Really, Why Do You Oppose Gay Marriage?
Deborah Solomon interviews U of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum for The New York Times Magazine. Nussbaum sees right through the excuse that gay marriage will somehow do damage to straight marriages:
Your inquiries have lately revolved around the politics of physical revulsion, which you see as the subtext for opposition to same-sex marriage. What is it that makes people think that a same-sex couple living next door would defile or taint their own marriage when they don't think that, let's say, some flaky heterosexual living next door would taint their marriage? At some level, disgust is still operating.
Sorry if you think it's weird that Brian and Steve want to marry, but they -- and their children -- deserve the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples and their children.
> Your inquiries have lately revolved
> around the politics of physical revulsion
Yes yes yes, and that's really all you got. It's the reason you got into this game: You can't pass up an opportunity, like a sixth-grader who's just heard about french kissing, to cluck that the other boys and girls (with their baseball gear or video games or whatever) are sooooooo immature....
You lost a round of this game in 1967, or 1975 or '84 or '93 and dammit, you're aching for a rematch.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 13, 2009 1:48 AM
Here we go again...
Crid, what disingenuous arguments will you drag into it this time?
Perhaps demanding to know what gay marriage will do for society, then pretending to not hear the answer?
"Well, it provides a safe haven for gay couples with children. I also allows gay couples to have the convenient structure and rights afforded to them as heterosexual couples."
"Lalalalalalalala...I can't hear you!...what does gay marriage do for society...lalalalalala...why can no one answer this?"
I especially enjoyed the one where you demanded Whatever to tell his mother that Dad and one his golfing buddies would have done just as good a job.
Which would be a little like you telling your mother that Dad and one his golfing buddy's wives could have done just as good a job. Forget that we try to make our mothers feel special, like they're the best mothers in the world and no one else could have done as good a job. By Thunder, supporting gay marriage is spitting in your mother's face telling her than any old dude would have been just as good as her.
Let's just demagogue our objections to gay marriage, and common sense be damned.
I'll try to endure Crid's steroidal pomposity and bluster this time, and say that Nussbaum is correct. It's the politics of revulsion, since no one has shown how gay marriage threatens society. Not even the lawyer defending Prop-whatever-the-fucking-number-is-this-time has been able to prove that gay marriage is any threat to heterosexual marriage. In fact, he hasn't even been able to cough up an argument, realistic or otherwise, and has admitted he doesn't have one.
Patrick at December 13, 2009 2:01 AM
I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose the government regulating anything to do with religion..(well most anything considering cults and whatnot). What I oppose, as someone who was raised as a bisexual woman, is the notion that because someone parented me for a while that they somehow are my other parent and have rights to me. OR for that matter that my children are their grandchildren. I oppose the idea that someone who has no biological relation to me, who is little more than a step parent, is somehow endowed with right to me because they banged my mother. I hated these people growing up.. And yes there is a big difference between adoption and one homosexual non biologically attached lover claiming rights to me.
You would have to live it to understand but no matter what agreement you make the kids born to these unions are not born to both parents..
I am also opposed to the state coming into my Catholic church and telling my pastor what he can and cannot say to his parishioners.. You go to your universal church and marry gays and we will stay over here and not marry them. And then we each mind our own Damned Business.
josephineMO6 at December 13, 2009 3:23 AM
raised as a bisexual woman,
Raised BY a bisexual woman.. Sorry that could be confusing..
josephineMO6 at December 13, 2009 3:24 AM
As the child of a straight divorced woman; it happens to us too.
So it doesn't really matter the sex of the intruder.
I finally started building a relationship with my biological father at 38. It is an adult relationship -- not the father-son relation that it would have been.
Jim P. at December 13, 2009 4:19 AM
> "Well, it provides...
Quotation?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 13, 2009 4:57 AM
josephine: What I oppose, as someone who was raised as a bisexual woman, is the notion that because someone parented me for a while that they somehow are my other parent and have rights to me. OR for that matter that my children are their grandchildren. I oppose the idea that someone who has no biological relation to me, who is little more than a step parent, is somehow endowed with right to me because they banged my mother. I hated these people growing up.. And yes there is a big difference between adoption and one homosexual non biologically attached lover claiming rights to me.
And other people might object to some lowlife deadbeat claiming rights to them just because they happened to bang up their mother. You might object to a step parent, but there are plenty of people who would object to their real parents.
Children of heterosexual couples don't get to choose their parents either.
Ultimately, it's your decision how much contact you have with a step parent, or how much your children see them. Since presumably, you've reached the age of majority, how much rights they have to you is your decision.
Patrick at December 13, 2009 4:58 AM
Yes yes, let's completely redefine marriage just to give some gay people-what, I think spouse's employer-paid healthcare is the only thing that married people get (IF the company offers it) that gays can't give themselves with a little paperwork. If you're too lazy to do the paperwork, you will NEVER make it in a marriage.
Quit pitching a tantrum over the word itself, and you'd have partnerships already. You are turning a LOT of people off of your "cause" with your insistence on calling it marriage.
momof4 at December 13, 2009 5:36 AM
Momof4: Yes yes, let's completely redefine marriage...
Yes, yes, let's pretend that allowing gays to marry completely redefines marriage...
Patrick at December 13, 2009 5:44 AM
"Yes, yes, let's pretend that allowing gays to marry completely redefines marriage."
Legal marriage definition: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
You see 2 men or 2 women in there anywhere? No? Me either.
momof4 at December 13, 2009 6:01 AM
Momof4: Legal marriage definition: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
You see 2 men or 2 women in there anywhere? No? Me either.
Yes, yes, let's pretend that expanding the definition of marriage to include gays is some major league threat to us, so inconvenient, somehow it redefines your marriage.
You're full of it, Momof4.
Allowing gays to marry doesn't harm you in the least, and doesn't redefine your marriage one iota. Like the main post says, you're in the politics of revulsion.
Patrick at December 13, 2009 6:08 AM
Maybe we should ask Tiger Woods and his wife their thoughts on marriage. They are the big news story and I'm just wondering how it is that gays could hurt the institution of marriage any more than most heterosexuals already do. And for the record, I don't think its any of my business if he screwed 1 woman or 22. Its not my business if she stays to work it out or if she stays for the big pay-off. I'm just saying that all this talk about marriage being only for hetersexuals with this great big Tiger Woods news story going on, well I can see the irony in it.
Kristen at December 13, 2009 6:52 AM
Everyone always gets their panties in a twist over this, but the bottom line is, gays can have a legally recognized civil union, in which you can specify that one is legally bound to the other and therefore incurs all the legalities and responsibilities that go with that. Just because the law doesn't call it a "marriage" doesn't invalidate that union. Stomping your feet and insisting that you be allowed to call it a "marriage" just reinforces your selfishness about it all.
Flynne at December 13, 2009 6:53 AM
I think Josephine made an interesting point. One I'd never really considered from a child's point of view. But it seems to me that gay marriage would prevent that from happening more, not less. A non-biologically-related lover shouldn't be able to just come in and claim a child. The legal status of marriage and adoption should make the bonds clearer and stronger.
I'm adopted. My parents went through a long process to make that happen, and they are my parents, even though we're not biologically-related. None of us really get to choose, whether our parents are straight or gay.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2009 7:28 AM
Do we get to choose whether they're a man and a woman? Darwin says no....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 13, 2009 7:35 AM
"I oppose the government regulating anything to do with religion..(well most anything considering cults and whatnot)."
Well, cool. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxation.
Cults? You mean, totally valid religions without lots of followers - the only distinction?
The Cult of the Talking Snake was doing pretty well last time I looked - although membership as a percentage of the public is dropping. There's still hope.
But that's not the only way people can delude themselves and enjoy the Kool-Aid. They can imagine that the term, "Married!" will magically transform them, and bring them to a state of bliss found in Disney movies. Note that this isn't gender-dependent?
But: as a business it is in the State's best interest to establish "marriage" so that in return for certain consideration, the union produces something the State is interested in - and this has been the case for millennia. We just called the State something else, like, "the tribe".
If you're just looking for welfare, be honest. The simple fact is that however poorly some people act in traditional marriage, their union and the production of new citizens is the entire reason said union is called "marriage" - even though a dozen different agents may perform the ceremony, long or short.
If you want that consideration, show what you will contribute.
