Pathos.

IIRC, Marion believes in that, too.

I thought it was beautiful. Shame on those who would hurt others because of their own insecure petty morality.

Eric, I think the gay parents are doing the hurting, and their morality is insecure and petty indeed.

long response forthcoming, it's an offline composition kinda topic

So this is part of that thing where "we don't let voters decide", right?

Crid, you know voters can't be trusted to decide any issue. All that's needed is for the elite to tell us it's right. Long-term societal health doesn't matter. Immediate personal fulfillment is what matters.

Long term societal health? What, we're down to our last 3 hundred million? What are these detrimental effects you are speaking of, momof3? Please be specific, and not just say boys kissing boys makes you want to vomit.

I wonder Crid, what percentage of Americans were for interracial marriage when the Supreme Court finally addressed the issue, in 1967. Since I am sure during the Leave It To Beaver years most Americans would be appalled at the mixing of races, at least in the eyes of God, was the Supreme Court wrong?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

The same bigoted arguments were made then that are being made now.

boys kissing boys doesn't make me sick. I rather like gay porn, the men in it are actually good looking. People who say gays and blacks have the same civil rights issues are full of shit and really don't grasp what blacks went through. Or have you been forced to work hard labor in fields for no pay recently?

Not letting society decide things via votes is bad for society. Period. Roe v Wade, whether you are proabortion or not, was decided wrong and was legislating from the bench. So were any number of other decisions, gay marriage being one some state courts have made.

I have no issue with gays. I just am not knee-jerk for gay marriage. I don't think marriage is a natural-born right. We tell lots of people they can't marry. Some cousins, siblings, polygamists.....society decides what marriage is, to society. Some societies allow polygamy. We don't. This is no different that I can see.

Who said Loving vs. Virginia was a "blacks" issue? Richard Loving was white. It was an individuals' rights issue, just as gay marriage is. Society had seen fit, mostly through religion, to deny interracial marriage by law until the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution differently.

>> Not letting society decide things via votes is bad for society.

Horsehockey. There are lots of issues that the general population would vote for that are clearly outside the powers granted the government via the Constitution. Hell, the country overwhelmingly passed Prohibition in 1920. It was very popular at the time, for long term societal health.

Any society's children deserve to be raised, whenever possible, by the two people who created that child through their physical, and emotional (one hopes), connection. Honoring, and thus promoting, that arrangement as the best of various child-rearing alternatives is reasonable. Thus, a separate category, and conceptual term, for male-female union is appropriate and reasonable.

What is unreasonable is creating accusations of "bigotry" out of nothing, by falsely asserting that to honor "marriage" as we have always defined it is to dishonor the other "alternative" relationships people form. Domestic partnership -- available ONLY to same-sex couples, and which is the EXACT legal equivalent of marriage in California -- has already been enacted into law to recognize the value (but different nature) of gay unions. Married men and women have NO greater rights under California law than do gay domestic partners.

This notwithstanding, discrimination between things of basically different nature is not bigotry -- it is called "discretion." (All of this yammering about gays being "deprived of rights" is utter nonsense, especially if you remember that gays have always had, and still have, the right to marry, so long as they followed the same restrictions as applied to everyone else! The ability to marry someone of the same sex is, if anything, a new privilege, if the issue is examined dispassionately.)

By promoting gay "marriage" one implicitly argues that male-female marriage is nothing special, i.e., that society is not entitled to recognize any preference for that model of family. That argument necessarily undermines the institution of marriage in its traditional, stabilizing form, and thus reduces its cumulative value to society. (Straight people myopically delude themselves when they think that legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on them.) Marriage is already in enough trouble as it is. And if you don't believe that, you are probably a refugee from a women's studies program.

Definition of bigoted:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

>> By promoting gay "marriage" one implicitly argues that male-female marriage is nothing special, i.e., that society is not entitled to recognize any preference for that model of family. That argument necessarily undermines the institution of marriage in its traditional, stabilizing form, and thus reduces its cumulative value to society.

Nonsense. I've been married once, to a person of the opposite sex, now for 20+ years. If Bob and Tom want to get married, it will not have the least effect on my relationship with my wife or my family. That you say is will does not make it so.

The people that bounce in and out of marriage Liz taylor style, they have made marriage much less of a commitment and more of a lifestyle choice.

