me this 'cowardly and undemocratic' bit."
Why are you afraid of "the people" deciding the issue, Andrew? That is the only truly democratic process and the one that the proponents of gay marriage have refused to undertake, which yes, makes them cowards and ultimately, undemocratic.
"It's cowardly to actively resist removing restrictions on liberty that have no affect on anyone else in myI opinion."
Actually, it's cowardly for a proclaimed libertarian to whine about government sanctioning of any marriage whether gay or straight. You apparently are one confused libertarian.
Lastly, I'll leave you with the words of Bob Barr- Libertarian candidate in 2008:
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
Never thought i'd see the day when I out-libertarianed proclaimed libertarians on this board.
Anyone in the black community who is outraged by the comparison is both a bigot AND a hypocrite.
Homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. (Who on earth would choose to be gay when it means this kind of cruelty and discrimination? That doesn't pass the logic 101 test.)
The only choice involved is whether to be honest or live a lie.
You're entitled to answer to just as much as you want. However, I haven't ever claimed libertarian (or any) ideology here. Nor have I said that I have a position "contrary to [my] claimed affiliation" (remember that whole paragraph about how uncomfortable that makes me?) Nor do I really believe that all libertarians are unconditional supporters of majority rule. I hate to make a comparison to either slavery or "separate but equal doctrine," but they are good examples of a failure of majority culture to protect interests. Perhaps you believe popular vote should have been treated as completely sacrosanct in such a situation, too, but plenty of freedom-minded individuals do not. It does not mean they are hypocrites.
Either way, the thrust of my argument was entirely unrelated to any of this. I do appreciate your honest discourse. But I still don't understand what this all has to do with the first post of mine to which you responded. And even in subsequent posts, I do not understand why you keep banging the political gong when I'm arguing the ethical. Color me confused, too.
Bill Cruchon @ #142,
3 growing demographic groups are largely in opposition to gay marriage: Hispanics, Muslims, and African Americans. Opposition to gay marriage and abortion are going to increase, not shrink. Republicans are on the right side of both issues.
I see no evidence to support this contention.
Exit poll sample issues rear their ugly heads here (not that many "blacks under 30" in 1,200 given voters), but there are clear patterns. CNN had the gay marriage ban in California failing among young Latinos. Either way, those under 30 collectively rejected the ban 61%-39%. Those over 30 passed it 57%-43%. Either there will be a massive explosion in socially conservative young Latino/black registration (POST-Obama?), or we've already seen what the demographics on this issue look like, and they do not support your hypothesis.
With young whites supporting gay marriage at the tune of 2-to-1, mathematically, that requires an equal population of minorities opposing at 2-to-1. Latinos overall don't even oppose gay marriage by anywhere near 2-to-1. And blacks are not really a growing voter demographic, anyway.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 08:20 AMHow can someone of seeming intelligence say something so completely obtuse? Are we to understand that you advocate gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex anyway? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?
If I married someone of the opposite sex, it would only be to appease bigots. I would not love them in the same natural way I fall in love with my own gender.
I could do it. Most likely later I would end up having illicit sex outsie the marriage to fulfill who I am. I would resent my spouse and any children we had together because the whole thing would represent a lie.
Worst of all, I would ruin the life of that person because I would rob them of ever being loved as they should be, and teach those children that marriage is about living a lie of non-love to appease other people.
Is that honestly what you advocate? If so, say it nice and loud so we can all hear you, dingus.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 08:25 AMThere are many, many, children born to unwedded straight couples every day. In my line of work, I'd say about only about 60% of the babies I see are born to wedded couples.
Many gay couples also adopt or would like to. They want and need to be parents and again, go through monstrous hoops to accomplish that. Why deny a kid with no parents a loving home, nurturing, education and all that comes from that? It really makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Rae on February 19, 2009 08:25 AMYou aren't making the ridiculous leap between state recognition of gay marriage to the denial of inalienable rights to Slaves are you? That is a fallacious argument on its face.
No, he did not equate them. He provided an analogy to demonstrate the fallibility of popular vote, and an instance in which many people would find the ethical violation greater than the sanctity of direct democracy. An analogy, as you well know, is about the relativity of its components, not the components themselves. So, no, he did not make the bad (not sure about fallacious) argument that you're asking about.
Why are you afraid of "the people" deciding the issue, Andrew? That is the only truly democratic process and the one that the proponents of gay marriage have refused to undertake, which yes, makes them cowards and ultimately, undemocratic.
Again, he's trying to demonstrate (as I alluded to) that even civilly libertarian-leaning people can believe in protections against a tyrannical majority. Am I arguing that this is such an instance? No. I'm arguing that such instances demonstrably exist, so your continual treatment of this issue as an absolutist universal is wrongheaded.
It is "undemocratic," yes, although so is representational government as a whole. It's kind of sad to see "democratic," "freedom," etc., reduced to buzzwords. I guess that makes the Equal Protection Clause, and other matters intended to provide protections beyond majority votes, "un-American" or something?
Actually, it's cowardly for a proclaimed libertarian to whine about government sanctioning of any marriage whether gay or straight.
Why is that?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 08:29 AMAnother ridiculous piece of nonsense. Are you advocating that gay people ouight to live alife of forced celibacy to appease the likes of you? I want an answer to that.
And how about a gay couple who are in love and life a life of mutual caring, nurturing and respect together, but have no sex. Would that appease you? I'd like to know that too.
God gave me the capacity to love. He also made me gay. I think anyone who advocates me forcing myself to live a life contradictory to what God made me, particularly when doing so results in less love and more pain, is a person who isn't using their brain OR their heart.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 08:32 AMHey genius, neither sheep, dogs, goats, deer, trees, nor bicycles are consenting adult humans qualified to enter into the civil contract of legal marriage.
Actually, I'm for states deciding the issue. How is that an absolutist universal position? What you'd prefer is the Federal government (similar to abortion) deciding legally that gay marriage is an inalineable right, which again, it isn't. I would counter submit that it is your position that is actually an "asolutist universal" one and I agree, it is wrongheaded.
There are at least 4 states where Gay marriage is legal, so they are free to exercise free will and move to a state that recognizes their marriage [ where is my pro-life state by the way?]and quit prattling on in here about apples and oranges with regard to "rights" because clearly, some here can't discern the difference between them.
I notice you didn't include Muslims in your response to my comments regarding 3 demographic groups that are likely to remain opposed to gay marriage. I don't think you can make an argument that Muslims will favor gay marriage over time.
Neither do I...but it will be ages before the Muslim population is even a blip on the electoral radar outside of Michigan. And, like I said, it takes an awful lot of minority votes to neutralize the 2-to-1 advantage that gay marriage has among young whites. Besides, if current trends continue, Muslims and non-Muslim blacks would be the only ethnic demographics to oppose gay marriage.
I mean, Muslims in California (one of the more Muslim states in the nation) didn't even have enough voting numbers in 2008 to not be included with religion "Other." CNN surpressed the "Other" count for small sample size (6%) on their web site, but the official documentation has the ban failing the "Other" group. Nontheists (17% of the sample) are a faster-developing electoral group than Muslims. They support gay marriage at a rate probably not dissimilar to the Muslim opposition.
Demographic changes in voting electorate move it an iceberg's pace relative to how gay marriage support has increased over the years. By the time Muslims constitute enough of the U.S. population (if they ever do) to affect this vote, unless something changes the course of popular opinion, gay marriage will likely be a reality in all of the states where their population is significant.
Again, do you really think that these demographic changes will be cataclysmic or rapid enough to undo 2-to-1 support among young whites, even if that gradually erodes? Even in a minority-laden state like California, that seems improbable.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 09:00 AMActually, I'm for states deciding the issue. How is that an absolutist universal position? What you'd prefer is the Federal government (similar to abortion) deciding legally that gay marriage is an inalineable right, which again, it isn't.
First, the "absolutist universal position" thing was in reference to your confusion as to why anyone would support protections against unethical actions by the voting majority.
Second, I am not arguing that it is an "inalienable right" either (although you did never respond to my "pursuit of happiness" bit.) I am arguing that it is a "natural" right. You never justified the ethical inferiority of natural rights.
I would counter submit that it is your position that is actually an "asolutist universal" one and I agree, it is wrongheaded.
Have I actually advanced a specific position, here? Apparently, you've decided that I'm a libertarian and that I support federal gay marriage. Not only that, but I apparently hold these as an absolutist universal. Who knew?
Either you're confusing me with someone else, or you're going to have to tell me where you're reading into this all.
