> who desire same-sex partners having
> the same rights as people who
> desire opposite-sex partners

Clever new wording, but I believe this has been covered here before....

I may disagree with you more than I agree, but you are right on the money on this one, Amy

Hey, you don't have to be a religious fanatic to find the idea of a bunch of 6 year olds attending a gay marriage distasteful and smacking of indoctrination.

liz - less so than attending a showing of "Bambi". Or anything promoting the "happily ever after".

I'm amazed that anyone thinks that California is the "anything goes" state. All sorts of people there are eager to tell you what to do and how to do it, and to make laws that enforce their ideas.

Marriage is such an emotional word with such powerful connotations, particularly to religious people. I've long maintained we'd be much better off taking the word out of the public realm completely.

What all states should do is offer civil unions to any two consenting adults with capacity to make a contract. It should be governed by the law of contracts, and confer all legal rights that "marriage" does now.

Religions would then have the right to define the word marriage any way they wanted, as a sacrament, a covenant, or anything else, and to restrict it to anyone they desired. None of what they decide about marriage would have any legal effect, since the law wouldn't recognize the word "marriage", only "civil union".

And if religious nutters didn't like that, the stock response to them should be "What are you getting mad about? The law takes no position on marriage at all. You have full control over that word now. Do with it what you will." Any religious organization that had an issue with civil unions would transparently reveal their discriminatory bias, and could easily be ignored.

"Hey, you don't have to be a religious fanatic to find the idea of a bunch of 6 year olds attending a gay marriage distasteful and smacking of indoctrination." Are you confusing gays weddings beta-zed weddings (Star Trek reference Diana Troy).

I'm personally for cpabroker suggestion. It would removed the linguistic semantics from the debate and answer the questions on both sides. First does the church have an issue with the definition of marriage or do they hate gays? Second does the gay community want equal rights or are they trying to stick it to the church that rejected/hates them?

The government should have no stance on marriage. However, since it does, it should be available, in civil form, to both hetero- and homo-sexual couples. The question of whether the marriage ritual is available to homosexual couples should be left up to the religious institutions.

some of the comments here are mind-boggling. besides, why deny them the right to be miserable?

"Gays should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexuality." Gays should not be denied the rights of a married couple. There is a big difference. As per the equal rights statutes they have to have the same rights but the word used to define these rights are not mandated. As longs as civil unions are equivalent to marriage and legally enforced in all states there is no violation of equal rights.

As to what would Jesus do. Oh I think there would be a great deal of hostile conversations with the church leaders of almost all christian sects. Mostly about the unwritten sub section to both the commandments and the new testament. Like that the gathering of vast personal wealth in the name of the church is not what was meant by being prosperous. Or that love thy neighbor still applies if they are gay, Muslim, black etc. "He that is without sin cast the first stone" applies to all your sins and not just the ones you committed today since you woke up. My personal favorite to watch would be the "You told them my wife was a WHAT ?" conversation. After that I would agree that he would attend to many weddings gay and straight.

"Straight people should be allowed civil unions." They are, that's the type of marriage that you get in front of a justice of the peace. They are not however consistent across all states which is part of the gay marriage dilemma. All states recognize marriages from other states but do not always recognize civil unions in the same way.

Agreed, that's why I think since marriage has a historically religious connotation (setting legal presidence) that the states should treat all marriages and civil unions the same, as civil unions. Regardless of what you call it as long as they are the same in the eyes of the law I fail to see an issue.

Amy,
If you actually care about saving marriages you should advocate repealing no fault divorce.

Repealing no-fault divorces won't save marriages. My ex-husband and I wanted a divorce in NY, which doesn't have them. So we agreed to lie and say we were divorcing because I committed "constructive abandonment," which means I wouldn't put out. Not true, but apparently, not putting out is good enough to get out a marriage in NY.

MonicaP: Actually that is a no fault divorce.
http://tiny.cc/USQE5.
The no fault divorce is where you don't have to prove that XYZ happened. There are varied requirements for no fault divorces across states but basically no evidence means no fault.

Interesting. When I asked my lawyer, he told me there wasn't. Thanks for the info.

Still glad to be out of it. I probably would have 'fessed up to beating him with a hammer if it meant a way out of that mess.

Actually I take it back it depends on when you got divorced. NY is in the middle of divorce law reform.

"I only care that children are raised in intact families." Actually it might help a little bit with that. If a divorce is harder to get then a marriage that has become tepid and boring will last longer without no fault divorces. But the reverse is that a really bad marriage may also last longer as proof is required to end it. Conniving manipulative people are really good at hiding it, and make for really bad marriages. Double edged sword as with most legal actions.