(The thing about this debate that pisses me off is I often seem to be carrying the banner, and expecting legions of gays and lesbians to be behind me, but they seem have better things to do with their time! Oh well, whatever, nevermind.)

How does them contractually obligating themselves to take care of each other benefit society? They are no more or less likely to end up on the social dole than before. So why the big deal about the words? I'm glad you seem to know stable gays. I know stable straights as well. I know gay parents of both genders. My anecdotal evidence means nada to this argument and neither should yours.

Yes, society voted in prohibition. Then voted it out as it realized it was not a benefit, because of crime. Society is free to decide that gay marriage is a benefit, and vote it in. Prove it is one.

A black person from St Lucia is almost certainly a decendant of a slave there form the plantations. Telling blacks they couldn't marry WAS discriminating against a group. No one has ever told gays they can't marry. Anyone in this country (within our specified guidelines of blood relations, mental soundness, gender, and number of spouses) can marry.

Every single argument made in favor of legalizing gay marriage in spite of the wishes of the majority can be applied equally to polygymy/polyandry.

It's simply your bigotry that won't allow multiple people to marry each other. Who are you to tell 3, 5 or 10 people they can't get married if they want to? If they love each other what business is it of yours? Why should monogymists have rights that polygymists and polyandrists don't have? If a judge can be persuaded to allow polygymy/polyandry then it shouldn't matter that most of society opposes it.

How does them contractually obligating themselves to take care of each other benefit society?

What a ridiculously stupid question. Seriously.

It benefits society for the same reason that heteros doing the same benefits society - it makes for less that society is likely to end up having to cover. When one spouse becomes the caretaker of an ailing spouse, it means less, if any home nursing and at least puts off the need for a nursing home.

But the important thing to me, is the kids. Like it or not, agree with it or not, there are a lot of kids being raised by same sex couples. And that is only going to increase - again, whether you like it or not.

So my question is; Why do your kids deserve the security and benefits that they get from you being married to their other parent, any more than the children of same sex couples? Why do you want the children of same sex couples go without something that you seem to believe is so very important for your children to have?

I am always amazed at the number of people who feel they have the right to tell other people how they should live their lives.

The only argument I have ever heard against gay marrige that wasnt founded in religion and hatred was 'it might no turn out they way its expected'

The law of unintened consequence.

So what, who cares, get over it.
Life is to fcking short to worry about what other people do with their gentials

So, just to be clear. Everyone who is in favor of gay marriage, even though the majority oppose it, is also in favor of legalized polygymy/polyandry, right?

If not, please explain your hypocritcal position.

So, just to be clear - changing the provision on the sexes of the individuals involved has no bearing on the number of individuals involed you fucking idiot.

But lets suppose it does, again who cares, if a bunch of consenting adults choose to lives ther lives together WHY DO YOU CARE?

What does it matter to you or in the grand scheme of things whether or not two or more women are willing to share a man, or if two or more men are willing to share a woman, or even if two or more men are willing to share two or more women?

Why does it matter to you?
How does what other people do in the privacy of their homes effect your life in any way what so ever?

perro -

Yes, yes I am. I am also in favor of letting people in completely platonic relationships, even people who may be related also enjoy the legal security that marriage provides.

I could honestly care less what a relationship looks like, as long as it involves consenting adults. None of my fucking business. All that matters is that they are in a domestic partnership that would benefit from the securing of property rights and the ability to care for their partner/s in the event of a medical emergency and the myriad other benefits that marriage currently provides.

The important question here, is why aren't you?

Along with why exactly, you think that would be the silver bullet to destroy the argument for affording all children, even the children of same sex couples the security that other children get from their parents being married?

Here 'tis, Marion's comment of November 5th:

> from what I could see, the anti-Prop 8
> folks did a HORRIBLE job arguing their
> case from a PR standpoint. The ads for
> the campaign should have featured real
> gay couples talking about what marriage
> meant to them. Imagine an ad with a
> lesbian pastor and her wife....

So what we got here in this link Amy's provided is a marketing artifact. (Apply directly to the forehead!) This blog post ain't about righteousness, or family composition, or anything else worth worrying about.

I only looked at the first photo at the link. I remember a typical marketing image... You see families like that on packaging in grocery stores. A series of improbably attractive faces, all of which just happen to be smiling their lights out, as if nothing had ever brought more happiness than the cookies (or whatever product's in the box). Not just happy, but contorted into bliss.