There are at least 4 states where Gay marriage is legal, so they are free to exercise free will and move to a state that recognizes their marriage [ where is my pro-life state by the way?]and quit prattling on in here about apples and oranges with regard to "rights" because clearly, some here can't discern the difference between them.
Two, actually. Two and a half, if you count California.
Anyway: I think there are better ways to addressing ethical debates than hoping the people who disagree with you up and move to Provincetown.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 09:10 AMI love this one:
Again, only its haters are quoting the bible to bolster their case. Quite revealing.
I guess warrenpeterson is a hater as he repeatedly quotes the bible to defend his stance against gay marriage. =p
Keep it up Ragnar, I haven't laughed this hard since we went about debating evolution being taught in schools.
Civil Unions are recognized in actually several states without the little word "marriage" attached to it. Why are people so petty that they can't have most if not all of the same legal rights and benefits of marriage with the "civil union" tag instead of "marriage"? Are people really that petty?
Connecticut: As of October 1, 2005, gays and lesbians are able to enter into Civil Unions in Connecticut. Civil Unions will give gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. Civil Unions are only available to same-sex couples.
In Vermont you can get a Civil Union. In 2000, Vermont legislature passed and Governor Howard Dean signed a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving these couples all the rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law but not marriage licenses.
New Jersey: On December 14, 2006 the New jersey legislature approved a bill allowing same-sex civil unions. Civil Unions became available in New Jersey in February 2007.
California: Gay and lesbian couples can register as domestic partners in California. Couples who register are eligible for many of the same state rights as heterosexual married couples, but only in the state of California. The rights of civil unions do not transfer from state to state like marriage does.
Hawaii offers reciprocal beneficiary rights to same-sex couples. Some of the rights granted are: inheritance without a will, ability to sue for the wrongful death, hospital visitation and health care decisions.
Maine instituted a domestic partner registry in 2004. Maine's law mostly benefits couples if one dies: inheritance without a will, the right to make funeral arrangements and the ability to be named guardian if partner becomes incapacitated.
Washington State offers some of the rights of marriage via domestic partnerships. The law takes effect July 22, 2007.
New Hampshire offers civil unions to gays and lesbians beginning January 2008.
Oregon passed a domestic partnership law, but groups opposing it are attempting to collect signatures to put the issue up for a vote on the January 2008 ballot.
Do it the Democratic way or STFU I say. Now, where is my anti-abortion state? I would hope you'd agree where "gay marriage" recognition is arguably a legal right, it is not [like the right to life] an inalienable/Natural right bestowed by our creator.
First of all, "Pursuit of happiness" is a fairly broad term and you'll notice that it specifies 'pursuit' of, not guaranteed happiness provided by a government entity so your equating "gay marriage" with being an inalienable right is bogus from the jump.
Out of curiosity: What would you consider to be "inalienable" under the "pursuit of happiness" item? Is equity, in situations where equity does not cause an unspecified level of harm, one of them?
For instance, would you consider the right to not be segregated in a bus an "inalienable right," or one subject to public vote/moving to another state and "STFU"ing? (I am NOT conflating the two situations, as I'm sure you understand.)
Civil Unions are recognized in actually several states without the little word "marriage" attached to it. Why are people so petty that they can't have most if not all of the same legal rights and benefits of marriage with the "civil union" tag instead of "marriage"? Are people really that petty?
How can you simultaneously maintain that it is "petty" to want equivalent naming, and that it is important to maintain a distinction?
[Snipped state stuff]
I've seen the Wikipedia article, too, but what are you trying to indicate with these?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 09:44 AMOnce you leave the liberal urban bubble however I doubt very much that young whites would favor gay marriage 2-1. Even in California the high number of young whites supporting gay marriage was not enough to pass Prop. 8. Notably in the midst of an Obama landslide.
Obama himself is smart enough not to publicly support gay marriage. He knows it is a kiss of death issue for Democrats.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 09:46 AMWell, yeah, under-30 voters were only about one in every five voters. They can't carry an electoral result singlehandedly. Trouble is, the current under-30 is going to be 50 some day and vote more.
I am not making up the 2-to-1 number from anecdotal observation. It comes from the California exit poll. National polls show similar rates, although obviously less heavy -- California leans left, after all. I can dig it up if you want, but a poll of those 14 to 21 (or something like that) showed even heavier support. And there is no indication that gay marriage support is falling within any demographic. If young Hispanics support gay marriage (as they did narrowly in AZ in CA), it's pretty much the death knell to your argument. Even in conservative Arizona, the gay marriage ban (which passed by a small landslide) failed among those voters under 30.
Unfortunately, the exit polls didn't ask for Katy Perry approval ratings. So, I can't tell you how much of that support involves girl-on-girl hipness, as opposed to genuine ethical conviction. Darn.
(For what it's worth, Facebook is pretty much ubiquitous among all sections of my cohort -- not just the tattooed, urban Diet Nietzsche set.)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 09:59 AMOne thing many of these posters who want gay marriage rights. haven't said zip about the Anti-prop 8 people who have gone after pro prop 8 supporters.
Some in the most extreme way.
Yeah were all equal now.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 19, 2009 10:02 AMI don't know what to say. I'm not responsible for the fact that deplorable people agree with me. Do I ask you to take responsibility for gay-bashers? I should hope not. I have no indication that you are not a decent human being. So what then, we are all political "enablers"? You don't have anything to apologize for. We don't.
I don't think that anyone who doesn't harbor sympathies toward evil, does.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 10:08 AMWho defines equity in this situation? Can't public drunkeness, public urination, indecent exposure or public sex also be considered "pursuit of happiness" as they in your words "do not cause an unspecified level of harm"? Certainly, but they are legally restricted.
I'm fairly certain Thomas Jefferson wouldn't consider government recognition of "gay marriage" as somehow restricing their "happiness"
even though they are allowed to freely move and engage in society in every societal capacity.
"How can you simultaneously maintain that it is "petty" to want equivalent naming, and that it is important to maintain a distinction?"
Easy. One has been a recognized institution for as long as Religion has been around. Simply letting gays use the term "civil union" rather than co-opting the term "marriage" from such an institution has them whining about some kind of separate but equal argument. Balderdash, it's simply two different terms distinguishable by verbage. Somehow conflating "segragation on a bus" [an action and violation of the Liberty principle] with semantic verbage is silly and petulant.
Using slavery to prop up gay marriage is going to (as has been shown with prop 8) produce "blowback" from the African American community but by all means, keep trotting it out as it only makes the DOMA side that much stronger. This is my final posting on the thread as I'm tired of beating this dead horse to death.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 19, 2009 10:21 AMI'm pretty sure that indecent exposure, et al., are illegal because they do cause harm. That basically was my point.
I'm fairly certain Thomas Jefferson wouldn't consider government recognition of "gay marriage" as somehow restricing their "happiness"
even though they are allowed to freely move and engage in society in every societal capacity.
So, you believe that the "pursuit of happiness" applies to only the most basic levels of autonomy? That is a valid interpretation, assuming you're consistent. Again, I was never really arguing on the level of "inalienable" rights. My ethical views are not exclusively enumerated by the Constitution. Neither are yours, obviously.
Easy. One has been a recognized institution for as long as Religion has been around.
Ignoring for the fact that marriage has hardly always been a primarily religious institution, you have to demonstrate some sort of empirical harm. You cannot just say, "it is good because it is traditional." That is a fallacy. Tradition may correlate with good things. It is not, in itself, an inherently good thing.
Simply letting gays use the term "civil union" rather than co-opting the term "marriage" from such an institution has them whining about some kind of separate but equal argument. Balderdash, it's simply two different terms distinguishable by verbage. Somehow conflating "segragation on a bus" [an action and violation of the Liberty principle] with semantic verbage is silly and petulant.
I'm kind of wondering what part of "I am NOT conflating the two situations" came across as unclear. :-P
My point was, you are essentially advancing that arbitrary inequality is acceptable as long as it does not violate "equal basic liberties." I personally feel that the right to equal verbage, in the absence of a demonstrable degree of harm (which we can discuss separately), is a basic freedom. That is my ethical view -- the focus of my assertions this entire time.
It is, to me, akin to saying that blacks had just as much right to ride the bus, their complaint was just about semantic seat positioning*. As if symbolic matters like that are inherently "silly," "petulant" "whining."
* - I am not arguing that the situations are ethically equal. I am arguing that the application of your logic in the two situations is contradictory, being inversely absolute.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 10:34 AMThe nuts are on YOUR side of the street, not mine!
