I know: Fewer gay men will enter into sham marriages with women and have children whose lives they subsequently trash in the messy divorce when the man decides he can no longer pretend he's straight. Gay marriage might discourage that sort of procreation.

I just read that 1 in 8 young women in Robeson High School is pregnant.

(Hey Brian- it's in Chicago!)

I'll save Crid the trouble and post his one thought on the subject.

"What can gay marriage do for society? (sticking fingers in ears) LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I can't hear you! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA..."

I don't see it as being either a positive or a negative, from a societal standpoint. Gay people have relationships; that cat's out of the bag, and he ain't going back in. And gay marriage is just not going to make any significant difference in birth rates. And I can in fact name one area where it will be beneficial to straights: if gay marriage is legal, then courts will have to re-look at things like company benefit plans that provide benefits to same-sex unmarried partners but not to opposite-sex unmarried partners. If gay marriage becomes legal, then it is impossible to argue that the benefits disparity isn't discriminatory towards unmarried straight couples.

Having said that, there are some complications, both legal and societal, that I don't think the gay marriage advocates have thought through. Given that we have good evidence that children need parents/role models of both sexes, then should gay couples be allowed to adopt? Is two parents of the same sex better than foster homes or orphanages? I don't think that question has been answered, one way or the other. How are divorces of gay couples to be handled? What about domestic violence? I've noticed that the gay marriage advocates tend to gloss over these questions. I'm not saying that any of them should be showstoppers, but if advocates refuse to even address them, then why should I take them seriously?

There's also the matter of how they are going about this. It seems to me that for many (not all) of the most prominent gay marriage advocates, it's more about taking vengeance on society than it really is about gays getting married per se. That leads them towards tactics where they try to force their choices on the population via the courts. And when there are referendums, they almost seem self-destructive, like they're trying to lose so they can then claim victim status.

And some of those court decisions might wind up opening a Pandora's box. It's been pointed out that the language used in the Lawrence vs. Texas decision could apply equally well to polygamy, sibling marriage, and other practices that I think most gays and straights would agree are undesirable. The Canadian version of Lawrence can be read, in a nonsensical but legally correct way, as permitting a person to marry a corporation. Gays need to be careful that in amending the definition of marriage, they don't wind up breaking it altogether. Especially given that there is a lunatic fringe in the gay rights movement that would love to do just that, and that fringe has influence over the gay agenda beyond their numbers. And if that happened, the homophobes would be able to point to it and say, "See, what did we tell you?"

Amy, this is a really silly blog post. It's the most childish kind of gotcha wordplu.. The next sentence of the news story, even given the manipulative wording we'd expect from a mainstream media reporter in San Francisco, allows the guy to make his point:

> Moments later, after assuring the
> judge his response did not mean
> Proposition 8 was doomed to be
> struck down, Cooper tried to
> clarify his position.

Tha you want to play a child's games with this rather than acknowledge the magnitude of the concern that your opponents on this issue feel betrays and inexcusable authoritarian impulse. It's OK to feel authoritarian impulses, but it's bad to act on them.

Cousin Dave: your post is one of the best I've seen here on the topic. It's thoughtful, reasoned and appreciated.

Cousin Dave writes: Given that we have good evidence that children need parents/role models of both sexes

Prove it.

To make the answer slightly clearer I can mirror that question, rephrasing it like: "What would be the harm to the western society should it adopt all the legislative demands that muslim voters might deem necessary over other voters' protest?" May be none, might be a lot, but who wants to risk it?

Like, on the scale between "Traditional values" and "Personal gratification" the gap between heterosexual family life and gays is way too big, gosh, it's too big even for some of the heterosexual couples, who put their personal gratification first and all the traditional values only second. Why would they want to be embraced by the system, the core principle of which is alien to them? And should that core principle be changed on their demand so that they would feel comfortable in that embrace?

Cousin Dave, I second the sentiment from Rojak. There are alot of 2nd and 3rd order effects that are not fully considered during this argument.

And how does polygamy harm traditional marriage?
Live and let live--wiser words were never spoken.

"should gay couples be allowed to adopt?"

*They already are.

"How are divorces of gay couples to be handled?"

*CA Community Property laws apply equally to straight marriages, domestic partnerships, and pre-Prop 8 same-sex marriages. This question has already been answered.

"What about domestic violence?"

*What about it? Its bad. You don't think the cops already respond to same-sex DV situations?

Beth and C.Dave touch on an intriguing counter-argument, one voiced by McArdle months ago: that is, there might be unknown consequences to sanctioning gay marriage. And C.Dave is right that it would force us to look at the rights of same-sex unmarried couples. That said, I just find these kinds of cautions too ephemeral to fully counter the freedome to marry.

> I just find these kinds of cautions
> too ephemeral to fully counter the
> freedome to marry.

They're only "ephemeral" if they're unwarranted. And there's no "freedom" to marry.

People who are for this ought to have the rhetorical courage to admit that they're making a VERY LARGE CHANGE to the definition of marriage. Instead they want to pretend it's a minor tweak... Easier to sell that way, ain't it? No use workin' up a sweat or anything....

Y'know the nihilist streak in me wants to see this become the law of the land so all those "domestic partnerships" are required to marry to keep their benefits, and finally put some real shit on the line. Right now, a domestic partnership breaks up, there's no divorce battle.

Once they get "married", however, the lawyers get involved when the breakups happen. And they will. Homosexual relationships are no more immune to failure than heterosexual ones.

The whining and bitching will be heard 'round the world when all these companies that put in "domestic partnership" benefits because "gay marriage isn't legal" start to cancel those benefits to avoid having to give them to unmarried co-habitating hetero couples.

I swear that these people don't play chess.

"And how does polygamy harm traditional marriage? "

A lot. The only reason you are married to a beautiful young Asian woman is that we do not allow polygamy here.

Otherwise, Mormons will take the first 20 percent available female population. Another 20 percent will go to rich and old but horny men, like David Letterman. Next 20 percent will go to politicians, who enjoy banging their girl friends between campaign stops.

Do you really think a short, skinny Asian boy, who lives in the basement of his grand mother, has a shot at remaining 40 percent available female?

Neither do you.

I think I have read in a number of places that one of the major causes of divorce in this country are disagreements about money. Who is earning it and how they are spending it. Gay couples right now who do not legally tied their assets together don't have to worry about this or fight about this. They can just maintain seperate banks accounts, agree who is going to pay what bills and provide for joint ownership of the dwelling. Once gay marriage comes along and they are in the same boat as hetro married couples, wait for the finances to become another battleground that will break up relationships. Call it the "full employment for family lawyers" act. Isabel

I quote from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle ( SFGate, Oct 15, Judge Refuses to Toss Suit Challenging Prop8 ): Judge Walker said," Among the questions to be answered, he said from the bench, is whether Prop 8 was passed with discriminatory intent."

Huh ?

It is hard enough for a jury to determine the intent of just one criminal defendant in a murder trial. Since Prop 8 was passed with a vote of 7,000,000 to 6,400,000, I don't see how a judge or jury will be able to ascertain the intent of 7,000,000.

I can't wait for gay marriage to be recognized nationwide. When they start getting divorced, how are the family courts going to decide custody arrangements? Gay/lesbian couples have been adopting and/or having children via surrogates or artificial insemination for years.

And what Cousin Dave said.

To me, it seems like the gay community needs to be careful what they ask for.

Question: are they kind of like many feminists, or other minorities, where they say they want equal rights, but what they really want are special rights? I think yes, but only time will tell.

Patrick: I'm going to let Crid do the honors. He's written about it many times here before, and he is familiar with all the studies.

Brian and Isabel: Sometimes I want to ask the gay marriage advocates: "Are you sure you know what you're asking for?"

And Chang hit it on the nose regarding polygamy. Big, big social issues occur when two-thirds of all men can't find a mate.

A man and woman permanently bonding and nurturing their own offspring to adulthood -- the family unit -- is the fundamental building block of society, because it is the best situation for children (not always perfect, but so what?). Society has reason to give special consideration to promoting this arrangement (and even if a particular man and woman cannot or will not reproduce, they still would provide the needed male and female influence for any children who "artificially" come into the relationship). The same cannot be said of any other form of human relationship -- no matter how valuable the relationship to the individuals involved.

When gay "marriage" -- and then soon thereafer polyamorous and incestuous relationships, of course -- become accepted as being inherently the same, i.e., just as valuable, as a male-female bond, there will be nothing "special" remaining to the heterosexual institution, it will be further stripped of its dignity, and its already precipitous decline will only be hastened -- all to the detriment of the children who won't be raised by a married, stable mother AND father.

(Note how there is nothing "bigoted" or "homophobic" in this position?)

"And there's no "freedom" to marry. "

SCOTUS said it's a fundamental human right. Case closed, issue settled..

"Like, on the scale between "Traditional values" and "Personal gratification" the gap between heterosexual family life and gays is way too big, gosh, it's too big even for some of the heterosexual couples,"

"Even"? WTF? Anna Nicole Smith? Love marriages are inherently about "personal gratification" - that was the argument for them in Jane Austen's day and that is the argument against them in countries like India where arranged marriages are still the norm.

Those 32 million Chinese men who will never have a chance to marry because of selective abortions, well there's another of those unintended consequences...

Polygamy isn't working out too well for the Middle East, either.

On the bright side, Chang, there are plenty of cute young Asian females out there. Problem is, most of them are in Asia, not your grandma's basement. Go West, young man.

> and he is familiar with all the
> studies.

Are you being sarcastic?

> SCOTUS said it's a fundamental
> human right. Case closed, issue
> settled.

Anybody I want? Anything I want? I've love to see your cite.

A lot of people love to use pre-emptive rhetoric. Again, nobody wants to break a sweat and actually explain why children don't need a mommy and a daddy.

PS - Someone once said Jane Austin died a virgin. I'm not a literature guy, myself, I'm just sayin'.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I thought Cousin Dave actually brought up some good points.

I don't believe it has to inevitably lead to polyamory and incest being legal. But the concerns that it will are not without merit.

I think monogamous marriage gives one a stake in society. Your hostages to fortune are also your impetus to be concerned about what happens to the society around you. Without them, you could just leave. A spouse and a spare lets you play the odds.

And Chang hit it on the nose regarding polygamy. Big, big social issues occur when two-thirds of all men can't find a mate.

Another reason to dislike i-hole. He's got me (mostly) agreeing with Chang.

Chang, don't forget the 20% who (for whatever reason) do not make desirable marriage partners. That leaves your short, skinny Asian boy living in his grandmother's basement competing for the remaining 20%.

It's not that polygamy harms traditional marriage. It's that it harms society.

Polygamy skews the game. More powerful and more established men tend to attract more wives, leaving young men with fewer prospects.

That leaves a large population of frustrated, testosterone-laden young men without realistic hope of building a family and a legacy.

Having a large population of frustrated young men was a bad thing in Europe when the knights who had been armed and trained to fight the Vikings found themselves with no one but each other to fight.

It is a bad thing in the Middle East today where young men without rich parents are left out of the marriage game and have few options but to go and kill infidels.

Fundamentalist churches in the American hinterland that practice polygamy create their own set of problems. Young men are forced out of the community as older, more established men want to monopolize the marriage-aged women for themselves and their sons. Extra wives frequently go on public assistance because the men do not earn enough to support multiple families.

"Live and let live" is fine as a bumper sticker. In real life, however, it's too often "Live and deal with the consequences of my bad choices."

“SCOTUS said it's a fundamental human right. Case closed, issue settled..”

What is the name of the court case?

Name me one instance where someone actually DIED because they couldn’t participate in a ceremony to get married to their sweetie? Where they were prohibited from earning a living because they couldn’t marry their partner? Are they all of a sudden not free now because they can’t exchange legally recognizable vows? Denied food? Water? Housing? Hello, you with me?

We seem to be confusing actual *human rights* with “wouldn’t it be nice if….” wants. Such a misperception can have ugly consequences in the long run.

Feebie asks: "What is the name of the court case?"

Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's law against miscegenation (mongrelization of the white race). Their statement included this:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I didn't have this information off the top of my head, so I Googled SCOTUS right to marry and I found this. Their statement, while applying to miscegenation laws, clearly state a "right to marry."

Again, nobody wants to break a sweat and actually explain why children don't need a mommy and a daddy.