And I saw a couple little boys without fathers. Apparently some of you thought it was cute, but it made me close the browser.

Years ago I used to listen to conservative Dennis Prager on the radio. (See the Luke Ford link on Amy's blogroll at left for much, much more about Prager.) This was in the early '90s, when shabby daytime talk shows were at their zenith; the Mighty Oprah herself had only recently stopped making confrontational, anger-inducing programs of the Jerry Springer variety. One week, Prager mentioned that he would soon be appearing on the Leeza show to discuss the tragedy of single motherhood. He was expecting some aggressive conversation, but looking forward to it. He never mentioned it on the air again, but later, in a speech, he talked about what had happened. When he'd arrived at the studio, there was a row of cheerful single mothers onstage, rosy of cheek and bountiful of bosom, with hearty babies bouncing joyfully on their knees. He sat between those women and the host, who wanted to know what his problem was. He spent the program trying to explain that boys need fathers, while the cameras gave views of nothing but the apotheosis of feminine fulfillment: loving mothers with cooing babies. The studio audience was drunk-blind with estrogen. He implored them to imagine what life would be like when the little boys were edgy teenagers and young men, but they couldn't hear him. He concluded the anecdote with an allusion which he –as a leading figure in Los Angeles Judaism– was not likely to offer casually: "I looked like Hitler."

He was right, though. There comes a time when a young man doesn't want to hear what an older woman –any woman– has to say about the planet. If she tell's him the sun's coming up in the morning, he'll doubt her word, because he knows he's having an experience of the world that's nothing like what she's seen... 'What does she know?'

The boys in the first photo in the link above were just a little older than babies. But they're old enough to know that they're going to be men one day. But as they imagine manhood, it won't correlate with family life. They'll be getting no example of how a man shows love to the woman of a household, or comforts her when she's in a womanly bad mood. They'll have no example of how a man's needs and impulses can be suppressed, which is important information for heterosexual men (which they'll almost certainly grow up to be).

And actually, nothing will correlate with adult masculinity. This pattern will apply in all contexts. Someone (it may have been Colin Powell's book) once connected this to the nightmares the armed forces faced during the post-Vietnam era. Not only was there a popular distrust of authority and drug abuse to worry about, but a lot of recruits (perhaps a disproportionate number) were from single-parent homes, i.e., single mothers. Many young soldiers had never experienced a male authority figure. (Even Boy Scouting had fallen into disfavor.) The first close male senior in their lives, the one they were expected to trust while learning to survive the harshest challenges imaginable, was a drill sergeant.

But for the family in the picture, you guys are confident that doubling down on femininity is just as likely to have a good result as a family lead by one of each. Perhaps you haven't thought about what happens to girls without fathers, either. (I've seen some of it, and it ain't pretty.) But you're quite certain that the magic is just in having two parents, right? And any two will do. Well, all the permutations deserve consideration. Later photos presumably show Heather with Two Daddies... I can't speculate what Heather would learn about handling her future mate in such a setting, as her own nature presented feelings that she'd never seen a woman contain, but I'm sure you have consoling fantasies to share. Or we can imagine a boy raised in a houseful of men during his first serious quarrel with a girlfriend....

They're all pretty pictures, though, I'm sure. Good feelings, y'know? Powerful feelings. I'm reminded of that classic of 80's cinema, Stripes, featuring Bill Murray. A crisis in the plot has gelled, and he needs to motivate a platoon of resistant imbeciles.

| Murray: Who saw "Old Yeller?"
|
| (the group sits silent and defiant)
|
| Murray: Who cried when
| Old Yeller got shot at the end?
|
| (silence)
|
| Murray: Nobody cried
| when Old Yeller got shot?
|
| (hands are reluctantly raised;
| chins drop in solemnity)
|
| Murray: I cried my eyes out!

Y'know, it was just a movie. It was a joke about the premise behind advertisements: A customer who's been emotionally bitchslapped can be lead to any desired conclusion.

It's a shitty premise.

And furthermore---

> The thing about this debate that
> pisses me off is I often seem to
> be carrying the banner, and expecting
> legions of gays and lesbians to
> be behind me

This need to appear as aggressive as possible in a "civil rights" fight, and to be gratefully acknowledged by some downtrodden figure, is at the core of much of this. Everyone wants to be Rosa Parks, only without all that pesky physical risk.