If they do, we scorn them, your side gives them high 5's.
Just look at what they are doing in Calif. It's not a one time thing and it's still going on.
Your side well never get the vote as long as this type of child like responce keeps happening.
Even better. Go to any large leftwing website and disagree. Watch how fast the filth comes pouring out at you.
I do not have a "side," I have a belief. I don't advocate that abhorrent behavior. What can I do to stop it? Give me the time and the place.
In the meanwhile, let's not forget the gravitational pull of in-group bias. Next time I hear "faggot" in the hall of one of those lesbian-friendly Facebook public high schools, I'll try to, too.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 10:46 AMCan't be any faster than here...just look a couple days ago how Don Ward flipped out when I questioned his protest numbers. =)
This is the left...
http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
If any officer had done this during Bush you guys would have freaked out.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 19, 2009 11:13 AMI hope I'm wrong but wouldn't that be typical of the Hollywood left which never misses a chance to shove their leftist agenda down Americans throats? Might explain why the Oscars don't get the ratings they used to.
Bet it happens.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 11:22 AMLook, I'm not interested in playing this group ideology game. You can falsely attribute me with any collective attitudes you want. I have said flatly that I find this behavior completely unacceptable. You are entitled to disbelieve me. I have no idea why you would, but you can if you're determined to do so.
I don't think the "left" and "right" are drastically more hypocritical, groupthink-y, anti-dissent, whatever, from each other. I concede that I have no idea of how to determine that. I certainly don't think that we're going to prove it scientifically through random anecdotal examples. And if you think that one given instance like that says something significant about a massive group like "liberals," then I'm sorry to say your processing is totally ridiculous.
Anyway: If that is the "left," I want no part of it. Actually, hell, I want no part of it either way. I would prefer not to be endowed with group properties like "libertarian," "liberal," whatever, unless I choose that for myself. At minimum, I would prefer that my forced group membership be a reflection of my beliefs and not vice-versa. Then, maybe my opinions can stand as individual concepts instead of flotsam in the poisoned well.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 11:23 AMLook for me I could care less about gays who want to marry. Many in the US say no and you can still have a civil union. (sorry the words marry isn't it) It's stupid fight over a damn word, which tell me. It's not the word and the gays groups want!
As I've seen in my many years of life. The left just loves to play with words in order to get their way.
Benjamin I wonder, have you ever been to San Fran during one of the many gay events?
But the left live in an entirely different world. Cato is all freaked out still about whether there were 150 or 200 of us that turned out to protest the "stimulus" package on Monday. He can't let it go, and it is entirely meaningless. He is so obsessed that he lies about Don Ward's reaction. These truly are a different breed of cat.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 12:06 PMLook for me I could care less about gays who want to marry. Many in the US say no and you can still have a civil union. (sorry the words marry isn't it) It's stupid fight over a damn word, which tell me. It's not the word and the gays groups want!
I don't want to retread ground, but maybe you've read my thoughts on that already. I do think symbolism is important enough to warrant more than your total dismissal. Either way, there are few completely clear-cut ethical matters to me. This cause may be relatively trivial, but easy solutions are too few in the world -- accordingly, I think it should be pursued dogmatically. Even if it's just symbolism.
What do you mean by, "it's not the word and the gay groups want"?
Benjamin I wonder, have you ever been to San Fran during one of the many gay events?
Not that I know of. I've stumbled on pride parades/events in Vancouver and Seattle, but I didn't see any bad behavior. I'm sure it goes on. I don't really get it -- catharsis for kids who grew up feeling like they couldn't express themselves, maybe. I'm not sure it's healthy for them. I'm sure it isn't for their cause.
Then again, on the other 6,900+ days of my life, my interactions with gay folk have been as domestic as my interactions with straight folk. That includes the gay kids I know from school, my parents' gay co-workers, gay friends, etc. They seem placid and boring, overall. More Daffodil Parade than Pride Parade. The Castro just seemed to me like any upscale yuppie urban neighborhood. Gays are getting so suburban.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 12:23 PMSimple. Much greater rights than others. Again, look at calif and prop 8. Some people disagree and the gay mob comes out in force to shut down their voice. Far as San Fran. I've been there during a few gays stuff. Not there for that, but in SF it can really be in your face. One person who lives in SF. I think his website is Zombietime.. He went there for a few of these gay events and posted the pictures he took. It's nothing short of scary. See grown men having sex in the middle of the street in front of everyone and yes kids too. The SF police did zip. When he posted these pictures, the gay groups came after him with death threats. So yeah, I quite sure they want a lot more that a piece of paper that say's your married.
We have an a difference in initial bias, here. Your exposure to gays (apparently) has been photographs of lewd acts at pride parades. I'm sure you realize that's not even representative of pride parades, let alone gays in general. My experience has been with friends and associates -- most of whom are wonderful, compassionate, gentle people. I do realize that this, too, is not representative. No entire group could be as upstanding as the cross-section of gay folks that I'm privileged to know.
That having been said, we can both recognize that our samples are not pure, right? So, here's the question. At what point does a community become so troubled that you feel ethically justified in denying it rights, on the universal level? There are communities even more troubled than the gay community, where I imagine you would never use such a justification. I wonder why that doesn't cause even some discomfort.
For all of those nihilists and radicals you speak of, you must take responsibility for what you do to the multitudinous more decent-hearted gay people your actions affect. You could choose to not include anything beyond the radicals in your moral calculus. But in doing so, you assure that you will commit a wrong in the name of the cause.
And, as you correctly observe, there is all too much of that going on already.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 02:07 PMI'm a retired medic.... I know plenty about gays. (Good & bad) I have two close ones who live in LA. That's not the point.
There many that I have met who just want to be left alone.. like most people.
Then there is the other group who wish to force eveyone to see their way or else!
That's the problem. Which also affects the dem/lib party. It's the shock troops who want control and will do all they can to shut up others.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 19, 2009 02:14 PMSounds like the officer used his best judgment available to him at the time. Once he reported it the Secret Service has to investigate regardless of how small the indecent. I wouldn't have stopped him, but I'm not an OK police officer.
What the hell does the random act of some cop in OK have to do with Gay Marriage?
It's why the libs are pushing the "fairness doctrine" in their fanatic rush to push through their agenda in the shadow of the Obama victory.
Similarly they are going to try to enact gay marriage here knowing the people would oppose it in a public vote. The also are now proposing a state income tax which also would fail a vote of the people.
It's how these people do everything. If you don't agree you are a racist, homophobe, against children and old people...you name it. And instead of allowing dissenting voices the leftist storm troopers do what we've always known they'd do, attempt to crush free speech.
Any of this a surprise? Not to me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 02:39 PMMaybe you missed the death threats sent to the editors of The Stranger when they posted photos/addresses of Dino Rossi signs around Halloween as a joke. Drudge got wind of it and every right-wing Freeper nutjob was sending them death threats to Stranger employees home addresses.
There are crazy people who send death threats all the time. Welcome to the internet age. How many death threats do you think that freeloading lady who just had octouplets gets a day?
About as much as bringing up "Cariboo Barbie" on practically every thread.
If that's not the point, then why are idiots at pride parades "the point"?
I don't understand your second objection. I agree that people should not be subjected needlessly to things they find objectionable. That "in-your-face" stuff is completely unacceptable. But either you're arguing that it would be a behavioral "re-enforcement," and you have to defend the implications of such a standard, or it's a poisoning-the-well fallacy.
Which are you arguing? If you feel that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to set me straight.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 02:52 PMPosted by: Bill Cruchon
Bill, I have no opinion on polygamy. It has nothing to do with me.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 02:57 PMThey can yap all they want about the fairness doctrine but it's not going to happen. It's a dumb idea and Pres. Obama has already said that he's against it. This is the new Black Helicopter conspiracy issue for the right wing to rally around.
The also are now proposing a state income tax which also would fail a vote of the people.
Haha, good luck with that. Again, not going to happen. That would be the equivalent of political suicide in this state.
Similarly they are going to try to enact gay marriage here knowing the people would oppose it in a public vote.
No one voted on Interracial Marriage being legalized, you have a problem with that Supreme Court decision?
And instead of allowing dissenting voices the leftist storm troopers do what we've always known they'd do, attempt to crush free speech.
LOL! Now your really going out on a limb. Lay off the Art Bell there Bill.
I may disagree with you on a regular basis, but I fully support your ability to express your opinion freely and without consequence.