How is this argument even slightly relevant to whether or not gay people should be able to marry, since, you know, they can't reproduce? Marriage ≠ children. Gay marriage especially. Is your argument that if we let gay people marry, somehow, we'll end up with meaningfully more children growing up in homes without a mother and father.

Yes.

OK, that's a coherent position. Do you have any evidence to support it, or is it merely what your gut says?

Interestingly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has this to say about gay marriage and children:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

"become accepted as being inherently the same, i.e., just as valuable, as a male-female bond, there will be nothing "special" remaining to the heterosexual institution, it will be further stripped of its dignity, and its already precipitous decline will only be hastened -- "

This is not homophobic, just completely illogical. You seem to be saying that the male-female bond is what makes marriage special. Does it make heterosexual prostitution soem magical thing then? At least it's a man and a woman. Is this really what you are trying to say?

"A man and woman permanently bonding and nurturing their own offspring to adulthood -- the family unit -- is the fundamental building block of society"

i agree that the family is the core of society, but I disagree that it is a man and his woman. I thkn, and history bears me out on this, that the fundamental structure of a family is a man and his sons and his grandsons. That's why family names are really anmes for male lineages. If the temporary (one generation is a pretty short time in the life of a stable family) lash-up of a man and a woman is a family, then why don't we give those names of their own? We don't.

Science has determined that children don't need Mommies or Daddies.

Very good then; thanks.

Judge provides a humiliating kick to the crotch, which is grimly amusing. Opening the can of worms, maybe not. The return Question is: what is the PURPOSE of marriage?

For thousands of years it has been to establish multilateral blood relations that society can be based upon. There are individual variations, sure, there always have been. But how long do we cruise on inertia? Marriage is for procreative, and associated property distribution. Once you make it only for property distribution, why would people do it? There is no reason for the regulation of it. You have slipped a bond, though making it easier to dilute other bonds.

Asking if this is good or bad, is how you decide it is. Saying well it will happen anyway, is not a positive decision. Society IS changing anyway, and possibly writing itself into extinction in the process. That is the way animals work, right? We go from traditional family relationships from thousands of years past, to loose ones based on the positive ideal of live and let live.

Yet. As time goes on the way things morph doesn't have to be good, it just is. Single parenthood becomes more normal, and there is less downside to it, so there is less reason to avoid it. Marriage becoems a contract of convenience, so people in the same family become only loosely bound. there are no reasons to have direct genetic children, within the bond. The less dowside to that kind of bond, the less reason to keep it at all.

Eventually the individual is the only important thing... How will this play withour own genetic longing to be with someone else? Yeah that could be quite an issue.

These sorts of thought experiemnts, are the ones that are avoided, because they can give you a cramp. does that mean we shouldn't bother? Why are we coming up with this wierd definition of marriage, when the definition has been settled since before we even wrote things down? That's like saying procreation is descriminatory, because only a human male, and a human female can do it without artificial help. Is that going to be the next demand? That everybody have children artificailly so as to not descriminate against anyone? The name is Bergeron, Harrison Bergeron.

That isn't the way things are done now... You could adopt, use a surrogate or IVF, sperm donor or whatever. It's a positive thing. I can't do it this way, so I will do it that way instead.

So where does that leave us? Is a complex mess. Perhaps we should make marriage only one of a class of partnerships where legal standing is given to partners as a contract relationship. But then you wouldn't be redefining marriage itself to suit the tastes of a small minority, would you? IMHO, when we started treating marriage as merely a legal idea, our problems multiplied. Why do people get married and what is their expectation? Seem to have lost sight of it.

I'm not saying this as any sort of paragon of marriage or familial purity. On the contrary my family is well on the fringes, of various adaptations of how families can be formed and what bonds are required. However, this was hung on the framework of a long marriage in my grandparents generation...

in the end, I think people need to ask what they are trying to get out of this fight? Legalizing various other kinds of "marriage", doesn't somehow make those people legitimate so that they can be part of the "in" crowd at school. Those that think it does are crying stridently that it's not fair, and trying to force through legal means everyone to accept them.

If we are in the "live and let live world" than those who are suing to get the definition of marriage changed are the ones in the wrong. They are the one trying to bend wills, instead of just living the way they wish to. If Marriage descriminates against other types of partnerships, do you eliminate that by changing the meaning of the idea, or by eliminating the exception status of it's partnership?

"People who are for this ought to have the rhetorical courage to admit that they're making a VERY LARGE CHANGE to the definition of marriage."

I admit it.

Whatever, thank you.

This was the point I was trying to make. Someone said, as if it were a given, that we supposedly have piles and piles of evidence that children do better with a mommy and a daddy as opposed to two mommies or two daddies.

So, where are these studies? How come no one has brought this forward?

I found this statement interesting: "No one wants to break a sweat and explain why no one needs a mommy and a daddy."

That would be Shifting The Burden of Proof. The onus lies on the person making the claim, so one side doesn't get to pull wishful thinking out of their ass, while the other side has to run around and disprove a fusillade of bogus claims.

Ah, no.

One of the things I love about the internet is that it killed "they." Prior to the abundance of outlets to the internet, have you ever gotten into it with someone who asserted that "they did studies on this, and they found that [insert dubious conclusion here]"?

"They" is dead, folks. You want to assert bullshit, you need to back it up. Not the other guy's job to disprove anything your flight of fancy takes you. You have an internet. Use it.

Patrick - there is a difference. There is a difference between making it illegal to refuse to marry interracial couples (man and woman) and marry gays. You do see the difference don't you?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Fundamental because a man and a woman, regardless of race, are able to naturally procreate. How do you expect me to follow the same logic with two people from the same sex?

Court cases aren't just there for people to pick and choose how they can apply to their own lives to best serve their lifestyle. Sorry, that's just not how this works, it's not meant to be as subjective as you are making it. This court case has been taken out of context to prove your point - and it's sloppy. How does "not even remotely the same set of circumstances" sound to ya?

Where do you get off comparing the true brutality of racism and miscegenation (which was most certainly a human rights issue) to gays not being able to marry? I find this argument insulting, at best.

> Shifting The Burden of Proof.

Me? I'm Mr. Status Quo: Marriage is for a single man and a single, unrelated, competent, consenting, age-appropriate woman. Everything's fine just as it is.

Science has determined that children don't need Mommies or Daddies.

They need "Conscientious and nurturing adults". Yep.

Court cases aren't just there for people to pick and choose how they can apply to their own lives to best serve their lifestyle.

Legal reasoning frequently works by analogy, Feebie. You can disagree with Patrick, but his argument is not necessarily specious because you don't like how he extended the legal reasoning. You can almost certain that if a gay marriage decision is ever handed down by the Supreme Court, the decision will either be written as a logical extension of Loving v. Virginia, or it will take great care to distinguish itself from the Loving precedent.

> They need "Conscientious and
> nurturing adults". Yep

No; be courageous, be clear. Say it like this:

"It's OK with me if little children don't have mommies."

You're trying to pussyfoot, are you?

Being the non-child lover that I am, I always thought that if I was gay, not reproducing would be one of the benefits. So when so many people in the gay community started expressing their desire for children, my gut reaction was Whyyyyyyy??

And marriage? I can understand the desire these days because of the legal necessity under certain circumstances, but otherwise it's something I could have done without.

But hey, if a couple of people want to get married, what do I care? As long as they have to go through as much of a headache as I did when I divorced my first husband! You want the good stuff, deal with the bad stuff, too.

Children are a little more complicated, obviously. When it's my turn to be God, everybody involved in a child's life will actually be involved in that child's life. No anonymous donors, no surprises later.

No surrogate parents to either change their minds about the adoption, or to be surprised by adults who want to get to know their birth mother or father.

I'll iron out the details later, when I'm God. Otherwise, knock yourselves out.

"You can disagree with Patrick, but his argument is not necessarily specious because you don't like how he extended the legal reasoning."

Or I could disagree with him because the argument he is making is like comparing apples to oranges.

The very premise of his argument is about marriage being a right to survival through procreation which doesn't exists the same way fundamentally with two people of the same sex. That's just the facts.

The case he provides gives us insight into the basic horror of legislating policies blocking a group of human beings based on their race from the ability to try to obtain legitimate access to institutions which would provide them basic human rights necessary for their survival (and in this case, it wasn't JUST the marriage going on during that time, it was a whole hell of a lot fucking more being denied to blacks).

He wants to use another case to prove his point, FINE. but this one is apples and oranges.

Sorry, Feebie. You do not get to try to change the parameters of the discussion.

You quote this: “SCOTUS said it's a fundamental human right. Case closed, issue settled..”

You replied with this: What is the name of the court case?

I replied with Loving vs. Virginia, which very clearly states that marriage is a fundamental human right.

I was not addressing any such thing about how to extend interracial marriages to gay marriages. You asked for the name of the court case in which SCOTUS decreed that marriage is a fundamental human right, without a single caveat as to how it applies to gay marriages. I answered the question as asked. You have now been shown that the Supreme Court has asserted that marriage is a fundamental human right.

Sorry, Feebie, you lost this round.

Crid, I would say you're being disingenuous, but I truly think you're just whining. "We've decided that kids don't need mommies or daddies...whine, whine, whine..." You're infantile attempts at being cagey are simply tedious and unclever. You don't like the discussion, so you're going to pout until you succeed in derailing it.

No, we've decided that kids need parental figures. Two seems to work, but one is often sufficient. They should be mommies and/or daddies.

We've decided.

"Anybody I want? Anything I want? I've love to see your cite."

That's not what you said. Look back upthread - no - let me do it for you. You said:

"And there's no "freedom" to marry."

That['s what you said, and that's what the repsonse was to.

"And there's no "freedom" to marry."

That's exactly analogous saying there's no "freedom" to own weapons, or no "freedom" to free speech, or no "freedom" to belong to any reliogious organization, no matter how heretical and immoral it is. "freedom" is exactly how those amendments are understood.

There's a lot more basis to saying that reliogious freedom has done more to undermine civilization than gay marriage ever could.

"I've love to see your cite."

And oh by the way, if you need a citation for such a famous case, you're really just not in the conversation, are you? Go do your homework before you come in here interrupting the adults again.

"If we are in the "live and let live world" than those who are suing to get the definition of marriage changed are the ones in the wrong. They are the one trying to bend wills, instead of just living the way they wish to. "

False. this is not about bending anyone's will. This is about changing the law, not people's minds.

"The case he provides gives us insight into the basic horror of legislating policies blocking a group of human beings based on their race from the ability to try to obtain legitimate access to institutions which would provide them basic human rights necessary for their survival..."

False. It doesn't refer to survival. Both of the complainants could have married any number of other people, as provided by Virginia law. Even if they could not marry anyone, that would not have imperiled their survival at all.

"Where do you get off comparing the true brutality of racism and miscegenation (which was most certainly a human rights issue) to gays not being able to marry? I find this argument insulting, at best. "

Oh, the old "how dare you whitey try to compare anything to racism."

FAIL. Take your tired old guilt-mongering and sel it somewhere down the street.

How dare you try to equate anti-miscengenation laws to the brutality of racism? How dare you try to equate lynchings denial fo vioting rights and segregation to something as trival as marrying the piece of white of your choice?

Feebie, by the way, that ruling of Loving v. Virginia did not say a single word about procreation. The ruling they struck down certainly did (since they feared the coming of a "mongrel race"), but don't assume that the Supreme Court ever said that marriage is for procreation.

If they did, it was not in this case.

And marriage was also not denied to black people. What was denied was the right of whites and blacks to marry each other.

So, you may think my argument was insulting, but you have no basis for saying so.

Crid, "Shifting the Burden of Proof" wasn't directed to you. I intended that for Cousin Dave, who seems to think that we have all kinds of evidence to support that children do best with one daddy and one mommy.

I do not accept his claim that all this evidence is out there, so I said "prove it." To expect someone to make a claim, sans evidence, then expect me to track down the evidence to refute it is shifting the burden of proof.

Status Quo is a fair argument, by the way. I'm very fond of the saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Although the high divorce rate might suggest that the institution is broken, but that is not to imply that gay marriage is the remedy.

So you were bluffing? Cool. Maybe that "case" isn't "closed" and that "issue" isn't "settled" after all.