If you were talking about a bunch of clones, you're still going to have to talk about responsibilities whenever you confer rights.
Radwaste at December 13, 2009 7:38 AM
I oppose gay marriage! Haven't gay men already suffered enough? lol
Seriously though if homo's want to slap mudflaps with a license who cares? It doesn't effect anyone else. There are certainly more important things to worry about then two guys tying the knot and living miserably ever after.
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2009 8:02 AM
Momof4 says: "Yes yes, let's completely redefine marriage just to give some gay people-what, I think spouse's employer-paid healthcare is the only thing that married people get (IF the company offers it) that gays can't give themselves with a little paperwork. If you're too lazy to do the paperwork, you will NEVER make it in a marriage."
I won't launch into the whole litany of rights unmarried partners do NOT have and in most states canNOT get "with a little paperwork." The most glaring stories that come to mind are those of the long-term life partners excluded from their respective partners' deathbeds, by families who hadn't spoken with the soon-to-be deceased in years, out of cruelty, on the legal basis the partner is not a relative. Somehow inheriting the household stuff, and having health insurance, seems like small comfort in those cases.
Allowing same-sex marriage is not simply about giving partners health care; it's about a little concept called "equal protection under the law." Give me a Constitutional basis on which to discriminate and deny marriage to same-sex couples. (Horses are not protected by the Constituion, please no silly arguments about marrying animals). Do whatever you like in your own church; I have no problem if any church chooses not to honor any civil marriage. We're not too many years past "why allow blacks to marry? They can sign mutual wills ..." If same-sex marriage is legalizedd in my state, I don't anticipate Mrs. Teflon and I suddenly changing our orientations and leaving each other...
Mr. Teflon at December 13, 2009 9:07 AM
I'd like to announce that I am righteously indignant, and that settles the matter.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 13, 2009 9:33 AM
"Sorry if you think it's weird that Brian and Steve want to marry, but they -- and their children -- deserve the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples and their children."
I agree and I don't think it's "weird". But the "gay marriage" movement did nothing to bring up child rearing as a legitimate reason for them to get married - they just went on and on about validation and entitlements.
Their lifestyle was dubbed "alternative" (by them) as a rejection of the traditional family lifestyle. So by all means, if they want to take on the responsibility of raising children, especially those coming from fucked up homes - abso-freakin-lutely they would get my support...
But most of them don't want marriage for the purpose of raising a family - yet want to be compensated in benefits, social security, etc etc that are given to folks that have spent their entire lives working and raising (hopefully) productive members of society. THAT is what I gotta problem with.
Feebie at December 13, 2009 10:35 AM
Teflon:
The most glaring stories that come to mind are those of the long-term life partners excluded from their respective partners' deathbeds, by families who hadn't spoken with the soon-to-be deceased in years, out of cruelty, on the legal basis the partner is not a relative.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Balderdash.
This oft-regurgitated whopper is about as factual as that tree-ring data... legally declared guardians trump blood relations in the vast majority of jurisdictions.
Oh, and GUESS WHAT? The purpose of marriage is to create those difficult-to-dissolve, not-dependent-on-love relationships you are complaining about.
Which may be why a vanishing small number of gays ever make use of marriage rights when they have been extended to them (Holland, Scandinavia, Canada).
Ben-David at December 13, 2009 10:42 AM
I agree with Feebie for the most part. I do think gay marriage is sort of weird but I really don't have a problem with it, so long as no law is forcing churches etc. to marry them if they don't want to. The standard line about gay marriage affecting straight marriage is a joke, a red herring and a major issue I have with the so called party of family values. No fault divorce and corrupt family courts/laws are killing marriage not that brian and steve want to get hitched.
However, much of the gay marriage folks/gay agenda/whatever you want to call them lately seem to be increasingly radical and pushing for acceptance instead of just tolerance. You're never going to convince everyone and change takes time. Forcing said change down people's throats isn't going to win you any converts or have people be keen to tolerate you and live in peace. Personally, this is pretty much a non issue for me right now, I don't care and won't vote or will vote no in the next state measure on this issue.
Sio at December 13, 2009 10:59 AM
Amy,
Best wishes of the holiday season.
Debating the gay marriage issue is really, really uncomfortable. The pro-gay marriage side, absolutely understandably, gets very emotionally charged over it. That is not suprising, all of us should understand why gays would want to commit their lives to each other in marriage.
And if the only purpose in society for marriage was companionship, I would support it.
But that is not the only purpose. Another, arguably more important, purpose for marriage is raising and preparing the next generation. Children deserve to be raised with a mother and a father. (I always get the rebuttal that there are many reasons children grow up without a mother and a father, and that is true, but we should not do it on purpose.)
For the record, gays can love children as much as hetrosexuals, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. Two lesbians can be great moms, but not fathers, and two gays can be great fathers, but not mothers.
On November 30, 2009, you wrote the the following: "Well, single motherhood has lost its stigma, and look how well that's working for all the kiddies." My concern with gay marriage is similar. Only, in addition to fatherlessness, we'll throw increased motherlessness in the mix as well.
I always get accused of homophobia for my position, when it is not. I know too many wonderful gay people. And my full compassion is with them in their desire to marry. Then I think of how many more children will grow up without a mom and a dad, and my compassion is with them as well.
And it isn't just in marriage. My wife and I adopted two little girls, and the birth mother insisted on a mother and a father for them when specifying to the agency what kind of couple to place them with. Do we really think that there eventually won't be lawsuits and pressure to equalize, if not outright prioritize, gays in such a situation?
In any case, the arrows from some other posters will soon come my way, even though there was not one word of malice towards gays in my argument. In fact, I firmly support gays being free to love and spend their lives with whoever they choose without stigma from society. But, like the concerns over single-motherhood, I have concerns over parenting structures that lack a mother or a father. We've crossed lines before that should not be crossed (increased single motherhood), and this is a line I cannot support crossing. Our children can't afford it.
I realize my position excludes gays from parenthood, and as someone who spent years trying to become a dad, I can sympathize wholeheartedly. However, parenthood, by definition, is not just about the parents' wants, it is about the childrens' needs. And sometimes, adults must sacrifice their desires for children's sake, which in some cases means knowing what situation to bring them into and what situations to not bring them in to.
Merry Christmas,
Trust
Trust at December 13, 2009 11:06 AM
Ditto what Ben-David said. One example I was told of involved a gay couple who had HIV and were dying. One of the guy's was the wealthy wage earner and died slowly but in good care by doctors and his partner. His family swooped in at the end though and left the "domestic" partner damn near pennyless and he died from grief and lack of good healthcare not long after.
Now who's fault is that? Being married wouldn't have fixed the family members being assholes but would've let the living partner retain control of the estate. Thing is, this can be done with powers of attorney and trusts. It is what my father did with his girlfriend and what my mother did with my step dad, to avoid any inheritance issues and to make sure their assets went where they wanted it to go to.
Oh and dad perhaps thought his gf would be fair with me and guess what, she wasn't. Family can be assholes and so can non genetic family relations.
Sio at December 13, 2009 11:09 AM
Momof4 given just 50 short yrs ago marrisge was "re-defined" to allow a person of your skin color to marry a person of your husbands skin color I would think you'd be a little more understanding on this issue
lujlp at December 13, 2009 11:36 AM
Flynne writes: Everyone always gets their panties in a twist over this,
Yes, Flynne. I agree.
Looking at this discussion with clinical eye (and considerable amusement), I find the standards for a cogent argument (or any kind of argument) have been dramatically lowered.
Momof4, for instance, complains that it will compleeeeeeeeeetely redefine marriage. (I don't remember her outrage over having marriage defined when Amy suggested that marriage be made into a seven-year contract instead of a lifelong commitment, which is truly redefining marriage, but never mind.)
Now if gays were allowed to marry one another, Momof4's marriage would still be that same contract, conferring the same rights, privileges, tax breaks, etc. as before. All heterosexuals who wish to marry will continue to do so in the same manner. That doesn't sound like it's completely redefining marriage. In fact, that doesn't sound like it's redefining marriage at all. I would call it expanding the existing definition to include homosexual unions.
Flynne, yours is the easy one. The be-happy-with-civil-unions argument..."separate but equal" didn't work for the civil rights movement. We have no precedent whatsoever to assume that it will work in the case of marriage.