What kind of psychobabble is that? Kindly explain how two girls kissing is cultural destruction. I'd love to hear that.
Is the sky falling too? Must be those pesky liberals again.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 03:02 PMMedic/Vet,
If that's not the point, then why are idiots at pride parades "the point"?
I don't understand your second objection. I agree that people should not be subjected needlessly to things they find objectionable. That "in-your-face" stuff is completely unacceptable. But either you're arguing that it [gay marriage] would be a behavioral "re-enforcement," and you have to defend the implications of such a standard, or it's a poisoning-the-well fallacy.
Which are you arguing? If you feel that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to set me straight.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 03:02 PMBut she's so inspiring in so many ways...what a great role model for today's misguided youth. Anti-intellectualism, nepotism, encouraging abstinence only education through her unwed teenage daughter, being for something before you were against it and then lying about it. She is clearly the answer to all of America's ill's. =P
"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism."
I think he's a far greater authority on the subject of civil rights than any of you.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 03:10 PMWhat an ignorant copout. You seem to imply that anyone who kicks and screams has no right to. What's the basis for that?
So you'd be more comfortable if those gays would sit quietly and take whatever scraps of equality you deem them worthy of? Nice.
What a lousy, wretched argument. I suspect if you were on the receiving end of discrimination for once you might feel differently.
I'm gay, and I think the ones who sit quietly are cowards who lack the courage to demand the equality our constitution promises.
So sorry if those of us with a backbone inconvenience you.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 03:23 PMKindly explain how it is not.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 03:25 PMWhen you posit an assertion, the affirmative is generally where the burden of proof lies. Kindly explain how my cat is not culturally destructive, and you'll see why.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 03:29 PMBet it will if Mitt Romney ever runs for President. Just a wild guess.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 03:30 PMI refuse to assume the burden of proof. And let's leave our cats out of this.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 03:37 PMI'm glad to know I'm cute. How adorable do I get by pointing out that "traditional" does not innately equal superior (Appeal to Tradition)? Or by asking what evidence you have that same-sex attraction is against natural biology? Or by questioning your apparent equation of "natural" with "moral"?
I've been to high school, more recently than you I imagine, and I know what goes on. Trust me that passionate lesbian make-out sessions in the hall are hardly a part of "liberal culture." It is part of slutty culture, and sluts predominately don't vote (I don't have VAT stats to back me up, naturally.)
You can refuse to assume the burden of proof, right after you explain to me why you should assume a positive in the absence of a proven negative. How many rules of logic are we going to break in one post?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 03:43 PMCultural destruction would be something like Reality TV...it has it's high points but the majority of it is just cheap mass produced crap that they can throw on the airwaves in absence of paying someone to write a decent TV show with a plot. It hurts our children because now they think life is like reality TV rather than fictionalized reality that they see in TV shows with a plot. =)
Bet it will if Mitt Romney ever runs for President. Just a wild guess.
I'm more concerned about what the Mormon church does to members who decide to leave the flock. Polygomy is practiced by a small sect of Mormons. Think of it like Huckabee, he was a christian preacher and Presidential candidate but that doesn't mean Huckabee shares the same biblical philosophy as David Koresh.
Bill believe in the rules of logic because they're not natural and go against thousands of years of cultural tradition. =P
Bill refuses to believe in the rules of logic because they're not natural and go against thousands of years of cultural tradition. =P
It's your assertion, Bill. I think that leaves the burden of proof on you. If you can't back it up with something based in fact, logic, or reason then it's just empty, opinionated blather.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 03:58 PMWhat I will argue is that the left has pushed homosexuality as part of their campaign to undermine the traditional family. The left seeks to promote homosexuality particularly among adolecents who are just awakening to their sexuality and are easily influenced. Legalized gay marriage is but the culmination of that effort.
I don't think gays and lesbians should be burned at the stake, or denied any rights should they decide they want to be life partners. That is their right. I know wonderful committed gay and lesbian couples and I support their desires.
However I believe marriage should be reserved for couples of the opposite sex.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 04:02 PMI can't say anything against the internal consistency of your argument. I am...skeptical of the idea that the left is organizing a mass cultural brainwashing campaign to spite the "traditional family" and convert teenagers to homosexuality. Moreover, I don't understand how you can "support [the] desires" of gay couples if you think their relationship undermines the family.
But, regardless, have no delusion: The cultural acceptance of homosexuality among the young is not because we see it on MTV, or because the media shoves it down our throats. We have gay friends and, for whatever reason they're gay, we do not see it is a threat to our relationships. Some of us even see them as potentially being loving parents of their own. I personally would much prefer that than a generation of gays that feels forced into assuming the role of a heterosexual just to have the privilege of a normal, family life.
But I guess you can judge motivations for yourself. It's easy enough to convince yourself that our morals are a byproduct of our cultural environment. But so are yours. You may not want to have a protracted conversation about the ethical repercussions of your belief with us, but I do hope you will have one with yourself. Cheers.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 04:11 PMCue Art Bell and the Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists.
The left seeks to promote homosexuality particularly among adolecents who are just awakening to their sexuality and are easily influenced.
No one is promoting homosexuality, it's a natural progression of a minority group become more accepted as part of general society. Do you object to braille in elevators or women in the workplace? These were once taboo subjects but with a vocal minority came into gradual acceptance.
I don't see you calling out Caribou Barbies grandchild as leading to the rise in the acceptance of out of wedlock teen pregnancy. Looks like you're preaching a double standard here.
I know wonderful committed gay and lesbian couples and I support their desires.
Except their desire to get married and live like every straight couple in society.
Please keep up the sound logic!
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 04:16 PMI think some commentors here are being less than honest when they deny that the left promotes homosexuality. The left has also promoted and glorified single parenthood "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" for years. That glorification and promotion of single parenthood has left urban black communities in ruins with 70% of children growing up in single parent family homes. Liberals don't care because they know they've created a permanant dependent voting bloc to help them bloat government. The left doesn't care how many young blacks die every weekend as a result. It's sickening.
It's why the left is overjoyed that Sarah Palin has a daughter who is an unwed mother. They blubber all over themselves saying, "see, see, family values, nyah, nyah, nyah".
It isn't that hard to figure out.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 04:39 PMBeing that there are plenty of children in need of adoption, how exactly is this a pro-single parent argument? More importantly, how the heck is gay marriage relevant to single parentdom in any respect?
Again, this is a big mess of poisoning the well. It sounds to me like you are letting your opposition to an ideology get in the way of supporting a cause that it may be right about. That's a big moral danger, as far as I'm concerned. You disagree?
It sounds to me like you are more interested in attacking tangentially related liberal positions, and defending your position here on the basis of spiting liberals, than in addressing the ethics of the position itself.
I guess, under your construct, the burden to disprove me lies on you?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 04:53 PMApologies for being a little unfair in the prior in assuming motives. I am very sick today. My bad side is probably showing.
But I genuinely do not see how any of this ranting is related to the ethics of gay marriage. I'm not against ranting, by all means. Love it. But before I do it, I want to have some idea of how it's related. I don't want to misconstrue your argument. But I don't know if I understand the point of your argument enough to misconstrue it.
The single parenting thing seems an argument for gay marriage to me, not against, so color me confused, Bill.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 04:57 PMNo one is overjoyed, we're just calling you out on your blatant hypocrisy. No one likes a hypocrite, especially if it involves a politician.
Do you feel that picking a Vice Presidential candidate with a history of nepotism and a pregnant teen daughter is a good way to reinforce the idea of strong conservative family values the GOP has been preaching for the last 30 some years?
Back to the subject:
How is it that supporting domestic partnerships with all of the rights of marriage is not enough?
Why is it that homosexuals will not be satisfied until they change the traditional definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years?
I think those are the central questions here.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 05:16 PMHow is it that supporting domestic partnerships with all of the rights of marriage is not enough?
Why is it that homosexuals will not be satisfied until they change the traditional definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years?
I hope you won't mind if I rehash old posts, but they're on-point:
Respectfully, that is a question that is answered constantly in the dialogue over this issue. They see the non-recognition of "gay marriage" as a tacit implication that equating their unions with heterosexual unions would be harmful. They see it as a symbolic spite analogous to (but not equated to) "separate but equal" busing, etc.