Listen, I think y'alls a buncha yeller cowards for not saying it in a plainspoken way: Children don't need Mommies.

(Saying that Children don't need Daddies is no less repellent, but the world is halfway to Hell anyway.)

So you should say it as an affirmation, with no clauses or cleverness or evasion: "Children don't need Mommies."

Why wouldn't you? Am I putting words in your mouth?

"Sorry, Feebie. You do not get to try to change the parameters of the discussion."

Says who? Do you have control issues? Is this how you win arguments - you start boxing people in like a bully? Tsk, tsk. Can't win in a fair fight, eh?

Your statement was vague and deserved clarifications. I don't read minds - how was I to assume your argument would have been so weak? Are you always this lazy with details? It's a sneaky, underhanded way to win an argument, dontcha think?

Nothing happens in a vacuum, including court rulings. You can't apply a human rights argument to gay marriage without drawing the most basic of parallels, which cannot be drawn in this case so now you've gone and run away. YOU failed.

She's right: We can talk about whatever we want. It's one reason I've been hanging out here for the last 6 years: Amy Alkon's discussions don't have "parameters".

Parameters!

uh, call me crazy sandy, but Loving vs. V. doesn't provide a definition of MARRIAGE itself, rather who the parties can be. So, we ARE back to "what is the PURPOSE of marriage".

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...." -SCOTUS

our survival and existance, because Marriage is for procreation.

"And marriage was also not denied to black people. What was denied was the right of whites and blacks to marry each other."

And since blacks were destitute to poverty at that time on account of racist policies and legislative barriers keeping them from trying to secure basic human rights - getting married to a white person certainly would circumvent that process...no?

Seriously, one of the most insulting arguments out there is that gays should get to compare their suffering to that of the human and civil rights movements of the blacks in this country. Not even close - it's insulting.

PS. Patrick, you are a pansy.

I prefer the affirmative statement:

It doesn't matter whether they are mommies or daddies. Children need responsible, loving, nurturing conscientious adults to care for them.

And I would "prefer" if you and Patrick would pull your heads out of your own asses - but that ain't gonna happen...

Just finished Chuck Palahniuk's book Pygmy, which poses the nightmare scenario where children need neither mommies nor daddies, as they belong to the people and the community (read: the state).

There. That solves it. (brushes hands off)

> I prefer the affirmative statement:

Why? Why do you need to tuck those extra college-boy words? If "it doesn't matter", you should simply assert:

Mommies aren't necessary.
____________

I think there's a reason that you won't say that.

Feebie, I'm positively embarrassed for you. You've invoked manufactured outrage and personal attacks where reasoning has failed you.

So, you may as well spare us all your bullshit. Your self-righteous hysteria because I dared to invoke SCOTUS striking down anti-miscegenation laws to answer a question about marriage being a fundamental human right is so transparent, you look positively ridiculous right now. Since SCOTUS has declared that marriage is a fundamental human right, it's merely a matter of time before it will be extended to gays as well.

And I'm perfectly willing to keep this up until your faux-indignation burns itself out. Because, once that's gone. You have absolutely nothing to support your conviction. Your attempts to make me feel ashamed of myself, or put me on the defensive simply aren't going to work.

You're not the least bit insulted. You just have nothing in the way of legitimate arguments, and this self-righteous display is nothing but a rhetorical mask to try and hide that fact. Did I mention I'm not buying it?

Besides, I'm enjoying the show. What other names will I be called? How long will you be able to keep up this veneer of outrage? Time will tell.

SwissArmyD...no that's sex, not marriage. Sex preserves the race. Marriage is simply a stable building block. Anyway, I'm surprised you would resort to this argument, because it's so easily refuted. To suggest that marriage should be for procreation is to say that the infertile should not marry, nor should those who choose not to have children. And what about elderly couples who can no longer have children and now have an empty nest? Do we break up their marriages?

Crid, I'll say it. Children don't need mommies, beyond the means with which they're squirted out into the world.

Patrick. I have several friends whose families participated in the black civil rights movement of the 60's.

IT IS INSULTING. And ignorant. I saw just how insulting it was in action when some gays were dropping off fliers in my friends neighborhood and her husband walked in with one... The fliers were attempting to drum up support for Prop 8: "Hey black people, come help us win our human rights fight - were just like you guys".

I'll say this as plainly as possible, it was NOT well received. Not by them, not by anyone in their neighborhood who got that flier.

And no one is stopping you from coming up with some other argument...YOU brought it up.

Feebie, YAWN!

And I would "prefer" if you and Patrick would pull your heads out of your own asses - but that ain't gonna happen...

Ah, good old ad hominem. Never fails.

I think there's a reason that you won't say that.

Yes, because it's an oversimplification.

I'll say this as plainly as possible, it was NOT well received. Not by them, not by anyone in their neighborhood who got that flier.

Homophobia is rampant in the black community. And in the hispanic community.

> Yes, because it's an
> oversimplification.

How? What's lost? Is it not not a literal, cleanly-deducted distillation?

You're ashamed, that's all.

Whatever, I do think this is entertaining though. "How dare you compared the suffering of homosexuals to those of blacks! SHRIEEEK!"

(I'm waiting for Feebie to call me a racist.)

I didn't compare the persecutions of anyone throughout history. I merely answered a question regarding when the Supreme Court stated that marriage is a fundamental human right. Actually, anti-miscegenation laws weren't about black rights, per se, any more than they were about white rights, since both parties in an interracial marriage could be punished under Virginia law.

So, since the law has ruled in favor of people of different races to marry, it is only a matter of time before people of a particular sexual orientation will also be allowed to marry.

But I will say regarding the persecution of gays vs. that of blacks. It's not illegal to discriminate against gays...yet.

What we're witnessing is pretty close to the example of the fallacy known as Extended Analogy on the Atheism Web's list of logical fallacies...which, by the way, is a terrific resource.

Crid writes: How? What's lost? Is it not not a literal, cleanly-deducted distillation?

You're ashamed, that's all.

Oh, blah, blah, blah. It's an oversimplification because your statement doesn't clarify that there are still two parents present in the absence of a mother.

Anyway, I already said your silly statement. And I'll stand by it. Of course, children don't need mommies! And they don't need daddies, either. They can manage without one or the other. Doing without both, however, is not advisable. They need at least one responsible adult in the parental role. And if that adult or adults are nurturing, loving and are knowledgeable in the area of child-rearing, so much the better.

Why would a child "need" a mother beyond the incubation stage? Or did you think the child automatically died every time the mother passed on in childbirth? Has no child ever made it past infancy without a mother? Duuuh.

> your statement doesn't clarify that
> there are still two parents present

Why would it need to?

"Is two parents of the same sex better than foster homes or orphanages?"

Cousin Dave - I'm betting most orphanages were run (or manned - pun intended) by women, and plenty of foster parents are single people rather than married couples. I was an emergency foster parent during the height of the crack epidemic and took in kids for 24 hours or less as well as volunteered as a baby walker -- the kids born addicted needed constant gentle jostling or they'd have endless crying fits.

I definitely think those already terrified and sick kids were better off with single me and would absolutely be better off adopted into same-sex homes filled with love than left to the system. The system is scary.

Fine. Have it your way:

Children don't need mommies. Nor daddies. Children need responsible, loving, nurturing conscientious adults to care for them.

> Children don't need mommies.
> Nor daddies.

Great... Nice to have that on record. Now, boys, it's time to get out there and sell-sell-sell! Let your insight about human nature be your calling card: The love of a mother for her child means nothing.

Crid, you are such a stupid ass. Saying that someone doesn't "need" a mother is not to suggest that the love of a mother "means" nothing.

The logical disconnect that suggests that because something isn't "needed" it becomes utterly meaningless is a new level in stupidity. You're just unable tolerate a view apart from your own, and your own desperation to quiet this inevitable nasty gay marriage that you hate so much, has caused you to make profoundly stupid statements.

I submit to you that you don't need your arms. How do I know this? Because I know for a fact that humans exist who don't have arms. I've met some.

So, cut your arms off, Crid. Right now. After all, you're the imbecile who insisted that because something isn't "needed," it means nothing. Right?

You'd have us believe that you can't see the difference between something being "not essential" to "utterly and completely meaningless."

For God's sake, Crid, if you're going to be disingenuous, be GOOD at it. That was the stupidest argument to be raised in this thread. I'm impressed.

Let your insight about human nature be your calling card: The love of a mother for her child means nothing

No thanks. Because that's not something I have either said nor is it something I believe. I've made it entirely clear that I think children need loving adults to care for them. That includes but is not restricted to mothers. Far more important than gender is how a child's parents behave and the care they provide.

"Homophobia is rampant in the black community. And in the hispanic community."

That is a broad sweeping fucking statement if I ever read one. I wouldn't say there were any more homophobes there than there are in White communities, or Asian ones for that matter.

It's really not the point, any way. The point is that it is an unaccepable argument to make - and I am pretty sure had gays not started it here in California, they just might have won on prop 8 (that and attacking religions).

Comparing prohibition of black and white marriages to gay marriages is apples and oranges. The case Patrick presented shows the intent behind the decision, which was marriage being a human right specific for procreation and the protection that affords the offspring.

Gay's do not want to marry for the same reasons that most heterosexuals do...regardless of race. So it's a piss poor argument to make.

Think up another one...we are waiting.

Patrick - I am not going to call you anything of the sort. I don't know you - however, your argument is weak.

"And what about elderly couples who can no longer have children and now have an empty nest? Do we break up their marriages?"

No, we don't. Every single hetro sexual marriages regardless of their ages will be blessed by the public because of their potentials not by the actual outcomes. The actual results cannot be guaranteed and they are impossible to control or monitor. For tricky administrative purposes, the public has decided to honor the intentions or the acts (sex) of hetro sexual marrying couples in this case not the actual results.

The white people did not fight for the civil rights of the black people because it is the right thing to do. They did so because it was beneficial for the rest of the society. To simplify it, the white people want to give the chance to black people to earn their own living, because the rest of society was tire of giving black people free hand outs. Yes, it was all about the money.

By changing the status of quo and giving the right to marry for homo sexuals, I do not see any increase in my pay checks. I do not see any positive social impacts like peace on earth neither. Actually, it will make Muslims madder at Western civilization. In fact, it is going to cost me more money to handle their public divorce cases and child supports through my tax money.

Show me the money. How the rest of us are going to benefit by changing the status quo? Once you do that, you and I will dodge the bullets just like in 60s to pass the law to make home sexuals marriages legal.

Well, look who's back! And so composed now, too! What did you have to do? Hit the punching bag a few times to reign it all in?

You don't know why gays want to marry, or how it's so different from the reasons that heterosexuals marry, so that suggestion is null and void. You also make it sound like everyone gets married for the exact same reason.

And I repeat, if marriage is for procreation, then do you now deny the right of the infertile couples to marry? How about couples who choose not to have children? How about couples who marry, then learn they can't have children for whatever reason? Elderly couples who can no longer have children? Parents who have tragically lost their children? Do we nullify the marriages? And gays do raise children, sorry that disappoints you. According to that article, there are 65,000 children currently being raised by same sex couples.

So, I don't need to "think of another one." You have forwarded misinformation in the name of facts. You need to think of a cogent argument.

We're waiting. Back tomorrow, though. I'm heading to bed. Night all.

Aw, you guys are pussyfooting, finding distinctions without differences. How come you have to do that?

> Saying that someone doesn't "need"
> a mother is not to suggest that
> the love of a mother
> "means" nothing.

You want them to have it or you don't.

You don't.

> that's not something I have
> either said nor is it something
> I believe.

So a mother's love is essential? It's a binary proposition, boys: Pick a team.

Are their any mothers reading this?

"They need at least one responsible adult in the parental role"

Well if that were true, kids from single moms wouldn't turn out so crappily. Kids can survive and sometimes thrive with one parent when adversity takes the other away. That doesn't mean it's even close to ideal or something that should be striven for. A human can exist on dogfood nutritionally, but you don't see us doing away with grocery stores and stoves, do you?

I think adoptive gay parents are better than no parents. Sure. Dogfood is better than starving to death, as well. But a same-sex parent set is missing half the equation. For example, men have more active play with children than mothers. Babies as young as 6 weeks will lean forward in excitement when daddy walks up, because they know fun time is coming. Moms have more quiet close snuggling, and empathy. A child's heartbeat slows when in the vicinity of it's mother. Kids just need both.