But it's like a general fighting the last war.

Crid -

That's all well and good, but your charming anectode completely lacks any actual research or proof suggesting that gay married couples will produce offspring that are somehow worse off. Furthermore, registered domestic partners are adopting children right now - today!- even without the benefit of "marriage." So how does extending the title to them affect your analysis in any way?

"Perhaps you haven't thought about what happens to girls without fathers, either. (I've seen some of it, and it ain't pretty.)"

To add to Crid's statement.....

http://99mind.com/2007/10/07/dads-delay-puberty-in-daughters-strange-men-bring-it-on/

> lacks any actual research or proof

'Studies! Research! We're all men of science here!' Except that none of you are. There've been a few lawyers drifting through here over the years, and maybe the occasional radiologist or something.

But all the bluster her about rationality on this blog is horseshit pretension unworthy of a community college... A high school, even. Snakey, if you're announcing that you need studies to tell you what a mother or a father means to a child, I think we should take that for what it's worth.

Juliana-- I remember listening to a random show on NPR late one night a few years ago. Some real peace-'n-granola, earth-woman type was giving a presentation about that topic. She claimed that when young girls are raised in the most safe, loving, and accepting surroundings possible, menarche can be delayed for a very long time. IIRC, her own daughter had made it to 18 or something. I never figured out who the speaker was, and not having daughters, never bothered to investigate. But her point seemed to be that when girls are well-loved, menarche isn't delayed, it's more about being summoned by threatening circumstances or weirdly competitive forces.

Snakey, if you're announcing that you need studies to tell you what a mother or a father means to a child, I think we should take that for what it's worth.

Shorter Crid -

I'm so desperate to push my position, that I'll pretend evidence doesn't matter. I'll start creating long, rambling - boring rants too.

Again - short and sweet. Whether you like it or not, approve of it or not, there are children being raised by same sex couples. And the numbers are going to continue to climb - with or without gay marriage.

So why do you advocate depriving those children of married parents?

I agree about the strange boring rambling from Crid, DuWayne.

Honestly, Crid what the fuck are you on about? This quote of yours below -is this about bad sex or something? It's got such an odd vibe - as well as being drivel.

...He was right, though. There comes a time when a young man doesn't want to hear what an older woman –any woman– has to say about the planet. If she tell's him the sun's coming up in the morning, he'll doubt her word, because he knows he's having an experience of the world that's nothing like what she's seen... 'What does she know?'

"So, just to be clear - changing the provision on the sexes of the individuals involved has no bearing on the number of individuals involed you fucking idiot."

Lujlp, you ignorant fucking retard (see, I can curse too). Because a group has decided that they can redefine marriage at their whim regardless of the wishes of society. So why have any rules at all? Make marriage whatever anyone wants it to be. Who cares, right?

You're such a fucking dumbass dimwit, you're unable to grasp that simple concept.

> Whether you like it or not, approve
> of it or not

IOW: somehow, someday, somebody's gonna try to rob the bank anyway, so we may as well just leave some bundled fifties out on the sidewalk... It's not like social pressures ever had any effect on families, right?

> the strange boring rambling

And yet, you're entranced... Distracted to the point of forgetting a comma... Yet incapable, as you so very often are, of meaningful critique. Interesting that your mind went to eroticism, nowhere mentioned in the comment (and to failed eroticism, at that).

But we love those Britishisms, Jody! "On about!" They're Beatle-esque! Keep 'em coming! You're not like us, and we appreciate you helping us to remember that!

> Not everybody is in a longterm romantic
> relationship and it's about time we
> recognized that.

Whaddya mean "we", paleface?

"I think each person should be allowed to have some other person they designate as their "special person,..."

You think..., well I guess that settles it. The problem is that the majority "think" the opposite. Why should your opinion overide the majority?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, I just think it's a subject for the legislatures, not the courts.

> I just think it's a subject for
> the legislatures, not the courts.

Word.

Word.

Congrats perro you can swear as well. I am so roud of you.

Unfortunaly you didnt answer one of my questions,I pointed out that changing sexs on the books doesnt change the number involved and your response is 'lets make it a free for all'

I asked you what your objection was to gay marrige or poly marrige and you have failed to answer.