Optional stuff...Regarding the rebuttal that these rights are "natural" (originating from underlying philosophical holdings) and not "inalienable" (explicit within the realm of legal doctrine), as it relates to ethics:
Your distinction between "inalienable" and "natural" is interesting. However, "natural" rights are arguably derived from nature -- that is, how things are. The philosophical "nature" would imply the underlying bases of our ethical beliefs and legal system. I use this in opposition to the "natural" that would involve hantavirus and the urge to murder, and not vaccination or golf clubs.
Your argument seemed to juxtapose "inalienable" rights -- those defined in the Constitution -- against those "natural" rights. It also seemed to imply that distinction caused a "base flaw" in the argument. Why?
"Natural" rights are implicit extensions of those fundamental bases. "Inalienable rights" are, in theory, direct application of ideals (in theory) based on "natural" rights. Other than entailing an extra degree of separation, why is the latter inferior enough to cause the difference to constitute a "base flaw"?
How about that?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 05:21 PMCivilization fundamentally has to be defined by certain standards. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been one of those standards. It isn't just something imposed by Christians. It has existed throughout recorded history as far back as the Egypt's Old Kingdom.
Again. No one here is calling for denying gay people their fundamental rights. The argument surrounds the relentless crusade of homosexuals to change the definition of marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 05:54 PMA dog spokesman declared, "we've got four legs and a tail, what f#@%ing right does the government have to tell us we aren't cats if that's what we feel we are. It's in the Constitution!"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 06:07 PMBenjamin, could not one use that same "Inalienable rights" argument to support polygamy, or the marriage of siblings?
I didn't use an "alienable rights" argument. I was arguing that it was a "natural right."
Either way, I suppose they could. This is where you extract the libertarian (or whatever) from me. I really don't think such a culture-based issue should be the government's concern. If I had my way, government would be concerning itself with (at most) providing safe, stable homes to children -- not creating needless political battles over differently-interpreted words.
But this isn't really an argument against gay marriage, so much as against an individual type of support. Defining marriage as "between two consenting, unrelated people" is no more arbitrary than "a man and a woman." It therefore applies only to those who reject these types of marriage, while believing that anyone should receive "governmental" marriage if they can prove consent. That is not my argument, that is not my belief.
I don't know where I indicated that it was either.
Civilization fundamentally has to be defined by certain standards. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been one of those standards. It isn't just something imposed by Christians. It has existed throughout recorded history as far back as the Egypt's Old Kingdom.
You are committing a fallacious Appeal to Tradition. Unless you can explain to me why defining by those certain standards is a positive thing, your argument is specious. You could not, for instance, conclude that reducing tax rates is bad just because the tax rate has always been 15%. That may be an indicator that such a situation is effective. But having always been that way does not make it better. Unless you cannot analyze it beyond that shallow level, that's both useless and intellectually unsound.
It also comes across to me as a convenient way of ignoring that Western civilizations (including two U.S. states) have instituted gay marriage, and that we can evaluate for cultural impact on those grounds. Assuming there is no observable detrimental impact, what's the problem?
Again. No one here is calling for denying gay people their fundamental rights. The argument surrounds the relentless crusade of homosexuals to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
I understand that you're arguing that. Do you understand that I believe an unfounded inequality, even if only in verbage, is also unethical? If so, I think we can stop repeating that for each other. It seems pointless.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 06:20 PMHAHA! That's about the level of absurdity this "marriage" vs. "Civil Union" semantic masterbation debate has taken us.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 19, 2009 06:20 PMI note your admission that polygamy and sibling marriage apparently is ok, or as you put it, "I suppose they could". It "shouldn't be the governments concern" you say.
I'm a conservative. I like limited government. I don't like anarchy and I certainly don't favor the absolute abandonment of the foundations of civilized life that libertarians seem to.
Hey, let's just let all those pit bulls everyone has these days run free.
Please folks, don't ever, ever vote for Libertarians. They are insane.
Err, you note incorrectly. Did you not read the entire rest of that paragraph?
That is...the part where I said:
That is not my argument, that is not my belief. I don't know where I indicated that it was either.
And that doesn't even get to the very-valid question of how you'd infer "the absolute abandonment of the foundations of civilized life" from that...
I mean, huh?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 06:49 PMFor example:
"I didn't use an "alienable rights" argument. I was arguing that it was a "natural right."
Either way, I suppose they could. This is where you extract the libertarian (or whatever) from me. I really don't think such a culture-based issue should be the government's concern. If I had my way, government would be concerning itself with (at most) providing safe, stable homes to children -- not creating needless political battles over differently-interpreted words.
But this isn't really an argument against gay marriage, so much as against an individual type of support. Defining marriage as "between two consenting, unrelated people" is no more arbitrary than "a man and a woman." It therefore applies only to those who reject these types of marriage, while believing that anyone should receive "governmental" marriage if they can prove consent. That is not my argument, that is not my belief.
I don't know where I indicated that it was either."
Good god, I hope you aren't teaching people at some local community college. My guess from reading that kind of language is that you likely are.
Say what you mean for crying out loud! It isn't all that difficult. The english language can be mercifully brief and to the point. Liberal academics have long escaped that simple truth and have put generation of students to sleep.
Liberal academics love to drone away endlessly when they could perhaps have made their point with a few choice sentences.
OK, dude, whatever. I'll talk to you exactly like I would a kid in my class. I don't know what part of that all tripped you up -- arbitrary? -- but I was trying to be precise. I don't think there was much redundancy, but whatever. Sorry. Here's plainer English.
Your argument doesn't oppose gay marriage. It points out a potential contradiction between:
1. Supporting gay marriage on the basis that two people who want to get married, regardless of who they are, should be able to; and,
2. Opposing incestuous marriage.
Trouble is, I never said I agreed with #1. So I was asking why you were bringing it up. And that was the point of the whole thing. Since I never argued #1, you're arguing against a strawman. And even if you weren't, it would be an argument against an argument for a concept, not an argument against that concept.
I do have a question. How much clearer than that is not my argument, that is not my belief could I have gotten?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 07:40 PM"You are committing a fallacious Appeal to Tradition. Unless you can explain to me why defining by those certain standards is a positive thing, your argument is specious. You could not, for instance, conclude that reducing tax rates is bad just because the tax rate has always been 15%. That may be an indicator that such a situation is effective. But having always been that way does not make it better. Unless you cannot analyze it beyond that shallow level, that's both useless and intellectually unsound.
It also comes across to me as a convenient way of ignoring that Western civilizations (including two U.S. states) have instituted gay marriage, and that we can evaluate for cultural impact on those grounds. Assuming there is no observable detrimental impact, what's the problem?"
Unless I miss my guess dear readers Benjamin is one of the people that brainwash your children, (or hopefully just put them to sleep), at any institution of "higher learning" you might be paying for.
That long-winded snooty impossible to understand diatribe is familiar even after nearly 40 years. Liberal academic-speak at its finest. I couldn't stand it then, though I still thought I was a liberal. I certainly can't stand it today. You don't have to be the dullest tool in the shed to recognize it.
There isn't a cure for these people really. I'm thinking maybe a couple mandatory months in Butte. That might do it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 08:00 PMHah! Did I ever nail it? Of course Benjamin is a teacher. How could I possibly have known it?
I can't even comprehend his latest:
"Your argument doesn't oppose gay marriage. It points out a potential contradiction between:
1. Supporting gay marriage on the basis that two people who want to get married, regardless of who they are, should be able to; and,
2. Opposing incestuous marriage.
Trouble is, I never said I agreed with #1. So I was asking why you were bringing it up. And that was the point of the whole thing. Since I never argued #1, you're arguing against a strawman. And even if you weren't, it would be an argument against an argument for a concept, not an argument against that concept.
I do have a question. How much clearer than that is not my argument, that is not my belief could I have gotten?"
Uh, perhaps understanding my fundamental position. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It's that simple.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 08:11 PMOh and then you attack Benjamin for using intelligent language, evidently because he is running logical circles around you and you can't keep up (i.e., don't have a logical leg to stand on). I'm still waiting for you to counter most of his points with any logic or reason.
And ah, the old chestnut of "traditional marriage." How traditional would you like to stay? Do you advocate women being marriage chattel, mere property traded in exchange for goods or social status? Or maybe you prefer the level of tradition where interracial marriage was against the law? Please. We have changed the definition of marriage plenty of times. I think we can all agree that each change was an improvement. So will it be when we allow gays access.
You sound exactly like the person who in the 1940s or 50s said, "Marriage is between a white man and a white woman. Period." Again, empty opinionated drivel, unsubstantiated by any logic, facts, or reason as it pertains to allowing committed gay couples access to legal marriage in modern American society. Is that the best you've got?