Feebie seems to think that marriage is for the rearing of children. She says that the gay rights movement never even brought up the idea of having a stable environment for their children, but only for the rights and entitlements conferred by marriage. (I know some gays that would beg to differ, but never mind.)
Actually, out of all of the gay marriage naysayers, she actually makes the most sense. And I have to admit that this surprises me. The last time we discussed gay marriage, her greatest contribution was several consecutive posts of outrage over the presumption that the persecution gays suffer should be equal to that endured by blacks. Feigned outrage is normally an effective tool in misdirection. But I've been on this blog and other message boards for years. The tactic has become stale to me, and easily recognized.
This might be a more valid argument, but the fact is, heterosexuals treat marriage the same way. Not every couple wants to have or can have children. So, to insist that gays should only be allowed marriage for the sake of giving children a stable environment is to hold homosexual unions to another standard. Heterosexuals aren't bound to produce or rear children in their marriages, so why should gays be?
Crid's argumentation is the worst, paradoxically (or perhaps because) he's the most passionate about this issue.
He wants to play the mommy card to death. In his efforts to bullyrag Whatever much like a bigger child demands a smaller child to say "uncle," he has willfully turned a statement (and obvious truism) that a child does not need to have a mother to thrive into "a mother's love means nothing!" Children can thrive and grow up to be self-actualized adults without a mommy. It happens all the time. That isn't to say a mother's love is meaningless.
He attempted to do this again by daring Whatever to go up to his mother and say that Dad and one of his golfing buddies would have done just as good a job of raising him. Obviously, this argument fails because unless you're a complete clod or you hate your mother, you're going to preserve her feelings. Most people, if they have even a fair relationship with their own mother, are going to assure her that she's a good mommy. Whatever should no more be expected to tell his mother that one of Dad's golfing buddies would have done just as well, than Crid should be expected to go up to his mother and say that some chick Dad banged in in high school would have done just as well.
I would (and did) tell my mother that two men or two women could raise a child just as well as a man and woman. Mother agrees, by the way. She was very moved by the African-American gay couple that adopted their foster daughter, a beautiful baby.
It's very strange to me. Most of you generally make thoughtful and intelligent statements when we discuss other topics. But this one? It's like you don't care about logic. You just want passion to rule the day this time. Like Nussbaum says, it's the politics of revulsion.
Patrick at December 13, 2009 11:44 AM
Yea because straight married couples that choose not to have children; or, simply are not physically able to conceive and don't want to adopt don't get the same benefits right?
Hey wait a minute!
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2009 11:48 AM
"Yes yes, let's completely redefine marriage just to give some gay people-what, ..."
Yes let's redefine it so that people can amrry across racial lines, and the world will collapse! It will the end of all decency! My God, who knows what'll happen - white women marrying Mexicans and God knows what!
Sorry, momof4, but we all see through this rights for me but not for thee bullshit. Your quote about what legally constitutes a marriage is very, very new. It's not tradtional at all; in fact it was pretty controversial until the Supreme Court activist judges made it that way. 1967 wasn't so long ago. The full definition that stood for millenia was a union of equals - that meant no inter-racial marriages, no poor girl marries rich boy, none of that skeezy stuff. Poor girls weren't for marrying. Happier with all that good old traditional stuff?
Jim at December 13, 2009 12:25 PM
I see Trust's point. And I must say that I find Amy supporting gay marriage to be at odds with her overall philosophy that children need BOTH a father AND a mother.
Of course, it will be asserted that gay families will assure that a member of the missing sex will be present in their children's lives. Yet, I find that when those of us who are heterosexual single parents make that claim, we are ridiculed for being "selfish" and not thinking of our children's needs - currently and before marriage -even though it's much more likely that we will have members of the opposite sex intimately involved our lives. Why is it presumed that gay families will be more inclusive than straight families?
I personally believe that children can be successfully and lovingly raised in a gay household, just as in a single parent household. Non-biased studies suppport that finding. So, I just point this out as a glaring inconsistency in the general philosophy of this site.
Perhaps growing up with both a mother and father ISN'T as important as other factors. And, if you disagree with that, how can you suppport gay marriage?
lovelysoul at December 13, 2009 12:44 PM
I have to say that Patrick said it beautifully. It really is a civil rights issue. Gay people should have equal rights and that's basically it. I'm not sure how two men or two women being allowed to marry makes momof4's marriage any less valid. I'm not sure why a heterosexual couple should be allowed to marry with no promise that they will procreate yet a homosexual couple is denied the right to marry because they are unable to procreate. I believe a mommy is very important and so is a dadddy. What is more important is that a child knows he/she is loved and protected. I don't see why a hetero is more equipped to raise a child than a gay one. And as far as step-parenting goes, I don't see any laws that prevent heterosexuals from exposing their children to a million boyfriend or girlfriends yet again, this is an argument to prevent gays from marrying.
Considering the divorce rate in this country, I don't think anyone here is an expert on marriage and yet how many want to prevent homosexuals from marrying? And it is sickening to think that our elected officials are the ones voting on this considering how many make the news because of their own poor choices while married.
Kristen at December 13, 2009 2:18 PM
"The last time we discussed gay marriage, her greatest contribution was several consecutive posts of outrage over the presumption that the persecution gays suffer should be equal to that endured by blacks."
Yes, and if you'll go back and check and quit assuming what I said (or actually ASKED me what I thought or why I had concerns with gay marriage) then you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a twist either.
Using the case law you used was the wrong argument to make - because it is inapplicable and not on point with what gay marriage is asking from the rest of society. Capice?
I seem to remember (I am sure you can find that thread) telling you to "use a different argument".
Feebie at December 13, 2009 3:46 PM
gays can have a legally recognized civil union, in which you can specify that one is legally bound to the other and therefore incurs all the legalities and responsibilities that go with that.
Except that these things start to sound like rights surrounding marriage, which have been prohibited even by contract in a lot of the more gay-hating states.
We're heading toward this being sorted out by the Supreme Court; all we need is Kennedy to retire and this deal is done, haters.
Cults? You mean, totally valid religions without lots of followers - the only distinction?
We agree: Church = cult - (sufficient manpower)
Whatever at December 13, 2009 3:55 PM
"Yea because straight married couples that choose not to have children; or, simply are not physically able to conceive and don't want to adopt don't get the same benefits right?"
Two different arguments here.
You didn't ask, but I will tell you... I don't think hetero couples who do not intend on having children should get married either, but more often than not this is not the case. There is no "one size fits all here" with this or anything else.
If I could wave a magic wand and have everything be fair and square I would, but I can't and that's life.
Now, if it is someones decision to have children prior to entering into marriage and later find out they are unable to conceive (I have friend currently that are going through this)I don't think they should be punished for this, even if they do not wish to adopt.
Adoption is a crap shoot, you could be getting a child who through no fault of their own comes with problems (genes, fetal alcohol syndrome, autism, behavioral issues) that many parents are unprepared or were not given the proper tools to deal with. I don't fault them with this scenario in the least and I think it is reprehensible that they be punished for such a situation.
Feebie at December 13, 2009 4:11 PM
BTW, as a married, childless, decently-compensated heterosexual, I'd love to know these things from the gay rights opponents:
1.By what dollar amount or percentage are my taxes reduced because I'm married alone? For the purposes of example, assume we earn between 150-200 per year
2. Would you support a policy that gave gays marriage rights if good data prediccions
Whatever at December 13, 2009 4:15 PM
continuing...
if good data predicition
Whatever at December 13, 2009 4:20 PM
Damn! 3 errors.
... if good data predictions are that removing anti-gay discrimination in marriage are good for local business.
Whatever at December 13, 2009 4:23 PM
> Gay people should have equal rights
> and that's basically it.
They do. Identical, by the law of the land since her christening.
This is over: Move along.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 13, 2009 4:57 PM
They do. Identical, by the law of the land since her christening.
As long as they understand that their relationships belong on the back of the bus, right :)
Whatever at December 13, 2009 5:00 PM
I see Trust's point. And I must say that I find Amy supporting gay marriage to be at odds with her overall philosophy that children need BOTH a father AND a mother.
You do realize that gay marriage isn't the same thing as gay adoption. You can have one without the other.