Tell me something shithead, if you are so unwilling to tells us what your position is and the reasoning behind your belifs - then how are we ever going to have a conversation?

But you dont want to have a conversation do you? that would require using that 3lb lump of flesh between your ears as more than a paperweight.

I am willing to explain and defend my positions and reasoning, you apparently are not and until you are their is no point in talking to you.

So once you are willing to do more than write questions without bothering to answer any put to you in response I suggest you just read until you're willing to do more than bitch from the sidelines

"I pointed out that changing sexs on the books doesnt change the number involved"

So fucking what, you stupid rathole cunt. Why is one change superior to the other? You've never answered that because you're just too damn stupid to understand the point.

If you could read, you could see that I don't have a problem with gay marriage I have a problem with it being judiciated instead of legislated (why don't you go look those two word up, you ignorant simpleton) As long as you get your way, the hell with Democracy.

How can anyone have any sort of discussion with a pathetic intellectual lightweight like you? You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.

halfwit moron.

> We currently allow state contracts
> between two partners.

Don't do lowball argument. We don't allow 'state contracts between [any?] two partners'. We allow marriage between a male and an unrelated, sane, consenting female when both are at the age of majority (but usually, only when age-appropriate). It's not for everybody.

Ya know Lujlp, maybe if you would take a break from sucking dick for crack money and actually use what little you have for a brain you might understand Democracy.

You're like a spoiled little child screaming "I want, I want, I want" without the slightest realization that you live in a larger society that uses elections and consensus to make policy.

I know YOUR used to getting things crammed down your throat from strangers, but the rest of society wants a say in how things operate.

"The Force is strong in this one..."

And yet, you're entranced... Distracted to the point of forgetting a comma... Yet incapable, as you so very often are, of meaningful critique.

Meaningful critique hell Crid, I was so entranced I didn't even try to manage the whole of your long, boring ramble.

Meanwhile I asked a very simple question that you completely ignore. Hell, you ignore the fact that whether you like it or not, same sex couples raising children is already happening. They are having kids of their own and they are adopting.

So why do you hate their kids Crid? Why do you object to the children of same sex couples having the same benefit that so many kids of opposite sex couples have - namely parents who are married?

Put up or shut the fuck up.

> a very simple question

Duanne, you've been carrying on for a year or so now, trying to rope people into a 6th-grader's argument. It's not worth any investment of time. Calm down, have faith that you've made yourself clear, OK? I'm content to let people judge our respective positions.

You're not like us, and we appreciate you helping us to remember that!

You're such a petulant little child sometimes. When she agrees with you, you note her Americanism with strong approval. When she disagrees, she's not like "us."

My six year old has learned why this is a silly way to be. With luck and hard work you can get there too.

I would be content to actually get an answer. To you it's a immature argument. For a whole lot of kids it's rather more than that. But you seem to think those kids don't matter.

If my thinking they do matter is immature, then immature I will proudly be.

And if you're really content to let people judge our respective positions, then why don't you calm down and shut the fuck up. Here's a tip; your arguments are just as fucking juvenile as anyone else's.

Your entire argument seems to be that gays raising kids is bad, so lets make it harder on kids who by your own admission already have a tough road. If that's not sixth grade logic, I don't know what is. It becomes especially so when you start screeching that evidence doesn't matter. Maybe you would feel differently if the little evidence there is, didn't point to conclusions you don't like.

But no, I'm the one being immature. As are those who calmly ask to see some evidence. Projecting a little?

Personally, I'm straight, childfree, and divorced, and can't see myself ever wanting to be married again. That said, I support anyone's desire to be legally married and to raise kids as a couple. DUH!

> I support anyone's desire to
> be legally married and to raise
> kids as a couple. DUH!

That was so cool I just wanted to see it typed out on the screen again.

By the way, Amy, isn't that little slideshow the sort of shameless emotion-pandering you usually abhor? What if we made one up of adorable little down's syndrome children holding signs saying "Please don't abort me!" Would that move you?

M3's getting the hang of this....

So Duwayne, we should enact more legislation to give crackwhores with 6 kids even more money? Because they are having kids anyway, why make it harder on them? Hell why have societal standards? Let's all just sing kumbaya and concentrate on feeling warm and fuzzy.