"Crid, I'll say it. Children don't need mommies, beyond the means with which they're squirted out into the world."

Patrick, I'll say it: if you and your partner were meant to raise kids together, one of you would be able to squirt them out.

er, Patrick, that is from the SCOTUS opinion that you yourself threw out there...

And then you are talking about several things. Marriage isn't a point in time, it happens over time. It includes and is based on extending your family. The marriage doesn't end after you yourself stop making kids, then you start taking care of those kids' families, and they take care of you back, and so on generation after generation. The other things you are speaking of are outliers to that core concept. First Chronicle we know of with that core concept is Ur of Sumeria circa 2000BC. You wouldn't break up an infertile marriage, because you wouldn't necessarily know that they couldn't have kids till later. The govt. dosen't break up things that work after the fact. The low number of people who wish to get married but don't want kids are free riders, and importantly, the can and DO change their minds if they are still fertile.

So the understanding of what a marriage is, and is for, is really, really old. Now a small group of people wish to change that definition to match something else, and my question is why should that be? What is being fought for? The question isn't about fertility.

How much easier would it be to say, "those married people have special rights that they shouldn't and that should be taken away, or extended to any couple."

Now it's a different story because instead of re-defining the concept of Marriage, you are saying "two people meeting the following criteria, are given the following responsibilities and rights, providing they don't break this contract... blah, blah, blah."

Simple, easy and not re-defining anything. The special case of that contract that includes parenthood, would exist the way it does now, with all the requirments that do now.

What I'm seeing here is the wrong battle chosen. Which is very important. WHY battle to change the definition that the other 90% of society has? What IS the compelling reason, and why hasn't anyone figured that out in the past 4000+ years?

A side issue is How many gay couples will even wish to have children as a percentage of the whole? You are talking a small percentage of a small percentage group anyway.

I wouldn't say there were any more homophobes there than there are in White communities, or Asian ones for that matter.

You would be wrong. Spend some time on the Googles. The data are clear on this. It's relevant to the Prop 8 debate because the huge black turnout probably helped Prop 8 to pass.

But in reality, I think it was the cowardice of the "No on 8" campaign that did them in. Their approach eluded the issue - "Writing discrimination into our constitution" instead of "Taking away the rights and freedoms of your friends and neighbors" and failed to take on the deceptive attacks -"Our children are going to be taught to be gay in school". Failure to make an honest case for yourself is no way to win.

I think gay rights are the civil rights battle of our time. Until a few years ago, consensual sex between gay adults was a criminal act in many places. Gays are forced out the military for being honest about their sexuality. Gays are beaten severely or killed just because of how they were born. Cops bust up gay clubs just because they're gay clubs. Gay people can't get married to each other because of how they were born.

These things sound like civil rights issues to me.

So a mother's love is essential? It's a binary proposition, boys: Pick a team.

No, it's not a binary proposition. You wrote, "The love of a mother for her child means nothing" I explained that I do not agree with that statement, and have never agreed with that.

But to answer your question: No, a mother's love is not essential. It's a good thing (most of the time). But a child can thrive without it. A child cannot (usually) thrive without being raised by people who love and care for him.

The low number of people who wish to get married but don't want kids are free riders...

How so? What do these unions cost society?

They get preferential property statuses that single people don't, they are allowed to share benefits and such. It is this status that all of this argument is about in the first place. When one married person dies, their wealth passes to the survivor without inheritance tax [I believe] but the title and such is never in question, because they own everything as a unit. They can cover each other for benefits and such as a unit.

Yes Crid, there are mothers reading this.

Does a child "need" a mother? IIRC, Harlow covered this with his "surrogate mother" monkey experiments. Some may argue that primate studies are inconclusive and don't correlate with human behavior, but Ceausescu pretty much got the same #$%^ed up results in his orphanages, about 100,000 times over. I call that statistically significant. Anyone raised without a Caring Maternal Presence (NOTE THE QUALIFIERS PEOPLE BEFORE YOU JUMP MY ASS) ended up with moderate to severe cognitive, neurological, emotional, and/or behavioral impairments. Look 'em up, everyone here is passably familiar with the internet, right?

> No, a mother's love is not essential

Great... Have fun out there.

> Harlow covered this with his
> "surrogate mother" monkey experiments.

While your intention may be entirely conversational, I am amazed, just stunned, that people could reach this point in human development –not just in America, but anywhere on the globe– and suddenly feel so insecure about the meaning of parenthood that they think 'Wonder what the boys in the lab have come up with this week?'

'Caring maternal presence.'

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry to use the term so generically, but someone's gonna jump my ass any way I put it. There are too many variants, such as birthmothers, adoptive mothers, foster mothers, or grandmothers raising their grandkids. Had to further qualify it as Caring, since there's the alternative, UNcaring Maternal Presence which does as much damage as the Absent Mother. I did enough time at DCFS to see all of its grotesque permutations. I never worked with the healthy families, savvy?

Did you look up Harlow's work? It was horrifying, and I can say that admitting that I don't have a reputation of being a touchy-feely animal lover. He took baby monkeys away from their mothers and raised them with fabric-covered pieces of wood as surrogate mothers. The babies were so starved for a mother's touch that they literally became desperate for that meager substitute. He pushed these animals into psychotic breaks until they had to be destroyed, just to determine how important maternal affection was. I don't think anyone's allowed to do this type of research in the U.S. anymore. He did it back in the 50's and the animal rights movement grew in leaps and bounds as a result.

However, no one really needs to do further study, since there's enough data from Eastern European orphanages to occupy several lifetimes of study (if anyone got bored with shoving a sharp stick into their own eye and needed a new form of self torture- this stuff is even more nightmarish than Harlow). Hence the earlier reference to Ceausescu? He believed moms and dads weren't necessary either, just opposite genders forcing out tons of babies that would somehow miraculously raise themselves to be fully actualized adults without any childrearing necessary. Now there's over 100,000 kids with impairments along the lines that I mentioned before. Profound handicaps, to be more accurate. It is to weep, and it's why so many American parents have felt compelled to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go over and try to rescue some of these kids. Unfortunately, it's only palliative care. BOTTOM LINE: without a "mother's" love, these children failed to develop normally, and the damage cannot be reversed.

Does anything need more thoughtful & aggressive standards than parenting?

>>>"They need at least one responsible adult in the parental role"

Well if that were true, kids from single moms wouldn't turn out so crappily. Kids can survive and sometimes thrive with one parent when adversity takes the other away. That doesn't mean it's even close to ideal or something that should be striven for. A human can exist on dogfood nutritionally, but you don't see us doing away with grocery stores and stoves, do you?

I think adoptive gay parents are better than no parents. Sure. Dogfood is better than starving to death, as well. But a same-sex parent set is missing half the equation. For example, men have more active play with children than mothers. Babies as young as 6 weeks will lean forward in excitement when daddy walks up, because they know fun time is coming. Moms have more quiet close snuggling, and empathy. A child's heartbeat slows when in the vicinity of it's mother. Kids just need both.

Well put Momof4. I would further add my own experience and observations. Boys, as they become teenagers, especially need a father (a well meaning father not a worthless POS father). Admittedly the following is nothing more than my own observations and assumptions....if more fathers were around doing what they should be doing, we would have a lot less young men sitting in jail and/or a drain on society.

Unfortunately the reality is a significant amount of fathers are not doing what they should be doing (they simply should never have been fathers in the first place or did so too young). So it's likely a caring well meaning homosexual couple is going to be better than a significant amount of single mom families (especially those moms who should have never been mothers in the first place or became mothers too young). With that said it's a bit perplexing to see the argument put forth that the caring well meaning male-female household is not the ideal environment for raising children.

They get preferential property statuses that single people don't, they are allowed to share benefits and such. It is this status that all of this argument is about in the first place. When one married person dies, their wealth passes to the survivor without inheritance tax [I believe] but the title and such is never in question, because they own everything as a unit. They can cover each other for benefits and such as a unit.

Hey thanks. As some who has been responsible financially for nearly 20 years, I love to know when I'm freeloading.

But do these things end up as a net cost or benefit? E.g., I'm a yuppie DINK. I enjoy that our benefits come from one job (thankfully, we're both alive and haven't had to do the survivorship bit). But we pay crap-tons of taxes, sold our one real estate holding a couple years ago and paid long-term capital gains on it as would anyone with our income, and don't recieve any other big benefits I know that don't pop up prior to the death of one spouse (if I have missed one, please pass it on!) . Is my marriage = freeloading? Do I gotta tell the missus we gotta get with the kids, stat, to make the whole thing not a cheat on society?

without a "mother's" love, these children failed to develop normally, and the damage cannot be reversed.

Juliana, Yyour point is inapt. You're talking about experiments where they compared an empty teat that was surrounded by warm fuzzy stuff to a metal teat with food surrounded by nothing comforting. Monkeys went for the comfort instead of the food. Right? Or did you have a more profound insight into this research?

But that is not the question at hand. The question is whether a males, or women (not the birth mother), can properly love and nurture a child.

Great... Have fun out there.

So wait. I'm wrong. No child can have a thriving successful life without a loving XX parent in his life? That's what you're claiming? All it takes is the love of a female member of the species capable of reproducing and life is gravy. I never knew.

With that said it's a bit perplexing to see the argument put forth that the caring well meaning male-female household is not the ideal environment for raising children.

What if it's a really caring home with one parent who's a bit of a drunk? Not a "get in fights at the bar" or "blackout in public" drunk, but just the one who knocks down a good amount of booze and then quietly passes out at 11pm...

Family is as good as family does.

SwissArmyD writes: How much easier would it be to say, "those married people have special rights that they shouldn't and that should be taken away, or extended to any couple."

What the hell difference does it make? You support the rights of gays to enter into domestic partnerships with the rights of married couples, but you're just squeamish about the word "marriage"?

Sorry, but we tried the "separate but equal" proposition before with segregation and we discovered that it doesn't work. If gays are to have their domestic partners recognized as such, they need the same term codified into law.

Personally, I think "marriage" shouldn't be a legal term. For legal purposes they should all be referred to as "civil unions," and you my enter into a "civil union" with anyone, including your own sister, if you want. This is not advocating incest, only the right to confer next of kin benefits upon someone you choose who is willing, who will be able to have rights of inheritance, end of life decisions, etc.

And if people want to call their unions "marriages," fine and dandy. They can call it "chicken noodle soup" for all the law should care. Only that the law will use the term "civil union" for all such "marriages."

People can call their unions "marriages" all they want. They can even sneeringly deny that someone else's unions are "marriages," even if the participants choose to call them that. But in the eyes of the law, they should all be recognized as civil unions, regardless of what Gladys Kravitz thinks.

Crid, you're resorting to demagoguery and your arguments are dishonest. Just because something like "mother's love" is not needed, it does not follow that it's meaningless. It is not a binary proposition. "Not essential" can still be "very nice to have." But since there are 65,000 children being raised by same sex couples, statistical averages would suggest that 32,500 are, in fact, being raised without a mother's love.

You do not have a binary proposition, and jumping up and down hysterically squeaking, "It is! It is! It is!" will not make it so.

(Though I have to admit, I'm very entertained by watching you make an idiot of yourself with all these transparent logical absurdities you're throwing out. In most cases, the things you claim at least sound plausible, if not necessarily true. But this topic apparently has you so upset, you've thrown reason right out the window, and you didn't bother to even open the window before doing it.)

SwissArmyD writes: A side issue is How many gay couples will even wish to have children as a percentage of the whole? You are talking a small percentage of a small percentage group anyway.

65,000 children being raised by gay couples means 130,000 are raising children with probably many more who have a desire to do so (you seem to thinking that gays who want to adopt just have a cakewalk of a deal bringing this about--Florida, for instance, doesn't allow gay adoption--thank you, Anita Bryant, you puritanical, hypocritical, tax-cheating, self-righteous bitch) against how many gays and lesbians? I don't know how many gays and lesbians there actually are, and neither does anyone else. Nor does anyone know exactly how many gays wish to raise children in their same sex couple.

You don't know at all if it's a small percentage of this small percentage group.