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 19, 2009 08:11 PMYou misunderstand. I'm in community college, not teaching it. I'm nineteen years old. Not that it matters, at all.
I was not intending to be unclear. I read each of my posts twice for clarity. I don't think it was unclear, but it is my own writing, after all. I am used to discussing things with people who use very precise writing -- Orange County Republicans, actually, many of them, heh.
If there's anything I failed to adequately explain, please give me an opportunity to try again. Even if I was too wordy, you should have just told me and asked me to rephrase. I would have done it.
What did I did to warrant so much harshness from you?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 08:18 PMUh, perhaps understanding my fundamental position. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It's that simple.
Wait. I said "that is not my argument, that is not my belief." You asserted it was. I asked you how I could have made it clearer, besides saying it outright. You responded with this. How is that related?
Also, in response to your saying:
Again. No one here is calling for denying gay people their fundamental rights. The argument surrounds the relentless crusade of homosexuals to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
I replied:
I understand that you're arguing that. Do you understand that I believe an unfounded inequality, even if only in verbage, is also unethical? If so, I think we can stop repeating that for each other. It seems pointless.
And now you're claiming (in a response to something totally unrelated) that I don't understand your argument? As in, the one I just contrasted with my own, and responded to?
I don't really think academic babble is where your problem lies, here...
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 08:32 PMYou don't know me. You have no idea what I'm talking about. Instead you attempt to equate objection to gay marriage to racism.
Understand this. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it. Gays can have all the rights everyone has. They cannot have marriage.
I guess a good question for you and other liberals would also be " Do you advocate women being marriage chattel, mere property traded in exchange for goods or social status?" Of course we don't, and you know it.
However, I don't see you or any other liberals protesting that practice in a religion that is increasing its presence in this country. It's amazing how silent you liberals are. It's much easier to pick on Christians. Isn't it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 08:32 PMCan anyone translate that into plain english?
Bet you can't.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 19, 2009 08:37 PMYou seem a lot more interested in making fun of my writing, than understanding my beliefs.
Here, because I was being honest when I said I'd restate anything I stated inarticulately:
Unfounded = Not founded
Inequality = Something that is not equal
Verbage = Words (especially in the sense of excess)
Unethical = Not ethical
So, basically: I believe that unjustified equality, even if it's "just a word," is unethical.
I don't really think that was complicated at all. I had to ask what you meant a few times, and I was not a jerk about it. At this point, you've made fun of my writing (before even asking me to rephrase anything), called me a "brainwasher," and talked to me like I wasn't in the room. And this is all because I'm wordier than you liked? Why not just ask me to tone it down?
From all I've read on SP of yours, you're better than this. Again, what did I do to deserve this?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 19, 2009 08:44 PM"Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it. Gays can have all the rights everyone has. They cannot have marriage."
I ask one very simple question: WHY NOT?
You can repeat the same thing 20 times but if you don't back it up with some kind of logic, reason, or factual precedent then you still haven't said a hill of beans.
Believe what you want, but until you back it up with reason you are just being discriminatory for no reason other than what appears to be insecurity on your part. (If that's not the reason then please, enlighten me.)
And I'd love to hear your response to my earlier post:
Rep. John Lewis, longtime ally and close associate of Martin Luther King Jr., has written and said:
"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism."
Thoughts?
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 06:22 AMYou say you're in an interracial marriage. So surely you either know personally or can imagine all too well the pain and unjustness of someone saying to you, "Marriage is not meant for mixing blacks and whites" (or whatever the races are for you). You might also hear, "You can have equal rights but marriage is for two people of the same race. Got that?"
How would you or did you feel hearing that? Well that is exactly what you're doing to gays: you're trying to keep two people in love from having civil equality because you have a personal distaste for it.
Tell me how it's any different.
Lousy hypocrite! You of all people ought to know better!
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 06:32 AMAbsolutely not, as you should have gleaned from more than one of my posts.
I have no objection whatsoever to civil unions. I do object to the legal union of two people of the same sex being called marriage. It is not.
Your stubborn refusal to allow that particular word to be granted to gay couples is coming across very strongly as, "You can be ALMOST my equal, but you will forever be one step less than me."
If that's not it, then please, give me one reason based in logic or fact why gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same status as you (marriage) in the civil, secular world we share. How many times do I have to ask?
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 08:15 AMBecause marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Marriage is the union of two individuals of the opposite sex, not the same sex.
It is not a matter of "equality" but that is how you and others wish to frame the argument.
I have no desire to deny you or your partner any of the rights that married people have. What I am saying is that you can't call your partnership a marriage. That simply is not the definition of the word. Make up a new word for it if you like. You liberals are good at making up new words. Let your creative juices flow!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 08:26 AMOn to your marriage comments. Bill, that is so weak. You have given absolutely not one shred of logic or reason as to why a gay couple can't be called "married" in the eys of the law.
Listen, I fully understood the first time you said that as of today a marriage at a U.S. courthouse can only be a man and a woman (except in MA and CT). That is our current law. (It was never unclear to me.) So all you have stated--repeatedly--is the obvious current reality.
What I am asking (for about the 5th time) is WHY must the term "marriage" remain exclusively for male-female legal unions? Why can't you answer that?
It is exactly the same thing as when prior to 1967 (1948 in CA) someone could have said to you, "Marriage is the union of two individuals of the same race, not different races."
Again, I invite you to explain how it is not the same.
I'll be happy to cease using the words "Caribou Barbie" together when Ragnar stops calling the sitting President obambi or some other mockery of his name. That's not going to happen, so I might as well enjoy myself while I'm here.
Cato will never admit that he fundamentally hates Sarah Palin not because she has an unwed daughter or because of some "nepotism" he doesn't explain but because she is a Christian and opposes abortion and homosexual marriage
Who is also a hypocrite, like I said earlier nobody likes a hypocrite (especially one who is a politician)
President Reagan made the case for family values and held his family up as an example. Caribou Barbie on the other hand can't even keep her stories straight much less preach about strong family values.
Because marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Marriage is the union of two individuals of the opposite sex, not the same sex.
That's not how it is in Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, England, and South Africa. The countries listed fully embrace Same Sex marriage.
t is not a matter of "equality" but that is how you and others wish to frame the argument.
Sure it is, you have every right afforded to you under the law as an individual except the right to marry your partner who happens to be of the same sex.
What I am saying is that you can't call your partnership a marriage.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." - William Shakespeare.
You want to re-define the word marriage to mean something other than it has throughout history.
Marriage must remain as it has always been defined. It describes the ultimate committed union between members of the opposite sex. It is the foundation of families and in most cases, but not necessarily, the continuation of the species.
I am not saying that homosexuals should be forbidden from having committed relationships. Call it whatever you want. Marriage is between people of opposite sexes. How many times do I have to say it. It is not changeable. Changing the definition might make gays happy but I can't imagine anything more selfish.
Have a union. Adopt children if you want. I don't object, and I would give you my blessings. But in the name of reason don't demand that we change the meaning of a word.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 09:49 AM
So let me get this straight, you fully support the "undermining of the traditional family" and so called "family values" as long as same-sex couples don't call it "marriage"? LOL!
Am I going to get an explanation for your angry outburst (was it really just over wordiness?) Or have you decided that, now that I'm a person instead of a cultural stereotype, it's too inconvenient?
I've re-read our interchange from yesterday (with a clearer, less medicated head) and I still find it totally inexplicable. I would like to move on and earnestly continue our discussion. Although, if you keep arguing fallacious reasoning such as "it's traditional," what's the point? You're not arguing on sound logical terms; you're repeating an opinion over and over. No wonder you're growing tired of the argument.
In case you need more links to verify that your argument is fallacious, here they are: 1,2,3,4,5. That is not, by the way, a matter of opinion. It's a matter of logical operation.
In any case, I hope that we can continue this conversation civilly -- and productively.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 20, 2009 10:13 AMOne more time. I, (and I think most other conservatives would agree), have no desire to deny homosexuals the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What I object to is the lefts' crusade to change the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, "family values" are important. They are the glue that has, until recently, held civilized society together. What changing the definition of marriage is really about is further destroying the traditional family, which the left constantly mocks because, like the church, solid families reduce dependence on government. The reasons the left screeches about "separation of church and state" are the same reasons they champion single parent families and gay marriage. It strengthens the power of their god, which is an ever larger, controlling, government.