I wonder what the consequences would be if the terms for divorce were written into a marriage contract itself. Say, two people agree beforehand that they can divorce for any reason whatsoever as long as there are no children, but there has to be evidence of abuse afterward. It would still allow manipulative people to extend marriages that should die, but, at the very least, it would force people to think (and talk) about what they expect from marriage.

I know more than one couple that has married in the eyes of the church, but they don't have the benefit of government piece of paper.

One couple did it because marriage would screw them because of government pensions. He's military retiree, she's on SSI. They would reduce her benefits and he isn't in great shape either.

So there are arguments for both sides.

Years back (1990?) the State of Ohio took out common-law marriage because gay couples were going to use it to get marital status in Ohio.

I think that prenuptial agreements should be mandatory for all marriages. That would make people think about the unpleasant possibilities of divorce and how it will all work out in the end. Marriage as far as the state is concerned in nothing more than a legal contract. Good legal contracts have and escape clause and terms explicitly spelled out. I think it would be best if the same went for civil unions and marriage should be used to refer to the church aspect of the union. There should (as per the constitution) a separation of church and state thus legal and spiritual marriages should remain separate. Fundamentalist Mormons use the same thing with regards to polygamy.

I am not anti-gays. I am re;igious, but think that there is no evidence being gay is a worse sin that gluttony or greed, for example, so why really worry? That said, every society has some form of marriage. ANd no society in history has had gay marriage, not even the most gay-friendly ones like ancient greeks. There might be a reason that at no point, throughout all of time, have gays been allowed to actually marry. I would not dismiss that out of hand.

As for the legal rights of married couples, any couple can get those same rights with 2 exceptions(discussed below), by filling out a minimal amount of paperwork. If you're too damn lazy to do that, I don't think you get to whine about your lack of rights.

You can't fill out paperwork to make your company cover your gay partner with health insurance. You also can't force your company to cover your spouse, that's a decision each company makes based on what makes financial and recruitment sense to them.

Second, you can't fill out paperwork to get the married tax exemption. The US gives a tax break to marrieds because it is good for the country to have committed married people raising kids. I'm not saying it's working, but that is the logic behind the cut. Gay people by definition aren't going to become parents without a lot of intervention, so where is the benefit to the state?

Just things to think about, before blindly assuming it's a good idea.

Actually gay marriage was legal in Rome till 342 AD when it was banned by Christian Emperors Constantine II and Constans, Rome had two of them at the time.

As far as insurance, yes this varies by company. However you have to either not cover the spouse and kids at all, IE NO family plans or you have to cover same sex couples and their kids. Otherwise there is a legitimate discrimination case. You can not deny coverage based on sexual orientation.

"Gay people by definition aren't going to become parents without a lot of intervention, so where is the benefit to the state? " Do you mean donor sperm or adoption? Actually if they chose to adopt the state has a very clear benefit as do the tax payer, less children in state care. Also by definition gay parents will not become pregnant by accident so the likely hood of abandonment or termination is almost no existent. If the choose donor sperm or other more drastic measures (IVF etc.) then why do we cover hetero couples who just have to have that one extra child when biology said no? Again discrimination based on sexual orientation. If it's ok for barren straight couples why then is it a big no no for same sex couples.

By the way, the best way to "save" marriage is to forget trying to deny rights to gays and lesbians and start working on convincing married straight people to stop running around on each other and getting divorced.

Absolutely. One of the complaints from the homophobe crowd is that gay marriage somehow makes a "mockery" of marriage. I submit that if you want to prevent mockery, the first step should be to forbid any couple to get married if both of them are members of the Screen Actors Guild.

One aspect of the No on 8 ads bothers me a little. They claim that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with what kids are taught in school. Well, yeah, the proposition itself doesn't say anything about that. But c'mon, guys--if gay marriage is legal, at some point kids will be informed about that fact by their teachers. The proper response to that is not "it won't happen"; it's "so f***ing what?".

Apropos this post and the previous one:
http://dullard.blogspot.com/2008/11/confidential-to-cowardly-sign-thief.html

Yup went to Catholic school for Pre-k through 8th grade. Learned nothing about it in public school after that. Well except that if you get a girl pregnant the right thing to do is marry her. Everyone kept lauding one guys decision of that type which I agreed with.

vlad: the Nerds have informed me of your heinous mistake. Counselor Troi's first name is Deanna.

(If you've met Marina Sirtis in person, you wouldn't forget that. Surprisingly more wonderful in person, when not handicapped by stupid dialogue and uniforms!)

My bad. Though I never had issue with the uniforms, the dialogue occasionally.

"Hey, you don't have to be a religious fanatic to find the idea of a bunch of 6 year olds attending a gay marriage distasteful and smacking of indoctrination."

No, but you need to be closed-minded - unlike the parents of these kids. Since when did learning about people different from yourself become distasteful? Are you saying that same-sex marriage might be catching?