Chang writes: Every single hetro sexual marriages regardless of their ages will be blessed by the public because of their potentials not by the actual outcomes.

Prove it.

Show me the money. How the rest of us are going to benefit by changing the status quo?

Bullshit. My civil rights do not depend on whether or not you make money from the deal. In fact, my civil rights apply even if it's to your financial detriment. Racial quotas could be to the detriment of a large business, for instance, if the best quota hire for a particular job happens to be less qualified than a non-quota hire.

Momof4 writes: if you and your partner were meant to raise kids together, one of you would be able to squirt them out.

You willing to take on the 65,000 currently being raised by same sex couples? Plus the adopted children of infertile couples, since they can't squirt out kids either?

Momof4 writes: For example, men have more active play with children than mothers. Babies as young as 6 weeks will lean forward in excitement when daddy walks up, because they know fun time is coming. Moms have more quiet close snuggling, and empathy. A child's heartbeat slows when in the vicinity of it's mother. Kids just need both.

Ah, yes, the gender stereotypes. Let's just drag those out, never mind that we haven't proven any of this, nor have we proven the proposition that a parent of the opposite gender couldn't fulfill those roles. God forbid a mother enjoy more active play with her child and the child's heartbeat slows when in the presence of their father.

Newsflash: what happens in your relationship does not necessarily happen in everyone else's.

You guys are making this waaaaaay too easy. Recently a friend of mine on a message board said that the anti-gay marriage crowd has yet to raise a cogent, logical argument, and you guys are certainly proving her point.

Which is, by the way, the whole point of the original post. The attorney fighting to maintain California's anti-marriage ban can't argue for his own case.

it's not a word Patrick, rather an idea.

and? We are not the ones arguing for a change in that idea, you are. I'm fine with the civil union as the default, and you can call it whatever the hell you want to yourself. But there is the thing...

That requires much less change. You aren't forcing 90% of the people to your will. It's simply a procedural change.

I don't HAVE to raise the cogent argument, because I am not asking for a definitional change in a thousands year old idea. You ARE. I have yet to see a good reason for this. Other than "because I want it". This isn't a question about separate but equal. That's like saying that gender is separate but equal, and therefore the idea of gender is bad and should be changed. We don't force everyone to be genderless. We just try to make it so they are equal under the eyes of the law.

Also about those 65,000 kids? There are about 62,000,000 children in the US. That's what I mean by smaller percentage...

> Just because something like
> "mother's love" is not needed, it
> does not follow that it's
> meaningless.

This is a powerful argument. I think you should offer it to as many people as will listen, as often as possible. Sell-sell-sell! Persuade-persuade-persuade!

> I am not asking for a definitional
> change

Word.

Swiss, I forget, are you the lawyer or the computer guy?

SwissArmyD: I am not asking for a definitional change in a thousands year old idea.

No. You're just asking for what the SCOTUS has defined as a "right" to be reserved to you and denied to someone else in a Democratic society.

Gee, what could possibly be wrong with that?

These topics are always time bombs, and understandably so. My sympathy is with gays who want to commit to each other in marriage. But I have values that won't allow me to support for reasons completely void of any homophobia or hatred.

I don't think gay marriage would harm straight marriage directly. I don't see how it could--my wife and i's relationship is not cheapened because our good friends Mike and Brad, who were in our wedding, live with and love other men. But I do think it would harm our already crumbling family structure if lifted to a level with heterosexual marriage.

I'm of the belief that children are best off with a mother and a father, and this works best in a marriage. With gay marriage, they will miss one of those. We know how the politically correct, advocate left functions. It wont be long before people who want to put their kids up for adoption will be subject to lawsuits and affirmative action for discrimination against gay spouses in favor of the superior mother/father parenting.

Let me be clear, two gay men can be wonderful fathers. But they can't be mothers. Likewise, two gay women can be wonderful mothers, but they can't be fathers.

And I always get this response: but many people lose or are without a parent for many reasons. That is true, you can't plan when someone dies, or some marriage just don't work. However, the difference with gay marriage is that it guarantees, by design (instead of by accident or unplanned future) that a mother or a father will be absent. It's one thing when a child ends up without a mother or a father, it's another to guarantee it.

My wife and I adopted two beautiful twin girls from a woman who wanted her children to have a stable, two parent home--and by two parent, that means a mom and a dad. She may not have been allowed that choice if affirmative action police were to step in.

Then there is the other debate that if 2 of any sex are allowed, why not 3 or 4? I only have two comments on this argument. First, I don't see what is so special about the number 2 over the number 3. Second, for those who think people who hold my belief are bigoted, allow me to point out that those of us who believe in limiting marriage to 1 + 1 are not necessarily any more bigoted or any less good-intentioned than those who want that limit at 2. Most who limit at 2 would do so for the good of society, which is the same reason for most of us who want to limit it to 1 + 1.

I think it is a pandoras box best not open, for the sake of a generation that is already growing up with too few dads. Fatherlessness has been a disaster, I don't want to give motherlessness a try with it.

Patrick, has it occurred to you that perhaps the SCOTUS was wrong?

You want to change the definition of a foundational building block of civilization.

The onus is on you to prove it won't fuck things up. It's not my responsibility to prove that it will.

Brian writes: Patrick, has it occurred to you that perhaps the SCOTUS was wrong?

If it is wrong (and I don't say it is), it must be treated as "right" until such time as they overturn their own ruling or until congress enacts it into law. You don't get to decide that this can't be law because you think SCOTUS was wrong.

Brian writes: You want to change the definition of a foundational building block of civilization.

No, I just want it expanded to include me.

Brian writes: The onus is on you to prove it won't fuck things up. It's not my responsibility to prove that it will.

But the onus is on you. You don't get to deprive me of a civil right because you're worried it will fuck things up. You have to prove it will.

Trust writes: I'm of the belief...

Which is the entire problem with your argument right there.

No, I just want it expanded to include me.

Then learn how to make a child without a third party. When two men or two women can get together and make a baby without any intervention by science or a third party, then I'll accept gay marriage.

That's the deal. The state grants you certain privileges, and you agree to make new tax paying citizens.

And before you ask, yes, I would deny marriage to the infertile and those who intend to remain childless. And I'm vehemently against IVF, fertility drugs and surrogates.

Oh, and Patrick, not having read the decision myself, I'd be willing to bet that it was in the context of heterosexual marriage and procreation.

The court has held numerous times that procreation is a basic human right.

You have a right to marry a woman for the purpose of creating a family with her. You don't have a right to marry a man so you get his stuff when he dies.

Brian writes: And before you ask, yes, I would deny marriage to the infertile and those who intend to remain childless. And I'm vehemently against IVF, fertility drugs and surrogates.

What about infertile couples who want to adopt and give orphans a two-parent home? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

@Patrick: "Which is the entire problem with your argument right there."
___________

Why? That's my opinion, and I outlined some very rational details as to why it is my opinion?

Are you not stating your beliefs here? What makes you so wonderful that your beliefs should alter civilization but mine (which I have actually provided good reasons for) are a problem simply because they disagree with your beliefs?

@Patrick: "What about infertile couples who want to adopt and give orphans a two-parent home? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?"
___________

That would be my wife and I. She lost her fertility to ovarian cancer and we adoped twin girls so they would have a mom and a dad. You make no sense in that statement...of course they should be able to marry, they, unlike a gay couple, can still provide a mother and a father in an in tact home.

@Patrick: "But the onus is on you. You don't get to deprive me of a civil right because you're worried it will fuck things up. You have to prove it will."
________

That's the flaw in your thinking right there. You aren't deprived of any civil rights. You can live with and get sexual with whoever you want. You can leave whatever you own to whoever you want (and don't even argue the inheritance tax...it should be repealed, it is absurd, but a bad tax is no reason to redefine marriage).

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. It's most important, but not only, function is to prepare the next generation.

At least have the intellectual honest to admit that gay marriage, by design, will deny many children a mom or a dad. They'll have two of one, and non of the other. At least, not living in the same home as a family.

Sorry, the burden is on you to prove expanding this privilege is better for society. Calling a privilege a right does not make you entitled to it.

What about infertile couples who want to adopt and give orphans a two-parent home? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I haven't given that complete consideration, but for now I'm siding with no. They are an edge case.

Of course, so are homosexuals that want to marry. Homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population, and what random snippets I've seen indicate that less than 10% of those want to be married. So we're talking about a very small group of people that make far more noise than their size would indicate. And they are asking for a radical redefinition of one of the core elements of western civilization.

Of course, the inevitable comparison with slavery comes out, and it's bullshit. And that's because slavery was not a core element of western civilization. Western Civ did fine for 300 years without slaves.

In fact, attempting to tie gay marriage and the civil rights movement is completely disgusting. The civil rights movement was about ownership of self. Nobody would consider you to be owned and controlled by someone else and denied self determination because you can't call your union with another man "marriage".

The entire argument for gay marriage is not about marriage, nor about the dispensation of material possessions upon death. It is about forcing society to recognize something that no society has ever recognized, and that is an intentionally non-productive union of two people.

And why would anyone want that, other than to make themselves feel good? One word: divorce. That's the one thing that you don't have available to you as a gay man. You don't get the pleasure and pain of destroying lives during a drama-filled divorce proceeding.

Why anyone would lobby for such a thing is beyond me, but then again I never claimed to understand human motivation.

Trust writes: Why? That's my opinion, and I outlined some very rational details as to why it is my opinion?

Are you not stating your beliefs here? What makes you so wonderful that your beliefs should alter civilization but mine (which I have actually provided good reasons for) are a problem simply because they disagree with your beliefs?

I did read your entire post and thought it was thoughtful and well-written. My point is that you don't get to deprive me of civil rights because of your beliefs.

You state you believe that a child does best with a father and a mother.

Facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

I do not accept your beliefs as a basis of depriving me of civil rights. It didn't work for whites who believed that ethnic/racial minorities were inherently inferior, and it doesn't work against me, either.

A child needs its mother, as Crid likes to say. Can you prove that? Can you prove that a man cannot give to a child all the nurturing, love, comfort, encouragement, or whatever else it is that we think women have the exclusive monopoly on that makes them so indispensable?

You can't prove that. The studies in evidence suggest that gay parents can be just as effective as heterosexual parents. In fact, moreso, because gays have to jump through hoops in order to adopt to prove that they're suitable. Heterosexuals simply need working reproductive apparatus that will produce a kid, and they can be indigent, unemployed, drug addicted, welfare hounds who beat their children senseless on a daily basis, but they get to have a kid.

Since the "average" parental rating for heterosexuals is affected by this fact, gay parents will average much higher.

Trust writes: Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege.

SCOTUS says it's a right, and they must know.

@Patrick: "A child needs its mother, as Crid likes to say. Can you prove that? Can you prove that a man cannot give to a child all the nurturing, love, comfort, encouragement, or whatever else it is that we think women have the exclusive monopoly on that makes them so indispensable?"
-------------

Patrick, your response as a whole was a good one, and I believe I misjudged you. My apologies.

I would like to respond to the quoted part above. I believe based on numerous studies that children in married, two partent, mother and father homes, that children do better. But your quote misses a point. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest would say that two fathers cannot love children and provide a good home. Same with two mothers. The point is, a man can't be a mother and a woman can't be a father. And both are important.

I do concede you make a point that gay couples will have to jump through more hoops to get a child. Initially, the statistics may not look bad. I once read a study that shown children raised by a father do better than a mother. My response to it was not to conclude that fathers were better, but to point out that a father has to either stellar or the mother horrid in order for the father to get custody. So, when you only include the best in the studies, you will get skewed results.

Where we disagree is that it does not prove that marriage should be redefined. As we will see, as more gays get custody, while initially the best of the bunch, the standards will fall as to who gets custody based on political correctness, affirmative action, etc. It happens now--mothers get custody more often than they deserve, which is why the rare father that gets custody is usually much better than the average pareyt.

BTW, the SCOTUS is a group of 9 people usually split 5-4 on everything. They are not the standard bearer for rights, even if they misuse their function to be.

It bears repeating...I think gays can be wonderful parents, I am not arguing otherwise. My sympathy is with them and their desire to commit and have a family. But they are not alone, if they were I'd say let them marry. There are children involved...fatherlessness has been a disaster. I'm not wanting to increase it and throw motherlessness in the mix as well. It's a genie I'm not comfortable letting out of that bottle.