But more importantly which do you think is more beneficial for the child. Being put though the foster care system, or; being raised in a gay household by two loving parents? I would argue that the child being raised in a gay household is obviously in a better position. Therefore the actions of the gay couple aren't selfish because the child is better off then he otherwise would be. The selfish person is the woman that irresponsibly becomes pregnant and then dumps her parental responsibilities on other people to take care of.
However a woman that chooses to have a child and remain single is putting the child in a worse situation then it would other wise be. So she is selfish.
You didn't ask, but I will tell you... I don't think hetero couples who do not intend on having children should get married either.
So you would you support legislation that would prevent straight couples from getting married if they didn't sign a contract obligating them to have children? There's a difference in between saying that people shouldn't do something, and not allowing people to do something.
Now, if it is someones decision to have children prior to entering into marriage and later find out they are unable to conceive (I have friend currently that are going through this)I don't think they should be punished for this, even if they do not wish to adopt.
There's a simple solution to that problem. Require all couples applying for a marriage license to get physicals. If they can't reproduce then they can't get married. Of course there is another choice (and I know it's crazy) allow two people who want to share certain legal rights and responsibilities to enter into a contractual agreements like everyone else.
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2009 7:06 PM
Feebie writes: I don't think hetero couples who do not intend on having children should get married either
But they can, and that will never change. Opposition to gay marriage is another matter.
It's why I can look at this discussion with a certain degree of dispassion. I can't lose. All I have to do is wait. Like it or not, this will come to pass, and you know it. And so far, none of you has produced a reason why it shouldn't.
But you know that, too.
Patrick at December 13, 2009 7:09 PM
"You do realize that gay marriage isn't the same thing as gay adoption. You can have one without the other."
Of course, it's wonderful when gay people adopt (though it's still illegal in my state. They can foster but not adopt, even when they've raised those children for years, which is absurd and part of the lack of equal rights gay couples face)
But not all gay parents adopt. If you're going to support gay marriage, you can't say they're selfish if they choose to create biological children, just like straight couples do, even if that means the child will be lacking a parent of one gender. Yet, this seems to be in direct conflict with the usual rhetoric here.
As I said, I personally believe it doesn't matter. Gay parents, like single parents, can be wonderful parents regardless of how they came to have their children - by adoption, by surrogate, or through a previous relationship. That is not what makes or breaks great parenting. If two parents of opposite gender was all a child needed to do well, we wouldn't see so many messed up people from traditional marriages.
lovelysoul at December 13, 2009 7:41 PM
Again...in Patrick's corner.....Heterosexual couples can marry regardless of intent to have children. They can marry whether or not they are infertile. In fact, its not an issue when applying for a license. Why then is that an argument against gay marriage? Hetero couples are not provided a list of things they must do to be allowed to marry. In fact, if you go to Vegas, you can do it pretty quickly and with someone you just met after a night of partying. Why then are two people of the same sex not allowed to do the same. And its not an argument that marriage should be taken lightly, just another point proven that often it is and until that changes for hetero couples, it should be legal for gay couples.
Kristen at December 13, 2009 7:47 PM
I agree with the posters who say that it is possible to have gay marriage without gay adoption or gay parenthood. But, I seriously doubt the lobbies or government will leave it be. Many gays, understandably, will want adoption since they can't conceive themselves.
Also, I absolutely think children are better with two gay parents than in the foster system or orphanages. I'd even go further and say it probably even be superior to single parenthood. However, society, specifically children, still fared better when it was affirmed that a mother and a father is the optimal structure for children. To put an equal stamp on another relationship structure will undermine that.
I understand the argument that many straights marry for reasons that do not involve raising children. That is true, but it is also not relevant since it has no impact on the father/mother structure as an ideal for raising children. If they don't, they don't, and there is no impact. I do not believe gay marriage would be accepted as/is for long if it did not have full benefits.
Also, I think the comparison to interracial marriage or civil rights is off the mark. There is nothing about one's race that has anything to do with being a mother or father, but one's gender has much to do with being a mother or a father.
This is a sensitive issue with many wonderful, well-meaning people on both sides.
Happy holidays to all.
Trust at December 13, 2009 8:43 PM
Also, I think the comparison to interracial marriage or civil rights is off the mark. There is nothing about one's race that has anything to do with being a mother or father, but one's gender has much to do with being a mother or a father.
Nice work. It's like subtler Crid! :) "I don't hate gays, I just think they're unfit to raise kids."
Whatever at December 13, 2009 9:13 PM
"So you would you support legislation that would prevent straight couples from getting married if they didn't sign a contract obligating them to have children?"
No, I said life ain't fair.
Feebie at December 13, 2009 9:27 PM
"As the child of a straight divorced woman; it happens to us too.
So it doesn't really matter the sex of the intruder.
I finally started building a relationship with my biological father at 38. It is an adult relationship -- not the father-son relation that it would have been."
Amen.. The saying should be a childs worst enemy is moms new fuck buddy. Never mind the sex of the person she happens to be banging..
MY relationship with my birth father has never recovered.
josephineMO6 at December 14, 2009 3:23 AM
"And other people might object to some lowlife deadbeat claiming rights to them just because they happened to bang up their mother. You might object to a step parent, but there are plenty of people who would object to their real parents.
Children of heterosexual couples don't get to choose their parents either.
Ultimately, it's your decision how much contact you have with a step parent, or how much your children see them. Since presumably, you've reached the age of majority, how much rights they have to you is your decision."
You have a better chance with natural parents who stay together. I agree deadbeats are no fun, my sisters sons father is useless. And she ain't no picnic either.. I would say there are more people who reject their step parent than their birth parents. And I mean reject in a real way not in a teenagerly I hate you kind of way..
OK as to how much contact I can have NOW! with my moms lover.. Fat lot of good that did me from the ages of 4-14.. IF the custody cases going on now were going on when I was a kid no doubt I would have been the object of at least on of them. I would have had fuck all to say about where I was on any particular day.
Yeah I can protect myself and to some degree my kids but when I was the kid I had no choice. Imagine that deadbeat you referred to before having absolute rights to come and pick you up when they wanted. Imagine a step parent suing someone for partial custody of a child.
Well having moms/dads fuck buddy get custodial right to you just because they are gay makes just as much sense.
And when you are gay... You absolutely get to choose who the childs other parent is. For gays without a doner their is no kid to be had in the first place. And in those cases the child should absolutely get to choose if they want the nonbio parent in their lives.
josephineMO6 at December 14, 2009 3:36 AM
"Well, cool. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxation.
Cults? You mean, totally valid religions without lots of followers - the only distinction?"
1) The power to tax/regulate is the power to destroy.. Take a good look at our economy if you don't believe it.
Most people who want the state to tax churches seems to mostly be atheists who want the church destroyed.
That being said should the church become a tax payer my attitude would be "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar".
Cults...
Are you referring to the Peoples Temple and the Manson family as totally valid religions?
josephineMO6 at December 14, 2009 4:00 AM
Nah, hispanics are white, and so am I, so don't try to play the race card with me. And a black man marrying a white woman still a man marrying a woman.
"The most glaring stories that come to mind are those of the long-term life partners excluded from their respective partners' deathbeds, by families who hadn't spoken with the soon-to-be deceased in years, out of cruelty, on the legal basis the partner is not a relative"
One simple medical power of attorney form trumps that.
momof4 at December 14, 2009 5:03 AM
@Whatever: "Nice work. It's like subtler Crid! :) "I don't hate gays, I just think they're unfit to raise kids.""
________
Ugh. I never said that, never even implied that. If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I said gay men can be great fathers and lesbians can be great mothers.
Saying they can't be a mon AND a dad, an absolute fact, is not the same as saying they are unfit to be parents. (Just like there are many great single moms, but the fact remains they are not fathers.)
Bigotted comments like yours are the reason dialogue about things like this always turns ugly.
Trust at December 14, 2009 5:24 AM
I read about halfway through this page. I'm disgusted that there are so many people who feel justified in arguing against equality.
This idea of one group of people being worth more than another group of people has cropped up time and again and it's something that America is very bad at. Britain isn't a paragon of virtue, don't get me wrong - but Americans seem to take the biscuit.
The most recent examples of exactly what we're discussing are women and black people.
Any women here? Any blacks? Do you think you should be allowed to vote in our white male elections? To study in our white male schools? To walk on the pavements in our white male towns? Of course you do. And you know what? You're right. You should be allowed to do these things. And you are allowed to do these things.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that not everyone on the planet is the same as them and that, just because someone is different from you doesn't justify you automatically giving them hate?