I think THIS qualifies as distasteful and smacking of indoctrination:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/28/proposition_8

I was raised Mormon and have always considered it to be a loving and peaceful religion. But, now I have been completely heartbroken by what they are doing to support Prop 8. I read on the No on Prop 8 website that the LDS church has raised $20 Million. I consider that to be $20mil worth of discrimination.

Now this idea is mostly my imagination running away with me (and is not based in any real scientific research), but just consider - - - the world is becoming more and more overpopulated. There is not as much need for the human species to procreate. As part of the evolution of humans, more and more people are being born homosexual (thus biologically reducing the ratio of procreating adults - - - although not reducing the desire for people to be parents :).

The Mormon church (and many other faiths) promotes marrying young and breeding often. There were many families in my ward growing up that had more than 5 children. If the LDS church is so concerned about LGBTs infiltrating their lives, then maybe they should consider the possible natural results of overpopulation before popping out another little rugrat.

I have voted NO on Prop 8 and I encourage all other Californians to do the same. Against gay marriage? Don't have one!

Was it literally gay marriage, in rome? Same as man/woman marriage? I'll have to read up on that.

I used to be knee-jerk pro-gay marriage. Then gave it some more thought. No one thought giving unmarried moms welfare would encourage women to have more kids while unmarried. The notion was considered absurd. Yet here we are, and that's exactly what happened, to the detriment of society. So I submit the law of unintended consequences needs to be given serious lip-time before changing a societal norm so drastically.

"So I submit the law of unintended consequences needs to be given serious lip-time before changing a societal norm so drastically."

Um, what do you envision happening if we "allow" gay marriage??

It's not what one might imagine. No one imagined black illigitimacy rates of over 70% when they opened up welfare. It's what we can't imagine. Hence the "unintended consequences" law. There are infinite effects of every action, most of which can't be fortold. When it's a government making the action, all those effects then affect every citizen, like ripples in a pond. I find the people saying there will be no difference if we allow it, to be somewhat naive. There will be differences. The question is what?

Allow is in quotes why? We don't allow it now, if the law is changed we will. Simple.

I agree with prop 8, and was aware of the opt out for kids attending the marriage in California. So that wasn't so much an issue with me, except the claim of "homosexuality won't be taught in schools, okay, let's go on a bus and see some get married." But you can opt out. And I'm VERY aware of the two edged sword public money represents if you take it. Someone gets to hold that sword over you, doesn't matter if you're a charity. And we need to crack down on those evil/stupid charities! ; )
So, I'm just very concerned if SSM is classified the same as HSM (with weight of anti discrimination laws) will there be religious exemptions? Will my beliefs, what I teach my kids, be classified "hate speech" and acted against by bureaucratic and legal motions and agendas?
Yeah, tell me how I live in the land of make believe. Tell all your friends. And pray to the great government bureaucracy in the heaven that is the district of columbia. Maybe they'll rain fire down on unbelievers who question where its all going.

Momof3 - I think allow is in quotes because this whole idea that we are "allowing" people to have rights that they should have already is somewhat ludicrous. I guess we had to "allow" mixed race marriages too, and that concept is now considered absurd, by most of us.

Yes, apples and oranges if you look at marriage as a societal contract like Crid, I think, proposed. But if you think that concept is outdated, like I do, then it is the same thing.

You don't allow people to legislate discrimination into our constitution. It doesn't matter if 51% of people think it's right or it's wrong. It's contrary to human rights. It shouldn't be in the hands of voters at all.

The same argument applies to your unintended consequences smoke-screen. Welfare is not a human right. Nor is marriage. I, too, am for civil unions for everybody and "marriages" for church folk. But equal rights, not equal but separate rights, is what we've been going for as a nation. We don't get to deny people their human rights because something we don't anticipate might happen.

Our nation is in a time of ignorance and fear that I believe will prove to be an embarrassment. Much as few today will admit to being against equal rights for blacks, 20 years from now, I think people who voted for 8 will lie their asses off about it.

Again, as ever, this blog chatter is all about trying to horn in on some of Rosa Park's roghteousness, without all that pesky risk.

Christina: "Momof3 - I think allow is in quotes because this whole idea that we are "allowing" people to have rights that they should have already is somewhat ludicrous. I guess we had to "allow" mixed race marriages too, and that concept is now considered absurd, by most of us."

Thank you, that's exactly right - though I could have been clearer. The world "allow" suggests to me that we'd be conferring some sort of favour. I think its ludicrous for people to even think they have the moral right to ban a subset of people from doing something that everyone else has the right to do.