Best to you.

"Ah, yes, the gender stereotypes. Let's just drag those out, never mind that we haven't proven any of this, nor have we proven the proposition that a parent of the opposite gender couldn't fulfill those roles. God forbid a mother enjoy more active play with her child and the child's heartbeat slows when in the presence of their father."

It has been proven. If a woman could be a father, our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded. Yes, moms can go play soccer with their kids and toss them in the air, and dads can snuggle. It's still not the same, and our physiological responses prove that. Dads and moms get different and predictable physiological responses from children, across cultures. You can tell yourself it ain't so all you want. Your desperate desire for it to be different does not make it less true.

Infertile couples still have the physical parts needed to make children. That's a pretty base difference in people not possessing of the parts in the first place. Infertile couples are also couples containing a dad and a mom.

And I am against IVF, for what it's worth. There are plenty of kids needing homes, and plenty more that should need homes instead of being aborted.

I believe based on numerous studies that children in married, two partent, mother and father homes, that children do better.

Can you produce studies that show that children raised in the homes of heterosexual couples do better than those raised in single sex homes? Because the American Academy of Pediatrics released a large review I quoted and linked above that concluded this:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Momof4 writes: It has been proven.

Bullshit. :)

@Whatever: "Can you produce studies that show that children raised in the homes of heterosexual couples do better than those raised in single sex homes? Because the American Academy of Pediatrics released a large review I quoted and linked above that concluded this:"
_______________

Problem is, it is like the "children of divorce do better when dads have custody" study. Only the best fathers get custody, whereas horrible mothers get custody all the time, so of course when you measure only the best fathers with the average mother, it is skewed.

Likewise, gays have to do more to get custody, so when you measure the stellar against the average, the average come out behind.

That's the problem with any study, it's tough to remove all other factors.

Of course, when 80% of people in prison grew up without a father, and that's from a population where far more than 20% have fathers, it's fairly sound.

Of course, when 80% of people in prison grew up without a father, and that's from a population where far more than 20% have fathers, it's fairly sound.

And the question there is whether the issue is the lack a dad, per se, or combination of other factors strongly correlated with single parent homes: poverty, lower educational status (of the moms), lower value placed on school, lack of supervision...

@Whatever

I concede that may be a factor. That's the problem with stats, there are so many other factors.

For example, blacks are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites. digging deeper, when you discard illegitimacy, the disparity disappears. So the family breakdown appears to have a great deal to do with incaceration disparity--and perhaps other factors you mentioned.

Trust writes: Where we disagree is that it does not prove that marriage should be redefined. As we will see, as more gays get custody, while initially the best of the bunch, the standards will fall as to who gets custody based on political correctness, affirmative action, etc. It happens now--mothers get custody more often than they deserve, which is why the rare father that gets custody is usually much better than the average pareyt.

I don't say that marriage should be redefined because there is no evidence that gays cannot function as well as heterosexuals when it comes to parenting. I say that the definition should be expanded to include us because no one can prove that it is anything but discrimination. There is no reason to deny this, and I think what makes many on the anti-gay marriage side so defensive is that they realize this. And I think they also see that the day is coming when it will not be denied.

Personally, I have no interest in getting married, nor to father children. But I see the day is coming. I don't need to win an argument on this blog to bring this about, and no matter what rationalization the naysayers come up with, they won't stop it.

"Personally, I have no interest in getting married, nor to father children."

This is the response I get from the majority of the gays I discuss this with....

So, what's the deal with that?! You want everyone in society to change the definition of marriage because that is what you don't want for yourself?

I don't ask society for shit. I validate myself, I provide for myself, and manage my expectations accordingly when it comes to society.

Why do you guys now believe that you are entitled to certain special benefits because your needs cannot be met by yourselves? Why should society take special exception to you because of who you decide to sleep with?

Special benefits, as it turns out YOU DON'T EVEN WANT!

Personally, I think that gays should be allowed to have vehicles in place to get to be able to make medical decisions etc but they can do this all legally for the most part (power of attorney, etc). Marriage, is not that vehicle - it is an institution that provides a stable environment to a family raising future productive members of our society.

That's the problem with stats, there are so many other factors.

Indeed. Thankfully, multiple regression allows us to deal that, provided that we have a big enough data set and know what factors we're interested in. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of all the things we haven't measured.

Marriage, is not that vehicle - it is an institution that provides a stable environment to a family raising future productive members of our society.

Marriage is that and other things. You've chosen a conveniently narrow definition of the institution. Marriage is an institution that helps enable couples to build a life together and is also an institution that provides a stable environment to a family raising future productive members of society. I see no reason to deprive gay couples of the benefits of the first part, even if there aren't that many who want the second. Stable partnerships are good for society.

Why do you need marriage for a stable relationship?

re: Crid... computer jockey, jack-of-many-trades in truth.

I'd suggest everyone go read Loving vs. Virginia, so that you can see what Patrick is basing his assertion on. It was 1967, and was Unanimous.

I think it relies on the existing definition of marriage, and extends that as a right, regardless of race. It does not seek to change the definition of marriage nor the purpose of marriage.

Why do you need marriage for a stable relationship?

Among other things, people are more inclined to strive to overcome challenges to that relationship – challenges that inevitably arise in all long-term relationships – when there are obstacles to severing ties.

"Among other things, people are more inclined to strive to overcome challenges to that relationship – challenges that inevitably arise in all long-term relationships – when there are obstacles to severing ties."

But if there are no children involved, it doesn't impact society in the same way. Why does society have to become the arbiter in such circumstances? -- look, i've said it before and I will say it again...

Best case scenario for raising children is a loving home with both a mother and a father.

However, if a well adjusted gay couple wanted to commit and adopt foster children from really screwed up families, I think they should be offered the exact same institution as marriage if not marriage itself...

But that is not what we are talking about here - it's anything but. It does not impact me one way or another if gay couples (excluding the scenario referenced above) stay together or split up. Just as I could care less if this happens to hetero couples who have no children, and don't intend to.

when there are obstacles to severing ties.

So do you support the ending of no-fault divorce? Otherwise, there aren't really any obstacles to severing ties. Especially for the lower-income partner.

Feebie writes: Why do you guys now believe that you are entitled to certain special benefits because your needs cannot be met by yourselves?

You beat me to it. I was going to ask the same question about you!

Why are heterosexuals entitled to special privileges and all these rights afforded to them because they're willing to drop in at a justice of the peace and say "I do."

Why can't gays have the same thing if they want it?

Gays can marry a single, unrelated, competent, consenting, age-appropriate person of the opposite sex if they want to.

Crid writes: Gays can marry a single, unrelated, competent, consenting, age-appropriate person of the opposite sex if they want to.

We don't need you to visit this blog. We could have Gregg write a program to trot out your same tired arguments on the standard topics. Regardless of how often the lunacy of your statements gets pointed out, you keep right on saying it. It's like blogging with Sean Hannity.

You asked:

> Why can't gays have the same thing
> if they want it?

They can.

Why does society have to become the arbiter in such circumstances?

I'm generally in favor of people joining in institutions that benefit society. Gay people have always existed and always will be. For the most part, they and their relationships have marginalized (at best) or criminalized. Allowing gays to marry is part of a process of incorporating them into mainstream society and its mores.

So do you support the ending of no-fault divorce? Otherwise, there aren't really any obstacles to severing ties. Especially for the lower-income partner.

The chief obstacle is a hideous and painful legal process that involves all sorts public exposure. Others are social opprobrium and the acknowledgement that one failed to carry through on ones solemn vows. Sufficient to give any decent person people pause, I'd say. To your first question I am in favor of generally making it difficult to end marriages, though I'm not sure that requiring a showing of fault like the old days is the way to do it.

Gays can marry a single, unrelated, competent, consenting, age-appropriate person of the opposite sex if they want to.

And they do it, often with disastrous consequences for all involved. Moar please!

As a straight guy, who (along with my current girlfriend), has no interest in having children, I've got to wonder what this whole brouhaha is about.

Humans have been procreating (via pair bonding, etc.), for millenia, long before the legal construct of 'marriage' came about.

And to further the issue, the original concept of marriage had much more to do with property than with procreation.

Marriage, historically, had little (or nothing) to do with what was best for the development of the child, and much more to do with how to disseminate the property of the father, or, in some cases, the coordination of property between tribes (where marriage was a treaty of sorts).

For the most part, lately, marriage has been a more or less religious construct, that has less to do with fitness for parenthood, than with some value in the eyes of 'God'.

For those arguing that the presence of a 'Mother and Father' are so compelling, how does that apply to an unmarried man and woman (who stay together) who have children? In what manner does the act of marriage make them better parents than they may already be? The mere act of marriage (especially now) has no bearing on how long the couple will remain together or how good they may be as parents.

That said, I'm also kind of at a loss as to the goals of the gay marriage crowd.

If a couple (homo or hetero), can gain the required legal protections and authorities, what does it matter what that union is called? If you can have the contractual protections that are currently set up for married couples, how would that be a problem, even if it was called a 'Ham Sandwich'?

As someone who is largely libertarian in bent, I'm supportive, in principle, of any couple, regardless of gender, who wants to have a life together, with, or without, children (as long as they actually take care of those children, this being an area where I strongly agree with Amy, that if you choose to have children, by whatever means, they then *must* become your primary focus in life, no matter what else you may desire to do).

I'm just not sure why the term 'marriage', in and of itself, is so important, to either party.

For much longer than it has represented the bonds of love, it has been a property, or diplomatic, type of arrangement.

Marriage does not, necessarily, definitively produce well raised children, nor does the lack of marriage axiomatically preclude it.

I'm of the opinion that a well raised child will have positive influences from both a mother and a father. That doesn't mean that it is the only state that matters (said as someone who was raised, pretty well IMHO, by a single mother, though that may well be the exception that proves the rule).

Essentially, I think that there's far too much weight put upon the word 'marriage'.

If you're a committed couple (regardless of orientation), what does it matter what designation that coupling is given?

An awful lot of this whole argument seems to me to be simply that the proponents can now hold up a sign and claim some sort of membership in the club (i.e., they have now been blessed with the designation of 'married', though they generally don't articulate what that label gives them, other than the label itself).

Ultimately, there are two issues in this argument. First are the civil rights of a couple (power of attorney, inheritance, etc.). Second is the social (or semi social) presentation of status, i.e. marriage. The first can be considered truly important to any couple. The second is just window dressing.

I see this as a good argument for the divorcement of marriage from the state. Let the state provide the civil contract, and let the individual (or their religious or social organization) handle the 'marriage' aspect.

So, what's the deal with having to co-opt the word? What's more important, the actual rights of a couple, or what the relationship is called?

For me, what I get out of the process is more important than what it is called.

> a well raised child will have
> positive influences from both a
> mother and a father.

"Positive influences"! Not a lifetime of family love, but "positive influences from both a mother and a father." Not even THE mother & father....

Where, O-where does this dessicated, bloodless, pussyfooting language come from?

(I think I know....)

Oh, please.

Crid, I think you're more interested in how you sound to yourself than in what you're actually saying.

There's nothing pussyfooting or bloodless about my statement (and you conveniently ignore the entire point of my post, simply to latch onto the one statement that you can be snarky about).

It is perfectly clear, to anyone with a working brain, that my point *clearly* stated that a working family unit with both a mother and a father was the optimal state, even if the suboptimal state sometimes produces good results as well.

So, while you're busy auto-fellating yourself in congratulations of your boundless wit, you might want to try actually reading for comprehension, when you try it again in the future.

Rod writes: If a couple (homo or hetero), can gain the required legal protections and authorities, what does it matter what that union is called? If you can have the contractual protections that are currently set up for married couples, how would that be a problem, even if it was called a 'Ham Sandwich'?

Separate but equal was used to justify segregation. It was determined then that separate but equal was an oxymoron. So, if gays are allowed to have these convenient, ready-made legally sanctioned relationships, then they will have to go by the same name.

And as for your problem with Crid, he is frequently fact-challenged, as he feels no obligation to support anything he says with credible sources (or any sources), but his pompous pronouncements admittedly sound plausible...until you actually look up the information for yourself and realize that Crid is basically full of shit.