The point, that some of you stupidly won't get, is that if one very small special interest group can change an unwilling society's laws at their whim, then any special interest group can. Polygamists, whoever. Gays aren't special there.

Kids don't just need 2 parents, they need opposite gender parents. There is no real difference in 2 gay women buying a kid via in-vitro, and a rich single woman doing so. In both cases they are selfishly doing what they want, not what's best for the kid. Why is Amy against one but not the other? I'll give them a pass on adopting, a not-great home is better than no home for a child already existing, so long as it's not abusive.

I get you don't think we should allow them to be born in the first place. Many people don't think gays should be allowed to marry in the first place, and have voted accordingly. I'm sorry you're too thick to get your OPINION carries no more weight or credentials than others who disagree with you on this or any topic, and certainly does not mean voters should be ignored and overturned.

They don't get pregnant by accident because nature never intended they breed, Hmmm. Marriage is not civil rights. Grow up. Once again-and this gets pounded pretty hard here but apparently needs another go-GAY PEOPLE CAN MARRY JUST LIKE STRAIGHTS. No one tells them "you are gay therefor not allowed to marry at all". Not like blacks at one point were.

I'm sorry your friends are raising some kids to care for another. That's an unfair level of responsibility they are placing on them. Good for them in the savings account though.

> Once a child is alive,

You put more stress on these words than they can bear. A pre-birth humanoid is indiputably "alive"; it's as close to being a "child" as it could be (and much closer to it, we should note, than anyone with an opinion about this matter).

> I just suggest what I think

Oh, stop it! You have all sorts of command-and-control impulses, and it's ludicrous to pretend you don't.

People on this blog love to devise sweeping changes to the course of civilization... Deeply detailed, top-down intrusions into every corner of our private and public lives....

When the bluff is called, they bat their lashes and say "Who, lil' ol' me? Why, I'm just modestly whispering a personal opinion over here...."

You can argue this until you're blue in the face, Amy. The outcome will be that in 20 years gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. There will still be those who think that they know what God intended, but society fights change tooth and nail until it comes to recognize that the changes occurred years ago and life went on.

Actually, we'll probably meet somewhere in the middle, where marriage becomes a less important component in society. More adults will have been produced from today’s broken families.

PS- I didn't mean to single you out Amy. I should have said "you all can argue this..."

"So why do you hate their kids Crid? Why do you object to the children of same sex couples having the same benefit that so many kids of opposite sex couples have - namely parents who are married?"

Well put.

"Kids don't just need 2 parents, they need opposite gender parents."

I don't disagree that this is the optimal configuration, but it ignores the fact that society already blesses the so-called "sub"-optimal variation of two same-sex adopted parents.

"There is no real difference in 2 gay women buying a kid via in-vitro, and a rich single woman doing so."

There is a huge difference. Two willing parents > than one single mom. I wish you would have the balls to come out and say that you believe only two married opposite gender parents should be allowed to adopt. At least in Arkansas, the gay marriage opposition does not meekly hide behind the "will of the people" and the hysterical fear of changing the "sanctity" of traditional marriage. The voters there are willing to say: "marriage, adoption, everything; we don't think gay people should be raising families together."

"Once again-and this gets pounded pretty hard here but apparently needs another go-GAY PEOPLE CAN MARRY JUST LIKE STRAIGHTS. No one tells them "you are gay therefor not allowed to marry at all". Not like blacks at one point were."

You completely miss the analogy here. "Blacks" were never told that they cannot marry at all. Blacks and Whites were both told they could not marry each other. Small-minded people tried and lost this argument back then too.

"To say gay people can marry people they have no interest in...now there's a basis for a lasting marriage. How simply juvenile and idiotic."

Again, someone says it in plain English better than in legalese.

>> "Blacks" were never told that they cannot marry at all.

You're wrong there Snakeman99. Southern slaves were specifically denied marital rights even after the Civil War.

> More adults will have been produced
> from today’s broken families.

And this will make marriage "less important"?

I'm again reminded of the works of the eastern mystic Kellog Allbran:

• Just as a starving man does not dream of the crust of bread, a drowning man does not dream of Chateau Lafitte-Rothschild 1927.

> I don't disagree that this is
> the optimal configuration

Therefore, you must believe that some kids don't deserve what's best. They're just fucked... Fucked by fate. Fucked by social policy.