As for unintended consequences: are we going to stop doing things because, somewhere down the road, there may be unintended consequences although we can't think of what they might be? There are unintended consequences, in the form of prescription drug addictions and negative side-effects, to most medications - but we don't stop them being used, or stop researching new drugs. There may well be unintended consequences to banning same-sex marriage - but why should we curtail the happiness of a group of people just in case? And I have to say I've racked my tiny brain over this for the past several hours and I cannot for the life of me come up with a negative result.

Six years ago I was the "best woman" at a same-sex civil marriage ceremony for two friends. Since then the only consequence of the marriage that I can see is that they're happy, and that they have the same legal rights as any married couple. What's not to like?

And frankg - news flash. Sexual orientation cannot be learned, in school, on the bus, in church or anywhere else.

Homophobia and bigotry, on the other hand ...

Sorry, "righteousness". It was at work, busy day.

> news flash.

A warning of half-witted sarcasm...

> Sexual orientation cannot be
> learned

Says who? If anything, anything has proven to be a better check on sexual misconduct than community response, I missed the study. ...The college study, the one in the official-looking binder with the Latin on the title page. The one that explains to you how human nature works.

-

No, I didn't read all the comments in this stack. The word "homophobia" in the title sets the tone...

Read any good Mencken lately?

PS- Gays have always had the same right to marry as anyone else.

See you in Hell, suckers!

Orientation = sexual misconduct? Oh no.

Amy asked: "Would you find it "distasteful" for children, with their parents' permission, to attend a wedding of a straight teacher?"

Yes, I would. I think that it is a ridiculous waste of school time. If you want to teach children about marriage (not that I think it really has a place in the classroom) you would be better off having the kids read letters between Abagail and John Adams or something that illustrates a life-long emotional partnership between two people, gay or straight. I think most weddings are disgusting displays of narcissism, but I understand that I am in the minority on that score.

But it is nice to hear that I have been demoted from a religious fanatic to just plain "ignorant" and having a dark ages mentality. It it true that I find the Early Middle Age fascinating.

As for whether or not I support gay marriage, which is what you all want to know anyway, I would be comfortable with civil partnerships for gays and straights. If you want your church community to recognize this partnership, that is your own business, meaning churches have the right to marry who they see fit.

> which is a ridiculous argument

Notice she didn't call it a fallacious argument....

Sexual orientation cannot be learned - catspajamas

Says who? - crid

Well then crid I just have a few questions.

When did you choose to be strait?

Given you are biologically attracted to both sexes how were you 'trained' to respond only to the opposite sex?

And finally given that no indocrination can ever be 100% how often do you find your training slipping and thinking lustful thoughts of members of the same sex?

> When did you choose to be strait?

You mean straight.

> Given you are biologically
> attracted to both sexes

No such thing is given. You're making things up.

> how were you 'trained' to
> respond only to the opposite
> sex?

It's more that I was trained to respond appropriately.

> And finally given that

By whose judgment is this "given"?

> no indocrination can ever
> be 100%

You mean indoctrination. My point is that the pressure we put on each other has great impact on behavior. Yeah, sure, I'm indoctrinated: For a couple evenings in 1972, I felt destined to walk down the street feeling up pretty girls for the rest of my life. Fortunately, my orientation was fine-tuned by the surrounding culture. Worked out for everybody.

Okay, Amy, just to apologize...
The last two sentences of my first post were sarcasm. I wasn't clear on that. Just all the knocks about worshipping a make believe power that will reward me for being good reminded me of my social security, how it may not be there, or my 401k shrinking (my faith in meddling big government is waning, please heal me : ) ).
As to the rest...
Intimidation to not take a stand. Don't question. Or be labeled a "hater". "Bigot". Activists using the public dime-my taxes-to squelch any disagreement by legislating or judging, etc. some kind of morality. Its a matter of whose morality.
I disagree. I disagree with this political agenda. And, as I've noted on other forums I've visited, but didn't say here, my kids would be free to choose when adults. With choice comes consequences, some eternal. They would be free to decide. Sometimes it seems that gays are told that they CAN'T decide. Once gay, you must be that way for life. To change is to go against some nature, something natural. But its an argument that takes away choice. (P.S. I'm not into radical "deprogramming" therapy I've only heard hints about used against someone's will). I've seen news reports in the 90's treating people who left a homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual one as something unnatural.
And again, will there be a religious exemption or will anti discrimination laws be brought to bear?
So I go meet some MORE homosexuals. If they don't ask, I don't belabor them about my religion. But if explaining it becomes unlawful...and that's what I fear it will come to.

The news reports I mentioned previous post were ABC news with Peter Jennings. Just so you know.

//> When did you choose to be strait?

//You mean straight.

Fair enough, now answer the question

//> Given you are biologically
//> attracted to both sexes

//No such thing is given. You're making things up.