You should be ashamed.
donald at December 14, 2009 5:37 AM
Donald, there's no equality involved. And there's no hate. There's just a tantrum by a bunch of self-centered egotists who want something to which they are not legally entitled.
There is no Constitutionally-protected right to marriage. There is no Constitutional argument to be made that one's gender preferences ought to entitle them to the fruit of another man's labor.
Civil marriage as it exists is a simple thing - a contract with the State. Which is why you need to get the State involved when you want out.
And part of that contract is the promise on the part of the married couple to produce NEW taxpayers. Not the promise to raise someone else's previously produced taxpayers.
Comparing homosexuality to race is insane, because there is no valid basis for comparison. None.
This is simply about self-centered children wanting to make sure that everybody notices them ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
You just aren't important enough to justify it.
brian at December 14, 2009 5:57 AM
"I read about halfway through this page. I'm disgusted that there are so many people who feel justified in arguing against equality.
This idea of one group of people being worth more than another group of people has cropped up time and again and it's something that America is very bad at. Britain isn't a paragon of virtue, don't get me wrong - but Americans seem to take the biscuit."
You mean Briton where the state is now trying to dictate to the church who they can ordain as pastors and where they already force churches to hire "minorities" for non pastoral positions.
I really don't want that happening here. I don't want the state to tell my church what they can preach or who they can hire. There are already issues with certain states forcing my church to hire homosexuals, offer adoption to them and provide them health insurance(which I don't think should be employer or state based anyway)..
josephineMO6 at December 14, 2009 6:07 AM
"This is simply about self-centered children wanting to make sure that everybody notices them ALL THE FUCKING TIME."
This is why some I know are referring to "The love that dare not speak its name" as "The love that wont shut the fuck up".
Annoying isn't it..
josephineMO6 at December 14, 2009 6:10 AM
"And part of that contract is the promise on the part of the married couple to produce NEW taxpayers. Not the promise to raise someone else's previously produced taxpayers."
I really don't think that is a valid reason for allowing or denying marriage, but if so, half of the time it works against the state these days, as welfare recipients, not taxpayers, are being produced.
Gay couples are probably more likely to raise solid, taxpaying citizens than straight couples. Gays are usually better educated, with good jobs, and higher incomes than the rest of the population.
This is discrimination. If some couples can't marry or adopt children, then none of us should be allowed to. It's not as if straight people have this stellar record of great marriages and ideal children, who do not tax the system. Some are burdens on the state and some are contributers - the same as it will be for gay families. Studies show that they do an equal, if not better, job of childrearing.
At any rate, gay couples ARE having marriages and families, whether sanctioned or not. Patrick is right. This is a done deal. Anything else is unfair.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 6:31 AM
Bullshit. I'm not going to discuss whether you can justify calling gays "self-centered egotists". I'm not going to discuss whether they're throwing "a tantrum". But you say "there's no equality involved". Oh, right. Of course. That's why gays are asking for SO MUCH MORE than heteros in this regard. Mhm. Of course. Damn self-righteous gays! Damn them and their asking for everything under the sun, when us poor heteros have to put up with only being allowed to marry.
You're uttery deluded if you think this isn't about equality. The fact that gay marriage isn't enshrine in law is NO argument against it. It's entirely the fact that gay marriage is NOT enshrined in law where hetero marriage IS enshrined in law that is being discussed. Dismissing the argument of the LGBT community as them wanting "something to which they are not legally entitled", and expecting that to be argument enough, is completely to miss the point that there is a discussion to be had. You can't win an argument by saying "I'm right, so there". So please don't try. Utter, complete, total bullshit.
I know. Again, that's not an argument. It's simple rehashing of the current state of affairs - the thing which we are discussing. Why even bring it up?
BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.
Do you seriously believe that the state only supports marriage on the understanding that married couples are entering into a contractual agreement to have children?! Seriously?! Do I have to respond to this? Is every childless married couple in breach of contract? Seems unlikely to me. I... ugh. I can't even be bothered replying to this. Are you crazy??
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Explain, if you will, the differences between sexuality and race. What substantive differences exist that justify the exclusion from societal values of one group but not the other? Now, I'm not saying that sexuality and race are the same thing. Of course not. They're quite evidently different things. But the comparison comes with the context of the discussion - when you consider them as a justifiable means of discrimination, suddenly it all becomes clear. The similarity is astonishing. One is a group of people who were discriminated against because of ther difference to the rule-makers. The other is a group of people who are discriminated against because of their difference to the rule-makers.
Of course, I say "were" a little whimsically. I'm aware that racial discrimination still goes on. In America as in very few other places. "The land of the free" should perhaps more accurately read "The land of the free conformists".
Oh, ok. Sorry. Suddenly, it all becomes clear. I had been under the misapprehension that this was about a group of people saying "hey - if everyone else is allowed that, why aren't we?" There's a word for that, I think. Something about... uhm... different groups of people... and them being equal... and being allowed to do this same things... hmmm. Oh, right. I remember. "Equality". Look it up; it obviously isn't in your current vocabulary.
THAT. IS. AMAZING.
Are you aware of your own recent social history? That's priceless. Here's the top link from a quick Google search ("you people racism"):
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/192503
The fact that I amn't actually gay notwithstanding, that last sentence tells me almost everything I will ever need to know about you. It's discriminatory. It's segregating. It's creating a void - a big, gaping hole - and sticking it squarely between YOU and THE GAYS. THEY are different. THEY are worthless. THEY shouldn't be allowed to play with our toys.
We're children? Whatever.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:11 AM
That'll be "Britain", then. I know, I know. It's a whole other country. In fact, it's a whole other country that's not even part of the USA. Still, it's not that difficult to spell it correctly.
And yes. The country where the state is saying "you know what, religion? You have absolutely no ground on which to dictate your moral superiority; nor do you have any grounds on which to discriminate freely against any of our people," - that Britain. Yup.
Ugh. God-forbid my pure, clean church should be made to accept people who are... different! It's terrible! It's awful! It's horrendous! Mercy me!
Oh, dear. Poor, poor God. He has to put up with so much nonsense, doesn't he? Imagine a supreme being being forced to accept people freely into his church. It's intolerable. God should be allowed to discriminate freely against whoever he chooses! Why should he have to put up with these gays and blacks?
Again, you should be ashamed.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:19 AM
Ugh. These annoying, bleating, whimsical little fuckers who insist on trying to make us pay attention to them! Who are they to complain if we decide to discriminate against them? What vicious little upstarts they are!
Of course, it's easy to be dismissive of something if you hold yourself so fucking upright that you never have to pay any attention to the real world around you, or to consider how your actions, beliefs and behaviours affect other people. "The love that dare not speak its name - oh, how quaint! I think I'll put that in a post on that advice forum." Let's ignore the fact that our quaint little reference is actually making the point that to be openly gay in Britain was a criminal offence.
The fact that it is changing to be seen as "the love that won't shut the fuck up" tells me that the LGBT community has done its work well in the last few years. I hope to Christ that you get pilloried in years to come as people realise what an ass you are about social equality. Look at the title of this blog:
http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/no-actually-i-wont-shut-up.html
Why the fuck should ANYONE be made to feel that their rights and freedoms as individuals can be poo-pooed by self-righteous, blinkered people like you? You are the anti-suffragette; the white-power racist; the bigot; and the discriminator. What right have you to say that others do not deserve the rights and freedoms you enjoy?
donald at December 14, 2009 7:33 AM
Because some people seem to struggle with concepts:
Discrimination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/discrimination/discrimination_because_of_sexuality.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination
Equality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en_2#pt1-pb2-l1g8
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/
donald at December 14, 2009 7:40 AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Your own United State Declaration of Independence.
I'm not suggesting that the United States goverment has been reduced to Despotism - rather, pointing out that even on a much grander scale, men significantly wiser than us realised and made provision for people getting fed up being shat on. Their provision? That people should be allowed to make complaint. That is what the LGBT community is now doing.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:45 AM
Donald, your posts are laugh out loud hysterical, and I mean that in a positive way. You are glibly decimating the opposition. You play this game like Bobby Fischer plays chess. Like your next move is incidental, not the focus. Nonetheless you annihilate your opponents.