Fucked by a fashion-obsessed popular mentality that's been groomed by Disney to accept Jiminy Cricket lyrics as high philosophy. Fucked by an insanity that rates adult fulfillment more highly than the defense of our most vulnerable, defenseless members.

There's nothing to admire about that kind of thinking, but there's a lot of be said for hanging it out on a shingle like that... "optimal configuration."

Beautiful.

Jesus Crid, I mean what the fuck? Who pee'd in your eggnog?

Aw, c'mon, Eric, what's the problem? I have no complaints. He said it out loud! "Optimal configuration." What, you want him to take it back? You want him to say he didn't mean it?

Well, if you ask nice, with those fascist little undertones that people use nowadays, he'll probably do it.

Let's wait and see....

'"Optimal configuration." What, you want him to take it back? You want him to say he didn't mean it?'

*Not taking it back. Meant every word. And, yes, some kids are fucked by fate. Not exactly sure about the rest of your littany. But the bottom line is that until you prove (there's that inconvenient word again) that children (or anybody) is actually (and by "actually" I don't mean "fancifully") hurt by gay marriage, your arguments on this subject will remain specious. But that's OK, I'm sure you'll be able to fill up blog space mocking the snobbery and self-importance of gay marriage supporters. That's at least as effective as examining the facts.

"You're wrong there Snakeman99. Southern slaves were specifically denied marital rights even after the Civil War."

Fair enough. I was limiting the scope of my thinking to California and more recent history.

> And, yes, some kids are fucked by fate.

That's fabulous to know! It's great to have you say that! Geez, let's get the word out! Because this is no more a matter of "fate" than was abject slavery.

I'm especially looking forward to the part where you personally -and I don't mean the guy with a nickname on a blog but the actual human being who pressed the keys to type the 9:53am comment- approaches the "fucked" kids to tell them that they're fucked.

Now, as I think we all realize here, being a "fucked" child isn't a single instance of bad luck. You, Snakey, won't be permitted to blow past some wad of shit-filled diapers in the hospital nursery to whisper "Badnewsandsorrytohavetotellyoubut you'refuckedandI'mnotkidding gethepictureOKthanksnow'bye!" as you dash back to the elevator.

You'll be expected to approach that child in each instance of consequence for this "configuration" of his life all the way until, say, age 21, and explain to him again that everyone in society was completely cool with him being given a "non-optimal" interpersonal foundation. (Other guys would make you do that until he was in his forties, but as an American liberal, I believe in the power we have to shape our own destinies, y'know? So 21 years is enough. By the time he can buy a beer, he'll understand what his society allowed to have happen.)

This shouldn't be such a big deal. As Eric has just made clear to you, we used to say things like that to slaves all the time. It's part of our heritage: Some people are fucked.

Nonetheless, I'm glad it's you who'll be sustaining this great American tradition, and not me. You.

It's been awhile, but I believe I've participated in this argument before, and alternately earned both Crid's praise and wrath, if I remember correctly...

In any case - and indeed, to fuel the flames - has anyone seen this yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_us/two_dads;_ylt=AjWQL2WSkmSiwVXJ8trqv6JbIwgF

momof3 -

So Duwayne, we should enact more legislation to give crackwhores with 6 kids even more money? Because they are having kids anyway, why make it harder on them?

No. If you want to bring that scenario in, I would say we should make it much easier to adopt said crackwhore's kids into homes with decent parents. I could even go for bribing said crackwhore to let them go at birth. Also to stay clean while gestating. There isn't one singular method for making the lives of those kids easier.

I should also be clear that I don't believe for a second that the children of same sex couples have anything going against them, except possibly that they have parents who aren't allowed to get married. There are several studies that show children of same sex parents having rather more positive outcomes in aggregate, to the children of opposite sex parents.

I have said before why I believe these studies are somewhat flawed, not the least reason being they come from countries that have had larger numbers of children raised by same sex couples longer than the U.S. Too, most same sex couples who decide to raise a child, have to go through a lot of trouble to do so. Very rarely are they raising a child because of an accident. They are almost all highly educated and relatively high incomes. So it is likely that as it becomes easier for gays to adopt kids, the aggregate will get much closer to that of hetero outcomes.

The point, that some of you stupidly won't get, is that if one very small special interest group can change an unwilling society's laws at their whim, then any special interest group can. Polygamists, whoever. Gays aren't special there.