If you werent attracted to both sexes there would have been no need for training

//> how were you 'trained' to
//> respond only to the opposite
//> sex?

//It's more that I was trained to respond
//appropriately.

//> And finally given that

//By whose judgment is this "given"?

Mine, mental heath professionals

//> no indocrination can ever
//> be 100%

//You mean indoctrination. My point is that
//the pressure we put on each other has great
//impact on behavior. Yeah, sure, I'm
//indoctrinated: For a couple evenings in
//1972, I felt destined to walk down the
//street feeling up pretty girls for the rest
//of my life. Fortunately, my orientation was
//fine-tuned by the surrounding culture.
//Worked out for everybody.

And yet with all that pressure you still cant seem to turn homosexuals, might it be that sexual orientation is therefore not a learned behavior?

Damnit thiught I got them all

//> how were you 'trained' to
//> respond only to the opposite
//> sex?

//It's more that I was trained to respond
//appropriately.

Again why would have needed training if not attracted to the same sex?

Yes, I think we SHOULD stop messing with crap without knowing the consequences. Especially in medicine: First Do No harm, anyone? For damn sure the government should, given that it's unintended consequences fuck us all over. Most societal ills we have today (generational poverty and welfare dependence, lack of school achievement, drop-out rates, drug use, boys having no male role models and having to go search for them on the street, ending up in gangs and all that attendant violence, etc) came from that one decision to not discriminate on the basis of marriage when giving welfare. Marriage is no more a human right than welfare. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Don't see hand-outs or marriage in there anywhere, do you? Society decides what benefits it and legislates accordingly. What benefit to gay marriage for society, other than shutting up some whining?

As I said, I have no issue with it as far as being anti-gay, since I'm not anti-gay. I have issues with what shit we may have to thank for it in 20 years.

Last time I checked, our rights were conferred by God, according to our Bill of Rights. Yet religion holds no place? Patently absurd. Amy, you are falling more into absurdity every day.

Once again, where is marriage a right? Do point it out to me when you find it. I won't hold my breathe though.

Over 95% of the world believes in some god. So, over 6 billion people are wrong, but you happen to be right? Any bookie want to take odds on that one? Anyone at all?

momof3 'marrige' is not a right, equal protection under the law IS

If hetero couples get special privlages under the law thru marrige it is illegal not to give gay couples the same

All people currently have the priviledge of marrying the opposite gender. No discrimination there. No one is assured the "right" to marry for love. There's a good argument to made for not doing so. Marriages based on other things tend to last longer. Makes for less divorce when the bloom wears off.

I personally voted against the gay marriage constitutional ban here in TX. I just think the knee-jerk lib school of thought (giving it no thought) is erroneous. The true libertarian view, Amy, would be marriage is a religious state that the government has no business in. If gays can get a religion to marry them, maybe that's the way it should go.

momof3 if one is going to argue there is no legal "right" for gay marrige, one could also argue that as a religious ceremony there is no right for straight couples to wed either.

I do recall a few things about equal enforcment of laws without bias to race, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation though

Too many funny little symbols.

> If you werent attracted to both
> sexes there would have been no
> need for training

Says who? I wasn't attracted to both sexes, and there was a need for training nonetheless. I'm being clear about this; why are you being simplistic?

Perhaps because it's fun; maybe because you don't like machines, or ideas, with moving parts; possibly because you're very young, and want to believe that God equipped your budding heart with everything it needs right out of the gate, which would make life more convenient; but it's not impossible that you're just being an asshole, Loojy.

Taking a break from work to catch up ...

"Sexual orientation cannot be learned - catspajamas

Says who? - crid"

Gay people, mostly. They'd be the ones who would know, don't you think? Think of all those gays who come from straight parents, with straight friends and straight siblings - how exactly did they learn to be gay?? Not to mention more and more studies that strongly indicate a genetic component to being gay. Plus approximately 6% of every country on the planet self-identifies as gay, with no variation for countries where being gay is permissible or punishable. If being gay wasn't on some level hard-wired don't you think there'd be a lot less gays in Iraq? I mean wouldn't parents be teaching their children i every way possible not to be gay?

Amy: "Crid means that gay people can marry straight people of the opposite sex, which is a ridiculous argument from someone who doesn't often make ridiculous arguments." Crid, she doesn't say its a fallacious argument because its not - gay people CAN and DO marry straight people of the opposite sex.

momof3: "Yes, I think we SHOULD stop messing with crap without knowing the consequences."

Well, you've made a great case for the unintended consequences of welfare, but still - nothing for same-sex marriage. Just think - if the rest of the world believed as you do we'd have no polio vaccine, no fluoride to protect our teeth, no fillings, no surgeries of any kind, no antibiotics. You could well have died in child birth and any or all of your kids might not have survived. I agree that we have to try, to the best of or ability as human beings, to anticipate any negative consequences of our actions, and then work to mitigate them as and when they arise, but to just stop doing things because we don't know for sure would bump us right back to the Stone Age.