Patrick at December 14, 2009 8:41 AM
And part of that contract is the promise on the part of the married couple to produce NEW taxpayers. Not the promise to raise someone else's previously produced taxpayers.
Where in our marriage laws is this written? References, please!
Whatever at December 14, 2009 8:52 AM
Race and sexual/gender make-up are two separate things when it comes to gay marriage and is being taken out of context purposely to demagogue for the purpose of lending more credibility to the side of homosexual marriage.
I believe it is in the wrong context entirely, but that absolutely aside - it is a bad PR move. Really bad. Stinky bad.
Wake up - it offends people, people I believe that would otherwise be willing to consider other arguments in favor of gay marriage. Even Paglia mentions this.
Feebie at December 14, 2009 8:55 AM
lovelysoul:
Sure I can. Statistically children raised by two parents who are the same sex do worse then children raised by two parents of the opposite sex. If you are willing to put a child in an unfavorable situation just because you want a biological son or daughter then you are selfish. That's no different then single women deciding to become mothers and selfishly popping out children that have the deck stacked against them from birth.
But pointing out that something is selfish isn't the same as saying that it should be unlawful. Also social science professionals don't know whether children in same sex households do worse because of the sex of both parents, or because of the societal stigma against homosexuality.
In any case children raised in same sex households still do better then children raised by single mothers. This suggests that it's probably not the sex of the parent that matters, but; whether the child grows up in an intact household. Common sense dictates that two people working together to accomplish a goal are on average more effective then one person.
Feebie:
No shit. But what does that have to do with anything?
You also said:
Well guess what, you don't need a magic wand. All you have to do is treat people equally. If you believe that the only purpose of marriage is to have children and raise them, then; require everyone to have a physical before they get married to insure that they can reproduce. If you can't reproduce then you don't get a marriage license.
You can't have it both ways. If marriage is only for reproduction, then it should only be for reproduction. Regardless of sexual orientation. But judging from your comments it's obvious that you don't believe that anyway. You're just looking for another excuse to prevent gays from getting married.
Brian:
Maybe you should actually read the constitution before talking about it.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mike Hunter at December 14, 2009 9:39 AM
Sorry momof4 but if it werent for the civil rights act the only hispanic you would hav been allowed to marry would have had to have ben from Spain
also
One simple medical power of attorney form trumps that
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html?_r=1
lujlp at December 14, 2009 10:03 AM
And yes. The country where the state is saying "you know what, religion? You have absolutely no ground on which to dictate your moral superiority
Wow, did anyone bother to tell that to the muslims there? Guess not, since the state is allowing them to use sharia law and ignore the laws already in place. Go figure.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 14, 2009 10:05 AM
True, gender and race are different, but I see the parallel and believe it's appropriate. You're still denying a group of people the same rights as others due to the baseless assumption that their having those rights will be "bad" for society.
I mean, really, the argument about a contract with the state to produce taxpayers is a lame one. One, we didn't always pay taxes, yet marriage still existed, so that wasn't the origin. 2) Even if it was, gays CAN produce children, with a little help from friends or surrogates, so they are still able to meet this supposed obligation. 3) We don't penalize straight couples for failing, or never even having the intent to comply with, this supposed obligation by denying them the right to marry. That precedent alone would void any "contract".
Is this the best argument anybody's got against gay marriage? Because, if so, it seems to be just a cover for the uglier truth that gay marriage, like interracial marriage, disgusts some people. And that gays, like blacks, are viewed by some as lesser individuals, not worthy of the same privileges as the rest of us.
There's nothing that "entitles" any of us to marry in the first place. Nothing gives us that right except the status quo. Just as being white gave people special rights, although there was nothing, besides being born white into a culture that preferred whites, that entitled those individuals to be treated as superior.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 10:13 AM
"Sure I can. Statistically children raised by two parents who are the same sex do worse then children raised by two parents of the opposite sex."
I thought recent studies had proven otherwise. For awhile, they simpy didn't have enough long-term data on children raises in gay households, but I think now they do. There was a recent study I'll try to find.
At any rate, I'm glad you agree that, even if it's statistically "riskier" to attempt parenthood under certain conditions, it shouldn't be unlawful. If we were to choose that as the standard, we'd have to make it illegal to have children if you were poor.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 10:27 AM
I would like to tell a story of a gay family that I know.
Two gay significantly partnered men and two significantly partnered lesbian women were very close friends and all 4 wanted children of their own to love and raise. They took the sperm of one of the men and use it to impregnate the younger of the two women (younger women being more fertile.
Each child is born into a family that has 2 dads and 2 moms. They have multiple incomes so there is little risk of the children suffering financial problems, they have male and female role models and everyone lives very close together (I believe either next door or on the same street). I don't know if this is a unique family arrangement or if this happens more than I as a straight chick would realize, but it is WONDERFUL, and the children are as happy and well adjusted as any kids I have seen.
Why is this example a threat to anyone's family?
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 10:32 AM
Here's an article about the latest studies:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
That's a nice story, Julie. The point is that they are inclusive about providing role models of the opposite sex.
Single parents can forget about the importance of this, but when they do the same, the results are just as good.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 10:40 AM
> Ugh. I never said that, never
> even implied that.
That doesn't matter to these folks. Twice in this stack alone, quotation marks have been used inappropriately and slanderously. People here aren't interested in exchange, it's all about unctuousness and posturing... Like I said, a rematch to assuage the private hurts of yesteryear.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 14, 2009 10:52 AM
Statistically children raised by two parents who are the same sex do worse then children raised by two parents of the opposite sex.
This is false.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341
Next objection?
Whatever at December 14, 2009 11:04 AM
Ugh. I never said that, never even implied that.
I'm confused, then. If gays are not unfit to raise children, what is your objection to gay marriage?
Whatever at December 14, 2009 11:19 AM
Do they produce new offspring without third-party assistance?
That's my objection.
If it's any assistance to our resident know-it-all (donald) who thinks he knows everything about me, I'm against all forms of artificial conception. If you and your chosen partner cannot conceive in the way that biology has provided, you have chosen poorly. No baby for you.
I'm also against the idea that the government has a position to take in re marriage. We are stuck with the concept of civil marriage because we have decided that the government has a vested interest in forcing biological parents to live up to their obligations to their offspring. Which is why I say that civil marriage exists only in the context that the married provide new offspring. Were it not for that, the state would not have any interest in the matter at all.
brian at December 14, 2009 11:36 AM
Is that the same "growing body" that said saccharine causes cancer, or the one that said that grains should be the centerpiece of a human diet? Or the same "consensus" that says that humans influence the Earth's climate?
brian at December 14, 2009 11:39 AM
Just for the record, Brian, when I got married back in 1991 I was never asked about my intentions to produce future tax payers. I was never asked my intentions on anything at all. I was told that I had a certain amount of time before the license expired to be married by someone who could perform a legal ceremony and that was the end of it. So I'm not sure what marriage contract you speak of. I'm not sure why a gay couple isn't entitled to go to that same town hall and apply for a license that asked nothing more than my name, dob, ss#, and where I lived. Again, I filled out no questionaire about any intentions for the future of any kind.
Kristen at December 14, 2009 11:40 AM
*Sigh*. Do same-sex couples? On occasion, yes. On every occasion? No. Therefore, is it a false requirement of marriage? Yes.
Odds on you not continually bleating about it despite its total irrelevance? Low, I think.
It's not of any particular assistance to me. I'm not a know-it-all (certainly not literally...!), though it's awfully gracious of you to suggest it. And I never said I knew everything about you. I certainly said I know a lot about you and the fact that I'm 100% not surprised that you're against artifical conception would seem to support that.
I don't know everything about you, but I am getting increasingly familiar with your morals. *Shrugs*. By-product of this site, I suspect. I'm sure by now you're aware I'm a pasny liver-lillied liberal lefti.
Oh, nonsense. The state's self-interest is not so blatant as to require new taxpayers from a sexual union in order for it to support the union. That's "evil". The government isn't actually evil - it's just stupid.
No, the reason the government supports the general public in things like marriage is much more simple - it's largely interested in keeping you happy. If the government keeps you happy, then you keep the government in power. It's kind of symbiotic.
The idea that the government requires couples to have children is a non sequitur. The state is simply trying to maintain the status quo by keeping everyone happy in a safe society.
donald at December 14, 2009 11:53 AM
Lujlp,
You asked me this question in another entry, but it appears that has been abandoned for newer debates.