When the traditional family breaks down, as it has in the African American community as a result of the welfare "Great Society" programs of the left, the result has been that 70% of African American children are now born to into single parent families. That's why Seattle's Central Area is a war zone, and why a young friend of mine and former co-worker was murdered early Monday morning on Cherry Street.
Liberals will never admit that their deliberate unraveling of the fabric that holds civilized society together has consequences.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 10:26 AM"You are committing a fallacious Appeal to Tradition. Unless you can explain to me why defining by those certain standards is a positive thing, your argument is specious. You could not, for instance, conclude that reducing tax rates is bad just because the tax rate has always been 15%. That may be an indicator that such a situation is effective. But having always been that way does not make it better. Unless you cannot analyze it beyond that shallow level, that's both useless and intellectually unsound."
"Unless you cannot analyze it beyond that shallow level".
I was 19 once.
I voted for McGovern.
I was teasing you because you were murdering the english language, as most academics are prone to do.
They feel compelled to write in a manner that leads people to either the medicine chest or the liquor cabinet.
Write simply and clearly. You'll get your point across. It worked for Hemingway.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 10:45 AMAnd a bigot:
I actually want to put gay people into the stocks and throw rotten fruit at them.
Welcome to the life of Bill.
You didn't take my comment about throwing gays into the stocks seriously. Now come on, you didn't really, did you?
Says the white man living in his comfortable suburban home.
The CD is a war zone because of drugs and gangs fighting over territory to sell drugs. Sometimes innocent bystanders like your buddy get killed as a consequence.
From what I've read (I did not know him personally) your old co-worker was raised in a single parent household (Single mom w/ 2 kids, 1 kid still in HS). He chose to do the hard work and made money doing it by reinventing himself as a high-end party promoter rather than joining the gang bangers on the corner making the easy drug money.
Eight people have been slain in the CD since Jan. 1st, 2008...including your friend. Gay marriage has nothing to do with those deaths, it's all about opportunities and personal choices. Some kid has a bad day in the CD, he shoots a small business owner and does a drive-by on his ex-girlfriends house. That's how life is when you have no legit opportunities and everyone idolizes the bling-bling lifestyle.
How many small businesses actually exist in the CD? You have Ezelles, some Ethiopian Restaurants (frequented by Ethiopian cabbies), an occasional barbershop/salon, and that's about it. I don't see the community center offering up courses in traditional business skills or computer classes.
It has nothing to do with gay marriage, it's all about personal responsibility and the right opportunity...something your co-worker saw and took advantage of.
What you did went a little beyond teasing. It came across more as bullying to me, actually. I mean, always hard to tell on the Internet. But, I mean:
Unless I miss my guess dear readers Benjamin is one of the people that brainwash your children...There isn't a cure for these people really. I'm thinking maybe a couple mandatory months in Butte. That might do it.
Nothing against Butte (had some of the best Mexican food I've ever had there), but I've seen bar fights start for less.
I'm writing simply and clearly, now. I sent the paragraphs you were making fun of to three friends to torture, and they found them wordy, but understood what they meant. They found the paragraph you just quoted perfectly clear. I mean, "spurious"? And the sentence structure isn't particularly complex. But, whatever. Is this better for you?
In any case, does this get to mean that I get to make fun of you for making the same argument repeatedly, even though it clearly is fallacious? How many more times are you going to force me to type the word "fallacious" anyway? My "L" key is broken. Have a heart. And actually reply to my arguments, if you're going to complain about repetition.
Cato @ #241: C'mon now. I said that, not Bill. And Nyquil is legal in this state. :)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 20, 2009 11:14 AMHey Cato. I publish my name every time I post here. You can find out where I live and it ain't exactly in the "suburbs".
Do you have prejudices? I rather think that you do. Just once in a while it might not hurt you to examine your own biases and preconceived notions.
You choose to blame drugs for the problems in the CD. Of course you do. Liberals never admit their ideas do not work. The traditional family structure, a value system that promotes learning and achievement have been destroyed by liberalism. It's why liberals spend so much energy hollering about "separation of church and state", and sneer at traditional family values. Your constant hammering about "Caribou Barbie" is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about.
I think you know it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 11:29 AMI value my family and friends higher than most every other thing in life. I don't think it is the job of any elected body or religious institution to be their proxy. I do however have a major problem with using a meaningless soundbite of a cliche like 'family values' as a substitute for a brand of policy and legislative decisions that are ultimately intended to exclude and harm other people. It's not consistent with my values to extend acknowledgment to some of my family but not others. It is consistent to expect personal responsibility from all of them, and to acknowledge all of them equally based on our shared commitment to each other.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 20, 2009 11:43 AMLake City is suburbia compared to the CD...look at the crime/murder rate.
Just once in a while it might not hurt you to examine your own biases and preconceived notions.
LOL, coming from the man who posts this in the very same thread...
Liberals never admit their ideas do not work. The traditional family structure, a value system that promotes learning and achievement have been destroyed by liberalism....clearly you are a hypocrite.
You choose to blame drugs for the problems in the CD.
Maybe you should go hang out down there some time, the market for drugs is clearly there. So are the gang bangers and lack of clear opportunities.
Your constant hammering about "Caribou Barbie" is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about
She's a hypocrite, just like yourself. At least my views are consistent with my beliefs and lifestyle. I'm not some old white guy living in suburbia blaming the Democratic Party for society's ill's. I don't blame either party, I blame peoples lack of personal responsibility (which gay marriage like any other marriage can help remedy).
I just find it amusing that the reigning Conservative philosophy leans towards having people shoot each other rather than "wasting money" having the same people shoot hoops or learn solid business skills at the local Govt. run community center.
There are very few opportunities in the CD, there are very few if any small businesses in which to learn a trade. You could go over the hill to Community College and drive yourself into debt with student loans or you could make good money on the street with little or no risk to yourself. Most people in the CD choose the later.
If they're too lazy to gather the signatures to put it on the ballot and put it before the voters, then they're less serious about having a "marriage" and more concerned with whining about rights they already enjoy.
Quick! Someone call a WAHHHHMbulance
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2009 12:07 PMYou have not given even one reason WHY the word marriage must be reserved only for male-female unions. You've basically jusy said, "Because."
That's not good enough.
Either you have a good reason--in which case I'm waiting--or you don't in which case let's all have it clearly out on the table that you want to withhold civil marriage equality for gay couples with no good reason.
If you're getting tired of the question, answer it and I'll stop asking.
You can't make a statement like, "Marriage must remain as it has always been defined" and then not have a reason why. WHY must it remain that way?
You seem to hold the family dear. Great, so do I. You've also stated that gay couples can commit to each other and raise kids and you don't mind. THAT is a family. You have stated no reason that gay couple needs to be called anything different than your family.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 12:25 PMHow could anyone possibly know that, Cato? You are a deliberately anonymous troll that has never given us the least bit of personal information.
"Personal responsibility" goes hand in hand with family values and I don't disagree with you that a gay family can also have those values.
As for being "some old white guy living in suburbia" how incredibly offensive is that comment? You liberals aren't judgemental in the least, are you? I do enjoy it when you display who you are for all to see.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 12:33 PM
I've explained as best and as politely as I can why I believe marriage should be only between members of the opposite sex.
I didn't think it would be necessary to give a graphic biology lesson. You should be able to get it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 12:45 PMI guess you're going to have to take me at my word, my views have been consistent since I started posting here.
You asked me to look you up, I did. Now I called you out for who you are you can't handle the truth? Not my fault.
You liberals aren't judgemental in the least, are you?
I don't recall ever saying I was non-judgmental. God is judgmental and according to you we were supposedly created in his image. Therefore all people liberal and conservative are judgmental in nature. It's human nature, not isolated to political philosophy. Nice dodge though.
personal responsibility" goes hand in hand with family values and I don't disagree with you that a gay family can also have those values.
So let them get married and live like any other family with all it's ups and downs. Why get hung up on the "institution" when you support giving them all the same rights as hetro couples. =)
You have also once again today said something about me that I've never said, "God is judgmental and according to you we were supposedly created in his image". I've never said any such thing on any thread.
You also have not apologized for misquoting me on an earlier comment, Cato.
Arguing about issues is more than fine with me Cato. However you do what liberals so predictably do. Instead of defending the merits of your position you resort to personal attacks.
I'm sure you also support shutting up talk radio. Just a wild guess.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 01:10 PMFor the most part you've done nothing but state the current status of the legal meaning. That has nothing to do with why it needs to stay that way.