"Over 95% of the world believes in some god."

K, that sentence frightens the crap out of me. You should add ... "despite a complete lack of evidence that s/he/it exists."

And people made fun of me because I believed in Santa Claus until I was 10 ;)

A few things, one I am indeed being an asshole. Being an asshole is like being a vibrator - it causes things to settle out faster.

Two I dont belive in god - I'll admit to the possibility of A god, but if there is one it will probably turn out to be some alien and our universe is his 6thgrade science project

Three - Remember what I said about settleing out?
"I wasn't attracted to both sexes" -crid

So you were born attracted to the oppoite sex. Therefore is stands to reason that homosexuals were also born with their sexual orientation hard wired. And no amount of training will turn them straight or you gay

So remember way back when, when catspajamas(I think) said sexuall orientation cant be learned and you said "Says who?"

Well, crid - says YOU!!

momof3 -

As for the legal rights of married couples, any couple can get those same rights with 2 exceptions(discussed below), by filling out a minimal amount of paperwork.

That very much depends on the state you live in. Many places, it means well over a hundred pages of paper work. There are a lot of legal securities that have to be inumerated individually and even then it's no guarantee - even if for some reason, you carry the papers with you all the time.

ANd no society in history has had gay marriage, not even the most gay-friendly ones like ancient greeks.

Not just Rome, as Vlad mentions, but also in periods of China's history.

Last time I checked, our rights were conferred by God, according to our Bill of Rights.

ZZZZT Wrong!!! You lose. God or god or gods have nothing to do with our bill of rights or our constitution. Not that it matters, because whether God confers our rights or not, who the fuck are you to speak for God?

Yes, I think we SHOULD stop messing with crap without knowing the consequences. Especially in medicine: First Do No harm, anyone?

Do you understand how drugs are developed and how we find out about side effects? There are trials, that are by necessity limited in time and population. It isn't until the drug has had widespread use and years on the market, before we might discover long term side effects and find the rarest ones. It is also when contraindications are more likely to turn up. There is a lot that can be speculated, based on limited trials, but nothing is certain. It's not until widepread use that many problems are discovered.

For damn sure the government should, given that it's unintended consequences fuck us all over.

So what, we should just halt all progress? Every action we take can have a possible detrimental, unintended consequence. Governments, even moreso. Dear gods, don't do anyfucking thing, because we just can't know what might happen?!?

Marriage is no more a human right than welfare. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

First of all, like a great many ignorant morons, you seem to be conflating the declaration of independence, with the constitution. The declaration was nothing more, or less than a declaration of war. It was not a binding document. This is not to say that it isn't an important document - it is a extremely important aspect of our nation's history. But lets not inflate it's importance - it has nothing to do with our laws.

But hey, lets look at that Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness. I could marry my partner tomorrow, if it would make me happy - I have that freedom to pursue my happiness. Most of my friends OTOH, don't. No freedom, no happiness (at least based on being married). So even if that is your standard, gay marriage should be supported.

What benefit to gay marriage for society, other than shutting up some whining?

The same benefit that any other marriage has. Stable relationships and more important, stable family life for children (yes, gays can and quite often do have kids).

The true libertarian view, Amy, would be marriage is a religious state that the government has no business in.

More ignorant bullshit. Marriage is a civil contract. I support abolishing it as a civil institution and replacing it with a basic civil contract that doesn't discriminate, but provides the same basic rights and legal protections as marriage. But since marriage is currently what such a contract is called, that's what gays should be able to do as well.

While it has gotten intertwined with religions and become an institution beyond the civil/legal ramifications (thus why I would see it abolished as the legal standard), it is nothing more than a legal contract.

If gays can get a religion to marry them, maybe that's the way it should go.

Several do already in other countries and even perform ceremonies here in the U.S., even though they don't carry legal weight. Indeed, several Christian denominations do that here and abroad. So great, now that we have your objections out of the way, I assume you'll be supporting gay marriage.

Crid -

You're still dead wrong and still steadfastly refusing to provide reasoning. Have the big fun with that.

Anyone who read my post and thought I was against ever doing anything, is an idiot. I said, we need to give thought to the consequences. Yes, in medicine (now, not always-see thalidomide) there are all sorts of testing done. Things still slip through but that's a far cry from "let's try X and see what happens!"

Things that might change, off the top of my head, with gay marriage: drop in the reproductive rate to below replacement, which has been proven by any number of countries to be severely problematic. Drop in straight's marrying. Just because you think it's absurd, and don't think anyone would ever make that decision, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. See the welfare argument for proof of that. Demand for tax cuts for all couples, which would mean all tax cuts for couples go away. Bad, society has a vested interest in people staying married and reproducing.