Gay marriage, by contrast, is the one area where reasonable doubt goes on hiatus. He still blusters away at his truisms, which are anything but true, but in this instance, they don't even sound right.

And when it comes to this issue, latching onto statements out of context, willful distortion, and even outright lies, are his preferred tactics. If you've been reading the thread, he spent several posts hounding someone trying to force her to admit that "mommies aren't needed." When she stated that mothers are not indispensable, Crid drooled and hee-yuk hee-yuked over her supposed admission that "a mother's love means nothing."

When pointed out that "not indispensable," and "utterly meaningless" are not synonymous (as "nice to have but lacking does not make the situation hopeless" could enter the equation), Crid fairly screamed that it was a binary proposition, jumping up and down and stamping his feet in a full-blown hissy fit.

So on this issue, do not expect to encounter anything from Crid, but opposition to gay marriage and a willingness, even an alacrity, to distort and mislead when it comes to supporting his position.

> conveniently ignore the entire
> point of my post, simply to latch
> onto the one statement that you
> can be snarky about)

You make it too easy: This isn't about bloggy alliances, it's about clarity.

We are talking about goddamn children, our most vulnerable people, and what's best for them, and the sacrifices will be asked of the parents who want special credit for carrying their burden of generating our new members. We're talking about perhaps the most intimate condition of need the universe has ever known, that of a baby from the ones who called it into existence.

With the bravado of a drunken matador, you flip your cape and chat about "positive influences". Maybe you actually meant it. Maybe in the context of your whole edjumicated life –and your dick-swinging conversations at cocktail parties to which rubes like myself are uninvited– it's a sensible perspective. Maybe there's a much greater intellectual infrastructure, with specific decades of thoughtful readings, than can be detected in the clumsy offerings of your comment ("via pair bonding, etc.").

But I doubt it. You seen to have other things on your mind.

Another Rod, or an issue with the submit?

I do get the point about 'separate but equal' (it actually was part of my thought process in the argument), but the main problem was that it, as applied to race, was almost never actually equal. If the civil rights accorded to couples (of any gender) actually *are* equal, then I don't really see an overriding issue.

My point is with the terminology. Admittedly, the generic 'marriage' already has the cachet of common usage, and some implicit understanding of the ancillary benefits, but if the benefits are actually equally conferred, although with a different label, does that really make a difference?

As for Crid, I actually sort of agree with him, at least where it pertains to procreation and the benefits to children. The primary separation here seems to be the conflation of marriage to procreation. For the largest part of the history of marriage, it existed primarily as a mechanism for the disposition and disbursement of property, and only peripherally as an avenue of procreation (given that procreation pretty much takes care of itself, with or without marriage).

>We are talking about goddamn children, our most >vulnerable people, and what's best for them ...

And in what way does the concept of marriage (originally a property arrangement) have any meaningful bearing on your statement above?

Humans were having, and raising children, largely in the manner you would approve of, long before the concept of marriage (as we see it today) came into the fold.

You have not, even once, demonstrated that the institution of marriage, in and of itself has any direct bearing on what's best for the children.

Being a married couple does not automatically make for model parents and wonderful offspring.

Conversely, an unmarried couple with children may very well raise very good children.

People today get married because they feel like it, or because they think they should, or sometimes, just because it's the thing to do.

Go ahead and try to tell us which of those particular motivations demonstrate a specific benefit to the children that may result (this without even getting into the substantial probability that there will be a divorce, just around the corner).

The pertinent point being that it is the quality of the parents involved, and not the label applied to their relationship, that is the important characteristic in this context.

Since you're either being a complete idiot, or deliberately obtuse, I will say it in simple terms, so that I don't hurt your poor little brain:

The best situation for a child is for that child to be raised by both a father and a mother, both of whom are dedicated to the welfare of that child. Whatever name you wish to apply to identify the relationship between the mother and the father is not germane to the issue.

"in and of itself"?

Tressider did that a couple years ago... Started saying that there was nothing about motherhood in and of itself (or some such wording) that made it special for children. I'll look it up if you want, but it was a nutty thing to say then, and it's nutty now. You wouldn't be screwing with our proportions, would you? Because this is starting to smell like a lowball...

> Being a married couple does not
> automatically make for model
> parents and wonderful offspring.

As if anyone said it did. The wording that stank up the place was "positive influences". I mean, that's just a psychedelically weird thing to have rattling around in your head as you mull this over. I picture you. You're sitting in a chair with a pipe, Rover naps at your ankle in front of the fire, and you're thinking the big thoughts!: Hmm, am I 'of the opinion' that a mother and a father will be a positive influence for a child's well-being? Well, doggone it, I guess I am... I'll throw caution to the wind, and say so in an anonymous forum.

> The pertinent point being that
> it is the quality of the parents
> involved, and not the label
> applied to their relationship

Yeah, Man, 'cause "labels" are very harsh and Robert Young and squaresville, Daddy-o. But I think marriage is really useful for demonstrating serious intent and recognition of the shared project.
______________________

Can never sleep on foggy nights in LA for some reason... Always feel I should be out doing Raymond Chandler dialog with some moxie in a diner.

You know the type....

Crid writes: We are talking about goddamn children, our most vulnerable people, and what's best for them, and the sacrifices will be asked of the parents who want special credit for carrying their burden of generating our new members. We're talking about perhaps the most intimate condition of need the universe has ever known, that of a baby from the ones who called it into existence.

Oh, Crid! That was almost good! I almost believe you're sincere! I even almost cried! Well, actually, I didn't buy any of that self-righteous histrionics for a second, but you tried so hard, I thought I'd be conciliatory.

Melodrama aside, 65,000 kids are now in the custody of gay couples, and you wish to tell them that their unions do not have the legal sanction of heterosexual married couples, never mind that they've taken the burden of bringing miniature strangers into their home, together with the obligations required to raise these people to independent adults.

And while Brian objects to the infertile or those who choose never to have kids being allowed to marry, the fact remains, they can.

We all know what this is about Crid, your pretense of solicitude for children aside. As long as adoptive parents can marry, along with those who don't have kids, for whatever reason, this is about wanting something to remind gays that they're second-class citizens.

"Why, we don't have a single problem with you forming a life-long partnership! We think it's great! But, you know, it's not really a marriage. It's just not quite the same as ours...well, just because..."

Crid writes: "in and of itself"?

Tressider did that a couple years ago... Started saying that there was nothing about motherhood in and of itself (or some such wording) that made it special for children. I'll look it up if you want, but it was a nutty thing to say then, and it's nutty now. You wouldn't be screwing with our proportions, would you? Because this is starting to smell like a lowball...

Rod must have you seriously on the ropes, Crid. You're clutching a single irrelevant phrase and desperately trying to infer something (an unspecified something) from it, which is still not pertinent to the topic.

What it smells like to me is that you're starting to realize something that I've known for years: when it comes to this topic, you can't hold your own.

huh, that was an interesting side trip...

question boils down to: WHAT is the purpose of marriage. What has the purpose been, and are you trying to change that to?

Other questions spring from that. Rod made an excellent point about it being a property matter, while conveniently leaving out the part about it being a property matter for the family. This is where the children come in.

This isn't about making gay relationships legitimate. They are legitimate or not within themselves. The legal questions about property, attorney, benefits, would be much more easily sorted without attaching "marriage" to it. Indeed, it would have already been done, and HAS been done in some places.

So it's kinda obvious that ISN'T what the fight is about at all. Especially when it's a 10% argument against 90% and it isn't like those 10% are even going to run out and get hitched.

There is a simple way to fix this. 2 consenting adults are alowed to form a civil partnership where their property is freely transferrable between, where they have attorney over each others health questions, and can share benefits. QED. You would find that the people who would be against that, would be a small minority.

^This is how to get a law actually PASSED, how to make it work out in short order, without changing anyone's definition of anything. Everyone gets a civil partnership, NO exceptions. How is that not equal?
End.
Of.
Story.

Everyone gets a civil partnership, NO exceptions. How is that not equal?

That's a fine solution, SwissArmyD. Everyone gets equal treatment under the law, and people may call their relationships what they will.

> Everyone gets a civil partnership,
> NO exceptions. How is
> that not equal?
> End.
> Of.
> Story.

You know what your favorite part of that comment was? The authoritarian part at the end. People can tell from the way you wrote it out...

> Everyone gets equal treatment
> under the law

They already do. You keep forgetting that.
_______________

Y'know, "equal under the law" doesn't mean 'everyone and everything is exactly the same in our daydreamy realm of zombie nihilism.'

They already do. You keep forgetting that.

Right, because gays can marry, as long it's with unsuitable opposite-sex partners. Problem solved! Because it's a fantastic idea for gay people to do so; nothing can go wrong when people's lives are lies. For someone so apparently concerned with the welfare of children, it's rather stunning that this is the approach you advocate. Have you ever witnessed the familial carnage that can result from these unions?

Gays are not equal under our marriage laws in any sane or meaningful sense.

They already do. You keep forgetting that.

Right, because gays can marry, as long it's with unsuitable opposite-sex partners. Problem solved! Because it's a fantastic idea for gay people to do so; nothing can go wrong when people's lives are lies. For someone so apparently concerned with the welfare of children, it's rather stunning that this is the approach you advocate. Have you ever witnessed the familial carnage that can result from these unions?

Gays are not equal under our marriage laws in any sane or meaningful sense.

> it's with unsuitable opposite-sex
> partners

Are we supposed to be worrying about "suitability" of couples? Oh, Dear Boy, will your Commie fantasies of intrusion into private lives never end?

> not equal under our marriage laws
> in any sane or meaningful sense.

They're equal under the 'logical' sense, and that handily trumps your personal, precious measures of "meaning". I've concluded that you're more concerned with the feelings of grownups than anything else.

Besides, your double-pump on the reply makes me think you're running scared. Also, what's the deal with two (seemingly! professed!) different commenters using the name "Rod"? Why would that happen unless both comments originated from the same computer, such that the browser autocomplete left a forensic trail?

Anonymous blog commentary is a sinister realm of shadows, nuance and deceit.

Oh, Dear Boy, will your Commie fantasies of intrusion into private lives never end?

Huh? It's self-evident that a woman is not a suitable marriage partner for a gay man, or a man for a lesbian woman. Yet that's what you want them to have.

I've concluded that you're more concerned with the feelings of grownups than anything else.

I'm primarily concerned with what's best for everyone in our society.

Besides, your double-pump on the reply makes me think you're running scared.

Well, you do have remarkably penetrating insights into people's thinking and motivations. It's amazing, really.

Whatever writes: Gays are not equal under our marriage laws in any sane or meaningful sense.

That's why I think there should be gay marriage. Not because I have any plans to marry another man, but because I feel I should have the right to. Suggesting that heterosexual unions should have legal sanction while gay relationships shouldn't suggestion legitimacy of one over the other.

SwissArmyD: There is a simple way to fix this. 2 consenting adults are alowed to form a civil partnership where their property is freely transferrable between, where they have attorney over each others health questions, and can share benefits. QED. You would find that the people who would be against that, would be a small minority.

^This is how to get a law actually PASSED, how to make it work out in short order, without changing anyone's definition of anything. Everyone gets a civil partnership, NO exceptions. How is that not equal?
End.
Of.
Story.

SwissArmyD, great idea! I wish I had thought of that.

Oh, wait. I did. I had suggested that we stop calling them "marriages" for legal purposes, and everyone gets a civil union which confers all the rights and privileges of today's marriage contracts. And if folks want to call their civil union a marriage among themselves, so be it. They can even sneeringly suggest that so-and-so's civil union isn't a marriage. Just as long as in the eyes of the law, it's a civil union. And regardless of what they want to call theirs or someone else's, it's all the same to the law.

> it's self-evident that a woman
> is not a suitable marriage
> partner for a gay man

It's self-evident! Ah!

(Methinks your concerns are very grownup.)

> I'm primarily concerned with
> what's best for everyone
> in our society

Your survey has important gaps.

> you do have remarkably
> penetrating insights

Been thinking about it for years.

In Soviet Russia, Crid marries YOU!

It's self-evident! Ah!

Yes. Unless your contention is that a closeted gay man is likely to be a good marriage partner for a hetersexual woman (or vice-versa)?

Your survey has important gaps.