Neither are those mixed race couples who also wanted to get married. And while you might make the absurd argument that gays can marry, they just can't marry someone of the same gender, it can easily be argued that people of different races could marry, just not each other. And oh, that argument was made. Indeed there isn't a single fucking argument made against gay marriage that wasn't made against miscegenation.

There is a very good reason that most of the leaders of the civil rights movement, have thrown their support behind gay rights and the right of same sex couples to marry. Many of them clearly see the parallels.

And since you bring up polygamists, I can go there too. Why not? Just because it's a relationship that looks different than yours, doesn't mean it can't work. And please don't give me the bullshit canard about pedophilia. Yes, there are polygamous religious groups that also engage in pedophilia. That does not mean that polygamy = pedophilia. Pedophilia is and should be a crime, regardless of the number of spouses the person engaged in pedophilia claims.

Kids don't just need 2 parents, they need opposite gender parents.

And yet the evidence thus far says quite the opposite.

There is no real difference in 2 gay women buying a kid via in-vitro, and a rich single woman doing so. In both cases they are selfishly doing what they want, not what's best for the kid.

Which might be a valid argument if invitro fertilization was more than a tiny minority of same sex couples raising kids. Now if you want to argue that invitro fertilization should be illegal, I am not willing to go there with you. But if you want to argue for policies to discourage the practice, I would get right behind you. Want a kid and can't make it naturally, there are a hella lot of kids who need adopting.

But that has nothing to do with the argument for or against gay marriage.

I'm especially looking forward to the part where you personally -and I don't mean the guy with a nickname on a blog but the actual human being who pressed the keys to type the 9:53am comment- approaches the "fucked" kids to tell them that they're fucked.

And Crid, I'm looking forward to the part where you - not the guy with a nickname on a blog, but the actual human being, approaches the fucked kids, who's parents you refuse to allow to marry and explain to them why you don't want their parents to get married.

Or is that to juvenile a notion? Or is it you just don't have the fucking balls?

Come on Crid. Put your actions where your mouth is. Explain to the child of a same sex couple why their two moms or two dads shouldn't be married.

You want to make it all about the kids. So put up or shut the fuck up already.

Seems to me that opponents of gay "marriage" want to make it all about the kids, while its supporters want to make it all about the adults.

Given the choice -- I'll look after the best interests of the kids, thanks.

> And it's in the best interests of the children to deny their parents the right to marry -- giving them the legal rights and protections of straight parents?
---------
You are dissembling, Amy, and you know it ('cause you're smart)! You know very well that gay parents can form a domestic partnership which confers exactly the same legal/civil rights and protections as marriage provides to an opposite-sex couple. Thus, denial of "marriage" will have ZERO effect on the children of a gay couple. Also, gay domestic partners are free to "marry" in religious ceremonies, and thus hold themselves out as "married" if they want to.

The point you take pains to avoid addressing is that society has a right (even a responsibility) to give preference and primacy to relationships which have the POTENTIAL to allow children to be brought up by the couples who conceived them. That model of family is the best for children -- and thus for society in the long-run -- as a general proposition. It is best for society that as many children as possible be brought up by the man and woman who conceived them. (If you disagree with that, then maybe you're not so smart ... )

What I find less than straightforward in your emotive arguments on the subject is your insistence that gay relationships are being condemned if they are not given the same primacy as traditional marriage. However, "not the best" does NOT equate to "bad."

I happened to be watching a rerun of Boston Legal the other night, which dealt (in part) with gay marriage:
"Alan Shore: But to deny an entire class of people one of their basic, individual freedoms—
Denny Crane: Alan, you're talking about marriage, an institution with sacred vows, ones which we live up to almost 50% of the time. It’s a sanctity."
I love that show!!

And I just found part 2 of the Boston Legal conversation, even better!

Denny Crane: I believe, if we truly are a nation of human rights—and I think we are—we gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. But the problem with gay rights, especially when it comes to marriage, is we don’t
even talk the talk in this country, so the walk— Ask me, there’s only one real solution.
Alan Shore: Tell me.
Denny Crane: All those homosexuals, they join the NRA, take over the gun lobby, Congress bends over and does whatever they want.
Alan Shore: A gay gun lobby.
Denny Crane: It’s the only answer.
Alan Shore (chuckles): I like it.