So, over 95% of the world's population believes in some God, and you think that's without evidence? There's plenty, and no amount of explaining will make nonbelievers see, just like no amount of derision will make believers not believe. We'll all know who's right eventually. No real need to argue the fact.

Amy said: "I don't have a "church community," as I don't have evidence-free beliefs, such as the belief that there's a big man in the sky moving us around like chess pieces, and all the ensuing superstitions and propaganda. "

Well, duh. Your opinion on religion is very well known and clear. You are the epitome of the materialist. Which is fine...I really have no desire to defend Christianity, particularly because I am super laïc. Plus, you live in CA, so it is hardly your fault.

I was using "you" rhetorically. Or is that not understood anymore in the U.S.? I admit that I have been away for a long time. Maybe not long enough to change to the French "on". But one finds that type of communication a bit prissy, doesn't one?

My whole point was that I find sending kids on field trips to a wedding of any stripe distasteful. And a "field trip" implies "school time".

"So, over 95% of the world's population believes in some God, and you think that's without evidence? There's plenty, and no amount of explaining will make nonbelievers see, just like no amount of derision will make believers not believe."

This is the height of absurdity, and only exists because of special pleading.

Study adherents.com - which does not feature bias, it simply tallies the beliefs of people without editorial comment and with references - and you will see that your "6 billion people" cannot agree on who, what or how to worship.

Yet you call this "evidence" - by that special definition, used for religious matters only. It's dishonest.

Even your term, "some God" begs the question, "What do you consider a god, that you don't follow their faith instead of your own?"

It's clear that you have never studied other faiths. Maybe you should.

-----

Routinely, somebody will come on a forum or blog and claim that gender orientation is voluntary. Such a person would be ignorant of these facts.

That's what happens when you're easily satisfied with your own opinion, and thus don't challenge yourself.

I'll summarize: you don't get to choose how you're built internally, any more than you pick eye color or handedness. Some people are gay. Some are left-handed. Some are bisexual. Some are ambidextrous. Some are straight. Some are right-handed. Personal disgust against doing something with your left hand simply doesn't make left-handedness voluntary. Being able to use your left hand for some things doesn't make you left-handed. Now, make the analogy. Think!

There's lots more at the link, of course. The summary is just for those who won't go look.

I don't think other people's relationships are any of my business, and they certainly shouldn't be the state's. As far as families go, it seems healthier to me for a stable gay couple to adopt a child than for a 42-year old single woman with biological timeclock baby fever to get herself knocked up.
If gay people are allowed to get married, that has absolutely no effect on my marriage at all. It doesn't diminish my rights; it doesn't hurt my relationship with my husband. If gay marriage is offensive to someone because of their religious beliefs, I'd assume that they can just let God deal with it later. Your religious "convictions" don't give you a right to control other people.

Yes, but that better-than-6-billion people all agree there's something. You think they are all wrong and you've got it right?

Yes, we can let god settle it out later. Just like we could let god settle murder, and child molestation, and every other crime. I'm not saying gay marriage would be a crime. No more so than being fat, I've said before and I'll say again. I just get upset at people who think it will change nothing but gay people being allowed to marry so why not do it. Also, with the people that say it won't change their marriage so why not do it. You can't know either such thing. You can look at other drastic policy changes that have been made in deference to "fairness" and say it most certainly will change a lot of things.

"Yes, but that better-than-6-billion people all agree there's something. You think they are all wrong and you've got it right?"

Yes. In fact, I'm certain of it.

"I just get upset at people who think it will change nothing but gay people being allowed to marry so why not do it."

momof3 reads McArdle! Cool. Still, while I applaud the call for more critical thinking, I have no problem with accelerating the evolution of so-called "traditional" marriage. I'm confident that future generations will still be able to make money, wage war, and raise families even if "the gays" can do so too.

momof3: "Anyone who read my post and thought I was against ever doing anything, is an idiot."

Hi! Idiot, here. It was this sentence - "Yes, I think we SHOULD stop messing with crap without knowing the consequences." - that led me to believe that's exactly what you thought. I took "crap" to mean "everything". My bad.

"Things that might change, off the top of my head, with gay marriage: drop in the reproductive rate to below replacement, which has been proven by any number of countries to be severely problematic. Drop in straight's marrying. Just because you think it's absurd, and don't think anyone would ever make that decision, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen."

Are you saying gays may reproduce if they marry but won't if they can't marry? Seriously? And straights would stop marrying because ... why, exactly?? If I get a Mercedes, and the gay couple down the street get a Mercedes, does my Mercedes suddenly become a piece of crap? Would these straights see marriage as somehow exclusive, like a pricey country club or gated community that keeps the undesirables out? (And if people who thought way stopped reproducing wouldn't that be a bonus?) I do in fact think your argument is absurd, but I admit I can't think of any *logical* arguments why these things could happen. Can you?