Julie, jut curious as to what about me pisses you off.
Actually I didn't say that you piss me off, but that you bug the fuck out of me sometimes. In typical nomenclature that might not have a very different meaning, but for me it is the difference between someone I dislike (pissing me off) and someone I like but don't always get along with.
Hopefully this isn't too vague a definition, and if it is, let me know. But you bug the fuck out of me sometimes when we disagree (I'm sure I do the same), but I don't dislike you, and therefore you don't piss me off.
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 11:53 AM
Duh! It's against God and nature. Also, it's icky!
donald at December 14, 2009 11:55 AM
Duh! It's against God and nature. Also, it's icky!
I guess that means I never have to get another pap smear! :-D
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 11:57 AM
The irony, of course, is Crid's blindness to the unctuous posturing in his own post.
I haven't seen you actually saying anything in this discussion so far, Crid, except to denounce the discussion as worthless.
Remember that well know saying: "People in glass houses shouldn't accuse others of being disinterested in exchange."
donald at December 14, 2009 11:58 AM
Everyone's a winner! I've give up on condoms and GUM clinics for the same reasons.
Life is much more fun when you're footloose and fancy free.
donald at December 14, 2009 11:59 AM
>>The irony, of course, is Crid's blindness to the unctuous posturing in his own post.
Agreed, donald. This topic does not find Crid at his best. (A pity).
At least he's not skulking behind the skirts of Mormon matrons, as he was in a recent, similar thread.
Jody Tresidder at December 14, 2009 12:33 PM
> This topic does not find Crid at
> his best. (A pity).
A hen clucks, bungling her precious punctuation. How come youse guys only (A) attribute fictitious quotations to me or (B) allege my failures in argument, rather than demonstrating them?
'Cause you got nuthin', nuthin' but your need to cluck. (See first comment here.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 14, 2009 1:21 PM
"And a black man marrying a white woman still a man marrying a woman. "
And it used ot be illegal because it used ot disgust people.
And by the way, are you gay, momof4? Because if you're not, your opinion is really worth nothing at all in this discussion. Isn't that your normal line when the discussion concerns parenting? Let the tap-dancing begin.
As for Hispanics being white, they may, they may not be. But that doesn't include Mexicans. Mexicans are "Raza".
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
http://orgs.sa.ucsb.edu/mecha/ElPlandeAztlan.html
etc.
"You mean Briton where the state is now trying to dictate to the church who they can ordain as pastors and where they already force churches to hire "minorities" for non pastoral positions. "
Um, sorry to break this to you, Josephine, but the Church of England has been subservient to the government for about 500 years now. That may seem strange to us in America, but it's been this way for a very long time now. In fact the fight over who chose/ordained bishops, the king or the pope, was specifically one of the driving forces in the break from Rome.
Jim at December 14, 2009 2:10 PM
I'm happy that many your other points I disagree with are ably addressed by the many fine minds above; so I'll keep my blathering to a minimum - with apologies for any redundancy:
Momof4 – Even if a same-sex couple can arrange to have all the rights of married people via a set of legal documents – why should they have to? That's discrimination. Following Brian's logic, should hetero couples who do not plan to have / cannot have children (yours truly!) be denied marriage, as they can accomplish the same goals by fattening lawyers' coffers by obtaining a will, power of attorney, advanced health care directive, trusts, etc? … and screw ‘em if, as you mentioned above, they’re 'too lazy to do so?'
Donald - Looks like we've hit the roots of your objection. While I respect (but do not share) your religious views, the government has no business telling me - or you- what is or is not "against God." Little thing about freedom of religion - which flows from the Feds to the states.
I also maintain the comparisons to race are valid (of course, if you feel that homosexuality is a choice, not a status, you'll never agree). Thx to whomever mentioned the Equal protection Clause. Doonald, replace the references in your email to same-sex couples with 'mixed-race couples' and it’s chilling. You could have just as easily written about efforts to legalize mixed-race marriage in the '50's South as a “tantrum by a bunch of self-centered egotists who want something to which they are not legally entitled."
Someone else way up above in the string has premised an argument on the fact that "the state of the law is that marriage is between a man and a woman." The state of the law in the ‘50’s supported the same argument for mixed-race marriage; did that make it right?
I again submit there is no Constitutional argument - state or federal - to be made that one's gender preferences ought to bar them from the civil union of marriage which is offered to heterosexual couples and denied to same-sex couples. It's not enough that your god disagrees with it, or you find it "icky." If you want to argue it harms society, let's continue that discussion. (Comedian Louis CK has a great routine questioning whether the day the law' is passed if he'll be buggered at random at the ATM, turn gay, etc.). As I stated before, the government should not be able to force your church to perform such a ceremony; but neither should your church - nor any religion - be able to prevent the state from performing it on religious grounds.
As a middle-aged straight guy who was raised to be as homophobic as anyone else of a certain age, it sometimes amazes me how offended I am that people want to deny equal rights to other human beings. Hey - it's not my cup of tea either; but that's the whole point - we are ALL entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I canot imagine what harm allowing gays to marry would do to my marriage.
Thanks for indulging my rant.
Mr. Teflon at December 14, 2009 3:00 PM
"And it used ot be illegal because it used ot disgust people."
Wrong. It may have disgusted people, but that is not the reason why it was legislated. This cherry picking of history is exactly why proponents of gay marriage have not the foggiest idea of what they are imposing on the true nature of oppression that happened in this country. Find your own argument and contexts. You don't have to slime your way in this way.
It's bullshit. Knock it off!
Feebie at December 14, 2009 3:16 PM
So, Feebie - the reason was ???? Studies showed mixed-race couples were not good parents? Pray, enlighten us.
Mr. Teflon at December 14, 2009 3:24 PM
Got two words for the historically challenged on this board.
BACONS REBELLION. Read it.
To apply gay marriage even close to the same level as institutionalized racism (miscegenation laws,) is bullshit and a white washing of history.
It provides your argument with little context and the case law Patrick used is not (nor will ever be) on point.
Feebie at December 14, 2009 3:26 PM
Mike Hunter: Sure I can. Statistically children raised by two parents who are the same sex do worse then children raised by two parents of the opposite sex.
I was going to open up with "BULLSHIT!" but you've already been dogpiled for that ridiculous and ignorant statement, so why bother?
Patrick at December 14, 2009 3:39 PM
Mike, as a product of a fucked up hetero union I beg to differ.
The BEST case scenario is a loving stable home with a mother and a father - the second best scenario would be a two parent stable loving home - I could give a shit what sexuality they are. Two parent home will always be better than a single parent scenario.
Feebie at December 14, 2009 3:44 PM
That and Henry wanting a divorce from his much older sister in law
lujlp at December 14, 2009 3:47 PM
@Whatever: "I'm confused, then. If gays are not unfit to raise children, what is your objection to gay marriage?"
________
Fair question.
Gay men can be great dads, but not mothers.
Lesbian women can be great mothers, but not fathers.
I believe children need mothers and fathers both.
Fatherlessness has been nothing short of a disaster. I'm not willing to experiment with increased motherlessness too.
By calling homosexual unions "marriage", society would in essence be saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That is not true, they are not.
There are many reasons why children grow up without a mother or a father, but we should not encourage this intentionally.
My position is not rooted in any malice towards gays. In fact, they have my full compassion on this issue. It is not an easy position to take. I see my friends who love each other and want to marry, and on that alone I would say yes. But I think of what will happen when there are more children without moms and dads, and wondering what more is to come when we incorrectly announce the two are interchangeable (and therefore unnecessary, since it is the number of partners, not the uniquie characteristics that moms and dads both bring).
Most people are against expanding marriage to include 3, 4, 5 people, etc. Please keep in mind that those who draw the line at 1+1 are not any more bigotted than those who draw it at 2. There are legitimate concerns to redefining the centuries old definition of marriage.
Homosexuals should be treated with respect and accepted as they are. Nothing I've said is contrary to that fact.