I assume you mean that I disregard the needs of children? Not at all. I simply don't buy your contention that gay marriage is going to do anything bad for children. The data show that children in same-sex households do just fine.

Been thinking about it for years.

Seems more like you thought about it back then, and then have simply been repeating yourself for years.

Whatever writes: Seems more like you thought about it back then, and then have simply been repeating yourself for years.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah. As one who has been discussing this issue on this blog for over five years, I can tell you with certainty that's true.

Whatever writes: I assume you mean that I disregard the needs of children? Not at all. I simply don't buy your contention that gay marriage is going to do anything bad for children. The data show that children in same-sex households do just fine.

That is an important point to make and hold onto in this discussion. As you've undoubtedly noticed, the anti-gay contingent has been claiming reliable studies about how children do best in a household with one mother and one father. However, not one of them has produced this evidence.

Out of all the topics we've brought up on Amy's blog, this one is famous for that. And it's riddling this thread. "It has been shown that..." (and they won't show it to you). "This has been proven..." (but they won't say by whom or where to find this study).

Basically, it's where the anti-gays bring out their best B.S.

Patrick, it's a slur, and you should be ashamed

a bit offtopic, but apparently monogamy was invented so poor men could have a shot at reproducing themselves:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-i-why-most-americans-are-polygamous

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an

Yes. Unless your contention is that a closeted gay man is likely to be a good marriage partner for a hetersexual woman (or vice-versa)?

Has it occurred to any of you self-important asses that you might just NOT MARRY AT ALL?

There's no requirement that you be married. Being unmarried no longer carries a social or professional stigma.

So rather than marry an "unsuitable" partner, don't marry at all.

Unless you are procreating, society doesn't give a fuck. I suggest you would be significantly happier if you didn't either.

And yes, I'm saying precisely that your relationship is of less value to society than a hetero one, precisely because they can do something you never will - make a new person.

Does anyone remember Elizabeth Irwin over at Seipp's blog?

Has it occurred to any of you self-important asses that you might just NOT MARRY AT ALL?

I'm a straight guy, and married.

My statement is in response to a stock argument of Crid's: that gays do so have marriage rights. My argument is that they have no marriage rights in any meaningful sense, and that his position is one that leads to sham marriages, ugly divorces, nasty custody battles and all sorts of things that are clearly bad for people.

Regardless of what you'd like people to do, when a significant minority of people are denied access to society's basic institutions, those people have less reason to be invested in that society. Deny them access and you promote dishonesty and self-destructive behaviors.

> My argument is that they have
> no marriage rights in any
> meaningful sense

Then that's the argument that you should make, and it took you a hundred and fifty-four comments to get this far.

And it's the absolute crux of the argument. The people who being all pinched and whiny about this aren't merely inarticulate and immune to reason, they want to be pinched and whiny. Calling people snotty names and looking down on them for being primitive is the whole point of their enthusiasm. They'll never acknowledge that they're trying to make a big change to one of civilizations fundamental institutions... That would lead to a lot of work and clear thinking. For example, they'd have to make people agree with them about what it means to be "meaningful".

What's the fun in that?

The institution of marriage is as available to gays as to anyone else. Always has been.

Crid writes: Then that's the argument that you should make, and it took you a hundred and fifty-four comments to get this far.

Actually, Whatever has acquitted himself superbly in this exchange. And I'm positively smirking at the idea that you feel yourself in a position to decide someone else's arguments are wanting. I think you would be better served by turning that critical eye to a mirror.

"Is he truly this clueless?" I find myself wondering. "Or is he merely trying to save face after having his ass handed to him?"

I think the latter.

Like, on the scale between "Traditional values" and "Personal gratification" the gap between heterosexual family life and gays is way too big, gosh, it's too big even for some of the heterosexual couples, who put their personal gratification first and all the traditional values only second. Why would they want to be embraced by the system, the core principle of which is alien to them? And should that core principle be changed on their demand so that they would feel comfortable in that embrace?
Posted by: Me

Me, the fact that srtaight people are so awful at maintianing "familly values" is the biggest debate point endorsing gay marrige

And how does polygamy harm traditional marriage?
Live and let live--wiser words were never spoken.

Posted by: Butthole of the Universe

Polygamy is tradition marrige

As a side note did you change you name after using that product I recomended?

"should gay couples be allowed to adopt?"

*They already are.

As a recall they arent, one of them is but not the both of them

People who are for this ought to have the rhetorical courage to admit that they're making a VERY LARGE CHANGE to the definition of marriage. Instead they want to pretend it's a minor tweak... Easier to sell that way, ain't it? No use workin' up a sweat or anything....

Posted by: Crid

We arent saying its a large change, but is it really any larger then when we let people with different skin colors marry?

Speaking of which

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=49815

After all these years, it was the thing yesterday where he signed the name "Rod" to the comment of another personality that finally broke the illusion for me: Patrick doesn't exist.

No breathing human could be so childish and self-centered, so precisely in-line with the popular depiction of the gay as under-cooked personality, of a soul frozen in a fifth-grader's resentments. (See also, the Paglia essays linked last week ["...the impression that contemporary American homosexuality is a condition of whining juvenility aching for parental approval.") Arguing with "Patrick" has been too gratifying for my ego: Real life doesn't work that way.

Maybe the "Patrick" comments are all the work of Gregg, or one of Amy's other friends in the LA literary community, something they did as a hobby. People who really read and love books have all sorts of superpowers that don't apply in everyday life... Powers which include faking video technicians like me out of their shoes.

A few years ago on Seipp's blog, there was someone who posted as "Elizabeth Irwin", a liberal from Santa Monica who responded to the topics with all the usual lefty platitudes. I fell for it hook, line and sinker, answering the comments with perfect conservative-radio-host style rhetoric, including the insults.

Years later we found out the guy who wrote those posts was a prankster friend of Cathy's. I think he was in New York City. But the Seipp blog is gone, so no further research is possible. I wrote to Luke Ford this afternoon for details, but he declined.

MAYBE it's the same guy. Amy's blog got famous in the same early-2000's rush of attention that made Seipp's blog famous, so it's at least possible that they've had the same pranksters over the years.

But these are just mechanical considerations....
_____________

Dude... "Patrick", whoever you really are... Hats off. You fooled me completely, and did it for the better part of a decade. I hope that whatever you do with your talent in other realms appeals to the bright side of the force, like maybe writing for big sitcoms or something. If we ever meet for lunch, I got the check.

our survival and existance, because Marriage is for procreation.
Posted by: SwissArmyD

And that is why noone ever gets pregnant unless wearing a ring with a peice of paper in the photo album in the closet, right? RIGHT?

Let your insight about human nature be your calling card: The love of a mother for her child means nothing
Posted by: Crid

Well, mothers are far more likely to abuse and murder their children then fathers

@Patrick: "What about infertile couples who want to adopt and give orphans a two-parent home? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to marry?"
___________

That would be my wife and I. She lost her fertility to ovarian cancer and we adoped twin girls so they would have a mom and a dad. You make no sense in that statement...of course they should be able to marry, they, unlike a gay couple, can still provide a mother and a father in an in tact home.

Posted by: Trust

So in the case of your divorce your children will be given to another couple I assume Trust?

Why do you need marriage for a stable relationship?

Posted by: Feebie

For that matter why do stright people?

Luj - you are asking precisely the wrong question.

the proper question is "what do we (society) get for our efforts at blessing the union of two homosexuals?"

The answer is "not a fucking thing".

So they don't get the marriage.

Brian writes: the proper question is "what do we (society) get for our efforts at blessing the union of two homosexuals?"

The answer is "not a fucking thing".

So they don't get the marriage.

If only your decree could prevent this from happening...unfortunately for you, I think we can both see that the day is coming.

Yep. And the drama queens who've been waiting 20 years for their time to humiliate their partners in front of a court will all get their wish, and all of a sudden gay marriage won't seem like such a great idea.

In other words, they'll be just like all the heteros that got married "because we're in love" or "because it was time".

Married for no damn reason but emotions.

Crid: Are we supposed to be worrying about "suitability" of couples? Oh, Dear Boy, will your Commie fantasies of intrusion into private lives never end?

Has it not amused anyone else that Crid, the guy who insists that the State should have some say on the reproductive choices of families is also nattering about "intrusion into private lives"?

Crid, who insists that The State (well, he usually calls it "society", but since it's about privileges being given out, we know it's really The State) reward families who create more prole - er, future citizens for the Motherland... and presumably, penalize those who don't.

And he has the nerve to say that people having the temerity to want a "suitable" partner (ie, one whose naughty bits don't make them queasy) are living in a Commie fantasy of ruling private lives?

It's fucking HILARIOUS, is what it is.

Seipp's daughter?

No.

Pithy, if feeble, attempt, though.

Identity games. No one new to this thread would be so personally pissed at me. Well, it was five years of good fun!

Nope. I'm not personally pissed at you or anyone else. I just find it - as I said - hilarious that nobody's called you on the pot-kettle-blackness of your "arguments".

But do go ahead and try to shoot the messenger. It's not like you can rationally rebut the message anyhow.

Nope.

Not personally pissed, at you or anyone else. Just amused, as I said above, that nobody's called you out yet on the pot-kettle-blackness of your "argument".

But do go ahead and keep shooting at the messenger. It's not like you can rebut the message.

What fun. One comment gets eaten then appears after it's retyped. Kindly excuse the hiccup.

> keep shooting at the messenger

Well, if you've never been here before and you want to be all sarcastic and cuntly your first comments, why shouldn't people get personally abrasive in their replies? So far, I can't see what good your "messenger" work is doing, but we apparently agree that its important to keep each other interested.

But yes, I do think society has something to say about reproductive conduct ("choices"). Not only is it wrong for men to make babies with their little sisters, I think it should be illegal to do so as well. (This is where that "State" thing has you all tripped up, y'know, with the quotation marks and so forth.) If you read subsequent blog posts, you'll see that my eagerness for government interference in these matters is contained within firm boundaries...

...But I also think we need to call things by their names. Marriage is for two single, unrelated, sane, age-appropriate, consenting people of opposite sexes. You shouldn't try to change the meaning of it on a sneak. If you wanna have all sorts of other fabulous, 'suitable' unions receive the blessings conferred on the married, we'd love to hear your sales pitch. But I don't think you've made one, because I don't think you've thought about it very much. Nobody ever wants to explain what's in it for the rest of society by having gays marry each other. It's always these petulant whinings about liberty, dude.... I can do whatever I want because I'm like totally free and independent and self-reliant!.... (And BTW, I'm gonna need some help with the courts on this...)

So. Maya. What's the deal on you? Why are you, ostensibly a new visitor here, showing your tits in a five-day-old, several-dozen-message comment stack on a mundane topic of interest mostly to a three-fingered handful of fanatics who've been coming here for years? Hmmmmmmm.....

Somebody's playing identity games... "Patrick" still hasn't explained how his spirit landed in Rod's corpse on the 18th.

Crid, it's charming of you to get all huffity (just made that one up - it's huffy and uppity all in one! Yay!), but you do ascribe a lot to me sans evidence.

I have made no pitch for or against gay marriage. I merely find it amusing that in one of your (many) huffity moments you think you're sooper-clever in tossing out "Commie" "intrusiveness" into "private lives", while simultaneously getting all Commie-ly intrusive into people's private lives. "Commies" always couch it as being better for society - The People - too. Of all the things you could have hurled around, I just thing the glorious pot-kettle-black-ness is a thing of beauty.

That's all. For someone who's trumpeted, more than once, that people can't have it both ways, you kinda do yourself. And I find that funny. I'd find it funny if I was a raging homophobe born-again, a Queer-Power radical activist, or - as is actually the case - neither.

And just FYI, best I can tell, Amy's blog isn't a closed system. Nor is commenting mandatory. I've read here for ages, just haven't gotten involved in debates. The fact I've read for ages can probably be proven simply by me not falling for the usual techniques you use to try to "A-HAAA!!!!!!!" people - I'll not be distracted by your gotcha attempts.

And I'm not Patrick or Rod or Peter, Paul, or Mary. I'm not Spartacus, either.

You slip so comfortably into snot mode...

I told you I've been reading here for ages. I've picked up a few things.

Here's another point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beEh6jBM8CE

While we appreciate his service etc