And with regard to the whole 6 billion people believe in a god thing: lets leave aside for the moment that a generous number of that 6 million are complete and utter nutjobs. Maybe there is a god. I don't know. I cannot make a decision one way or another because there IS NO EVIDENCE, and if you had any you'd have trotted it out here. You're assumption that because there are more believers, therefore they must be right, is illogical in the extreme. I'd like to point out that the entire population of the earth once believed the earth was flat. Guess what? All of them were wrong. And was actual physical proof turned up - they all changed their opinion. Hey, if god appears tomorrow morning at breakfast I'll be the first to apologize. Your beliefs are based on faith, not facts, and that's fine if it works for you. But don't confuse the two.

How is this even still being discussed? Gay marriages have been legal for years now. I've been to a couple. They weren't all that different from straight marriages, except there were two women standing there instead of a man and a woman. The sky hasn't fallen.

It really seems bizarre that people are still discussing it when it has been, what, four years now? Gay marriages are already happening. It's like arguing whether or not straight marriages should exist. They DO exist.

NicoleK - I'm taking an informal poll. Do you know of any straights that suddenly decided not to get married as a result of those gay marriages you attended?

And you're right ... bizarre is the word.

"I'd like to point out that the entire population of the earth once believed the earth was flat. Guess what? All of them were wrong."

cats, umm, it's worse than that. The "flat Earth" is an idea pretty much confined to Christian fundamentalists, just like the "young" Earth and the "Ark" story.

Erastosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth - and showed his work - about 200BC, and of course if we ignore the idea that the Middle East and Europe is all there is to the world, aboriginal North Americans, Australians and South Pacific Islanders all navigated by stars. Pharoah's people timed the Nile to predict floods and somebody in England put up Stonehenge - and "Woodhenge" - in full consonance with celestial mechanics.

The habit of not thinking too clearly, while patting oneself on the back for picking the "best" religion, has led many Christians to think they're the smartest people ever, without working at it at all.

Nope. Not even close.

Rad: You're right, of course. Its just all too depressing. Although perhaps not surprising that faith and an inability (or disinclination) to think for oneself often go hand in hand. I have a very good friend who is a very, very smart woman, but who thinks that beautiful sunsets are proof that god exists. As a federal prosecutor you'd think she'd have a better grasp of the concept of proof.

Thanks for the Woodhenge link tho - had never heard of it.

I know of straights who refused to get married until it was legal for gays to do so. They are now married... because, um, it is legal for gays to do so.

I know of noone who has decided not to marry because of gay marriage being legal. I myself have married (a man) since it became legal.

It's so funny, though. Like the gay people are sitting around worrying about what armchair activists are saying! Hah! They're going out and getting married, is what they are doing. But by all means, keep it illegal in the other states... more tourist dollars for MA!

There are many who believe that marriage is a sacred religious sacrament and that perhaps same sex marriage may have a negative impact-

I DID NOT SEE ANYBODY PROTESTING THE NATIONAL BROADCAST OF THE TV SHOW, WHO WANTS TO MARY A MILLIONAIRE. OR LAS VEGAS DRIVE THROUGH WEDDINGS FOR THAT MATTER!

Many people believe that marriage in the United States was never intended for same sex couples.

MARRIAGE WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR A BLACK AND WHITE COUPLE EITHER!

Look, if we have already made some changes over the years, why not allow this group of people to marry. Many of my gay friend couples are better role models when it comes to commitment than many of my straight friends (as they have already demonstrated). Besides, marriage should be about love, not money, race, or sex. If the worse thing for me to have to do is explain to my 9 year-old daughter about the complexities of same sex marriage then my life is doing pretty good!

No snappy comeback yet crid?

Ok, I am all for letting kids keep their childhood, but there's a reason almost every fairy tale has death in it. It happens. Kids need to learn that-and a parent dying is not where to start. I think a dead goldfish at age 4 is perfect, and I have 4 year olds.

I wouldn't want my kid going to a straight teacher's marriage either. It may not have been on school time, but it was in the taxpayer's schoolbus. Teachers are teachers, not friends or parents. Their private lives need to stay private. I don't think my kids need to see their teachers kissing any partner. It doesn't belong in the teacher/student dynamic, any more than news of their dates does.

Well, several of you will no doubt be happy to hear that Prop 8 has passed in California. Congratulations. Your own marriages are now safe.

Amy,

I know that this comment is very much after the fact but I'd be interesting in your comments on it: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services

Remember what I said about the legal precedent of gay marriage?