Your last comment about a biology lesson seems to allude to you believing the word marriage may only apply to a couple that sports both a vagina and a penis. There is no logic in that. Any word can apply to either or both unions. In CT and MA and Canada and a host of other countries the word marriage is used for both straight and gay unions, and the world is not crumbling.
That's all I'm asking for, Bill, some logic to back up your view. You have none. At least be a man about it and admit that.
P.S. Please stop lumping everything you don't like under the liberal heading. It shows a lack of ability to differentiate. I'm not Cato. If you can't debate individual points on actual merit then like I said be a man and admit you're wrong and in over your head here.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 01:22 PMSo do you or do you not believe man was created in God's image? Let's get it out right here that way I won't have to assume based on your prior stated positions. =)
You also have not apologized for misquoting me on an earlier comment
Ok, I apologize then for calling you a drug user based on your reply to Ben's comment. =)
I'm sure you also support shutting up talk radio. Just a wild guess.
We went over this already in this same thread, have you already forgotten? It was only 71 posts ago. =P
I can vouch for that. =)
Love,
Cato
Hung up? Marriage has been an institution spanning the length of human existence. It has never, ever been defined as anything other than the union between people of opposite sexes. That is until the lunacy of the 1960's began to infect our culture.
Back to my original thesis: People in this country, if they are allowed to vote on it, will not support gay marriage. Muslims won't vote for it. Hispanics won't vote for it. Many African Americans won't vote for it. Most Americans that live outside cities dominated by liberal lock-step thinking won't vote for it.
Liberals will try at this moment of political momentum to push it through via the back door as is happening here in Washington.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. They don't care if the Canadians or the Dutch favor it. And they shouldn't. Canadians only have state run TV news via CBC. Does that mean we should have that too? (oh wait, that's exactly what liberals want).
We disagree. You want marriage to apply to same sex couples. I don't.
Instead of the name calling, "be a man", you should at least respect my position.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 01:43 PMI don't like raisins but I don't blame liberalism.
Come on Dannie. One of the things I find most annoying about liberals is that they get upset when they are called out. I know darned well you are a liberal. That isn't something to be ashamed of. I think liberals are wrong and I can indicate why I believe so.
As a conservative I'm used to being stereotyped. Cato did it just today on this thread, calling me an "old white guy living in suburbia".
When I discuss liberalism and its consequences such as the destruction of the African American family I can point directly to liberal policies and if you wish quote statistics.
We can have an intelligent discussion and respect each others positions or we can resort to name calling and stereotypes.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 20, 2009 02:04 PMYou don't know that for a fact, how many cultures have come and gone throughout history. You're telling me that not one of them ever allowed gay marriage? Seems a rather pretentious statement coming from you.
That is until the lunacy of the 1960's began to infect our culture.
LOL, damn you Nixon! Or maybe it was Civil Rights, do you want to eliminate civil rights Bill?
People in this country, if they are allowed to vote on it, will not support gay marriage
Then why does it keep failing by smaller and smaller margins? Why did Prop 6 fail back in the 70's? Times change, people change, culture changes. People today are much more accepting of same-sex individuals and couples than they were 40 years ago. People are no longer hiding out in the fringes of society desperate not to let anyone know they're gay. Police no longer bash down the doors of gay bars and drag men/women into the streets. In fact the Seattle pride parade gets bigger every year. They even moved it downtown to accommodate the larger rowds.
These days openly gay people work, run businesses, hold elected office just like straight people do. Eventually people will afford them all the rights of straight people.
In the 60's when you voted for McGovern did you ever think you would see Black men holding the top spots of both political parties? How about a Hispanic Attorney General? Times change, attitudes change, and so does society in general. It's just a matter of time.
I have held my tongue about conservatives because I don't want to stoop to your level of unfair generalizations. Yes, I identify as a liberal and proudly so, but I also firmly believe that the best and truest answers often come when liberals and conservatives put their heads together, identify their common, shared desired outcomes, and solve things together with ingenuity, fact, logic and reason. Neither camp has all the answers.
I don't say "Be a man" to insult you. I say it because your position is nothing more than discriminatory opinion based on emotional reaction, which is not enough to deny me a right you already enjoy. Not in America. The way I was brought up, when you make a mistake you act like a grown up and you admit it and take responsibility for it.
But you're not. You continue to cling to your position, even though it's discriminatory toward me, and then have the cajones to say I should respect your opinion? Get bent. I'd happily respect a simple difference of opinon if your opinion wasn't throwing me under the bus.
You can't even begin to see that you're acting in contradiction to the equality promised me by our great constitution. If you believe in this country then act like it! Stop denying gay couples what you already have based on some silly prejudice that you can't even articulate.
It makes my blood boil! This is my life you're carelessly dismissing! Respect your opinion?? Not when it reeks of bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy.
I'd think being in an interracial marriage you might understand. But evidently now that you've been let in the club you're content to stand guard at the door and keep others out. What a coward. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 20, 2009 03:09 PMI'm not sure if you saw my comment with the links. You're continuing to argue tradition, without explaining why tradition makes this issue (gay marriage) desirable. Repeating a logical absurdity doesn't make it sound. In fact, that itself is a fallacy (argumentum ad nauseam). If you're not willing to play within the bounds of logic, no wonder this is becoming as tedious for you as you say it is.
To cut to the chase, you keep repeating two themes:
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
2. The existence of minority groups will make gay marriage a perpetual "loser" of a political issue.
You've done a bit to explain #1, although when those points are challenged, you revert to just re-stating your opinion as if it were evidence, or using the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. That stops the conversation from moving forward.
As for #2, it's an interesting thing to discuss (even if it's ethically irrelevant), but you seem to have stopped engaging me on that, too. You just said something about Muslim population growth (with no numerical support), and then dropped the subject. That stops the conversation from moving forward.
In conclusion, either engage on those specifics or you'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the conversation will not move forward.
And, I can't help but notice that...
We can have an intelligent discussion and respect each others positions or we can resort to name calling and stereotypes.
...stereotypes are no longer "teasing," now.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 20, 2009 03:12 PMBesides the ranting and raving my favorite part is:
"but I also firmly believe that the best and truest answers often come when liberals and conservatives put their heads together, identify their common, shared desired outcomes, and solve things together with ingenuity, fact, logic and reason"
Translation? Watch out whenever liberals talk about "common,shared outcomes" or "bipartisanship", or "dialogue". These are code words for "we will make sure you see things our way".
I've tried for a long time to have "dialogue" with the left and you can see above how it works;
"It makes my blood boil! This is my life you're carelessly dismissing! Respect your opinion?? Not when it reeks of bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy."
I never said any of the things you have made assumptions about Dannie but liberals rarely are respectful of opposing opinions.
All because perhaps there is some reasonable objection to changing the definition of marriage. Not in any way denying rights to gays and lesbians.
I think this thread has run its course.
Would you direct the same arguments you have mounted here against your Muslim friends who surely are also opposed to gay marriage?
Would you call them "cowards", or tell them they should be "ashamed of themselves" for thier views?
The obvious answer is that you would not.
Just a bit of food for thought.
I'm disappointed that you chose to ignore me, and instead decided to lump all people who disagree with you into one group. It almost seems as if you're interested in addressing opinions in proportion to how easily they can be dismissed.
Unfortunately, because of your choice, I suppose this will have to serve as my final comment.
Hopefully things will work out better on future topics -- I've enjoyed your posts in other threads.
All the best.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 20, 2009 06:08 PMHeterosexual people could still get married in their church if they so choose, but nothing is really legal until they go and sign a "domestic union" contract.
Homosexual people could gain the same rights and legal status by signing the same "domestic union" contract. Churches would not be forced to "marry" them because the state no longer regulates that religious ceremony, just like the state doesn't regulate baptisms or bar mitzvahs.
"Marriage" is a religious ceremony and deserves to be protected by deregulating it.
Posted by: blindman on February 20, 2009 08:25 PMIn EITHER case, mind your own damned business. Let the various churches/temples/etc perform religous ceremonies (or refuse to do so) over such as they deem worthy for one reason or another.
Let the state issue civil marriage licenses as the only *legally* recognized marriage to such consenting adults as are desirous of such unions - regardless of gender or orientation.
And then, as good small government conservatives, let us tend to our own knitting.
Posted by: GC on February 22, 2009 08:22 PMI would say, "marriage" is also a civil ceremony, open to atheists, and it deserves to be protected by dereligionizing it. After all, the religious already have "holy matrimony" and that should be good enough for them.
Posted by: Dannie McNamara on February 24, 2009 06:32 AM