Best,
Trust
Trust at December 14, 2009 3:53 PM
Ok, Feebie - "To apply gay marriage even close to the same level as institutionalized racism (miscegenation laws,) is bullshit and a white washing of history." [We could also delve into historical violent rallies in NY & San Francisco over gay rights]. I get that the Bacon Rebellion caused the ruling class to harden/perpetuate slavery's racial divides (which I submit were in no small part because they found breaching that division disgusting and unnatural). I doubt if most crackers in Memphis in 1956 would tell you that race mixing was 'illegal and ungodly' because of the Bacon Rebellion. At any rate, I don't mean to trivialize the centuries of suffering by blacks in this country. However,the comparison is valid in this respect: Blacks in this country were denied the same rights as whites, BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT, in the same way that gays in this country are denied the same rights as straights BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. It was wrong to deny those rights to blacks; tell me on what LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL basis it is RIGHT to deny homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have?
Mr. Teflon at December 14, 2009 3:59 PM
"I doubt if most crackers in Memphis in 1956 would tell you that race mixing was 'illegal and ungodly' because of the Bacon Rebellion."
Doubt it, doubt they knew why they were doing it, but that didn't change it's impact now did it?
Well you know how that ol' sayin' go, about how you can tie an elephant's leg to a post and remove it after sometime...and the elephant still thinks he can't leave, and won't ever try to escape.
(I butchered that, but you get the premise).
Feebie at December 14, 2009 4:13 PM
"tell me on what LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL basis it is RIGHT to deny homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have?"
Because denying marriage to people, based on race - in order to procreate (which is what marriage afforded those) create wealth, provide generational inheritance and legitimacy and stability to their offspring is not what the majority of the gays in the pro gay marriage movement are looking to secure.
Most gay couples are more well off than many hetero couples, primarily because they do not have the added burden of raising a family.
Discrimination is protected under the Constitution where it denies someone "life, liberty and property" you show me where gays have been denied any such thing because they cannot get married...
They are afforded all basic rights.
Now, if they want to start helping out with the child rearing - then we can talk....
Feebie at December 14, 2009 4:18 PM
Fatherlessness has been nothing short of a disaster. I'm not willing to experiment with increased motherlessness too.
To me the real problem with fatherlessness is the single parent situation; homes with single moms tend be poorer, and there is less supervision for kids.
Whatever at December 14, 2009 6:03 PM
By calling homosexual unions "marriage", society would in essence be saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That is not true, they are not.
This may be the most honest statement I've seen so far regarding in this debate.
Flynne at December 14, 2009 6:40 PM
> This may be the most honest statement
> I've seen so far regarding in this debate.
Flynne, you're a sister.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 14, 2009 6:57 PM
@Whatever: "To me the real problem with fatherlessness is the single parent situation; homes with single moms tend be poorer, and there is less supervision for kids."
_________________
That is a very fair statement. I've written a lot, so it may have been missed, but above I did state, for this reason, that homosexual parents will likely be better than single parents. But they still aren't a mom and a dad.
The single parent situation was exacerbated a half-century ago. The people who opposed the welfare state largely argued of the fatherlessness that would result. More importantly, it sent a message that single parenthood was acceptable, fathers weren't really necessary. That message wasn't immediate, and it wasn't the intent. But it was the outcome when the State filled the void that fathers should have filled. (And while fathers share their culpability for being absent, let's not forget the mothers who would not have chosen to be single mothers if it were not for the State-sponsored substitute and the subsequent shift in the societal expectations.)
Those who supported welfare had good intentions, but their results weren't so great.
Those who opposed welfare were called bigots, racists, sexists, accused of not caring the poor, etc. But, a generation later, they were proven right.
Likewise, here we stand on the verge of altering another of societies pillars. Those who support redifining marriage have the best of intentions, as the proponents of the welfare state before them.
And, as the welfare state before, those opposing the societal shift are being called homphobes, bigots, etc. Will they be proven right, though?
Even those who are heterosexual will grow up seeing gay parenthood as equal to heterosexual parenthood, and the unintended consequence of that is they will grow up taught by society that there is nothing particularly important about fatherhood and motherhood. After all, if we saw it as important, we would not have redefined it (just as if fathers were important, we would not have replaced them with state checks and child support payments from some guy that knocked up mom but isn't allowed around).
I don't think it is bigotry to learn from history. And when you cease to stigmatize something that is bad for society, you get more of it. Gays should not be stigmatized, but anyone who intentionally deprives a child of a mom and a dad should be. I guess the best answer to "how will gay marriage affect the family and society?" is, like the answer to welfare for single mothers before it, is this: wait a generation and see.
Trust at December 14, 2009 6:58 PM
Hmmm. Many posts since I left for work. *Sigh*. Ok, let's go.
No, they're not. The point that's being made is that - while race and sexuality are different things, they're equally ridiculous as grounds for discrimination.
What... really? You think that people find the idea of interracial marriage so offensive that they will actively oppose gay marriage if gay-marriage-lobbyists try to use it to promote their stance?
Wow... I didn't realise you were racist as well as homophobic....
Prove it.
Indeed. As a rejoinder: I like trifle.
Indeed again. It looks like I don't have to actually say anything further. Let's hope. Cross fingers?
There are elements of Sharia law which are being integrated into British society. However, it's not as if the country is giving carte blanche license to muslims to just ignore our laws. A lot of legal work with muslims in Britain currently is working to find ways to make Sharia law and existing British law compatible. So. Let's not pretend either that British law is completely ignoring muslims and giving free reign to a new law; or that what is happening in Britain is either correct or justifies homophobia in America.
Crid, I just used a search-find on my browser and not once have you said anything that wasn't intended to be patronising or that provided a substantive argument. You're talking shit. It's all just random noise coming out of your mouth. While I disagree with what other people are saying here, I can respect (ish) that they have reasoning behind their opinions. Your posts thus far have been manure of the field of ignorance - doing nothing but providing fuel to keep the meaningless and ingnorant arguments growing. Your arguments are insubstantive and stink. Manure. Do you even realise that in this last post, the most constructive thing you've managed to say is criticising someone else's punctuation? Jesus Christ. Seriously? Either develop a set of morals with an argument to back them or shut the fuck up. You're a bag of gas, whistling in the wind. You have contributed nothing.
Mr Teflon, you seem to have 100% misunderstood my posts. That was sarcasm. My religious views are strictly atheist. I agree the government - especially the goverment of an acclaimed secular country - has no business mixing with religion. I don't feel that homosexuality is a choice. The entire point of my message was that if you replaced the references to same-sex marriages with references to mixed-race marriages that people would cringe. I don't want to go much further into this, because it's evidently a simple misunderstanding, but I'm glad you agree with what I was trying to say.
Ok, I confess that - if you have historical knowledge that supports your argument, I am ignorant here. I personally believe that the social environment for the LGBT community is currently very similar to the social environment for blacks or women prior to their respective social revolutions. If that's not the case, I'd love to be enlightened. I notice you don't actually provide any evidence or any kind of counter-argument beyond "no! You're wrong!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacons_rebellion
Ok. I have to confess, I 100% fail to see your point. From what I read this has absolutely no bearing on anything we're discussing at all. We can all throw up history randomly. I'm more than capable of shouting "THE BATTLE OF STIRLING BRIDGE! READ IT!", but it doesn't actually bring anything further to the discussion. If you're going to bring something new to the table - especially if you think it will help to remove the general ignorance of the people you're disagreeing with, actually explaining the relevance would be useful. It may be possible that Bacon's Rebellion has a bearing. I won't discount that possibility. But until you explain it to me, I'm ignoring what seems to be a horrible but currently irrelevant piece of history.
What's this? A tone of reason? Stone him!
Re: children needing both mothers and fathers, why do you believe what you believe? What's your rationale? We know that children suffer in single-parent families (generally speaking) - what evidence is there to support the belief that children need two different-sex parents?
Wrong. Fatherlessness has never been shown to be anything like a disaster. Single parenthood has been shown to be a disaster - generally. Unless you have some evidence I'm unaware of, in which case I welcome the enlightenment. There seems to be a mistaken correlation being made between 'single parent' and 'same-sex parents'. One is singular; the other is plural. Important difference.
Why not? Father's can't suckle, it's true. But other than that, who says mothers and fathers are not interchangeable? Surely - as has been suggested previously - the ideal is two loving parents - its doesn't matter how many of them have a dick.
You seem again to make the mistake of assuming single-parent families and same-sex-parent families are the same. They're not.
Again, why are the two not interchangeable? Explain this to me, please. Also, when did anyone say that allowing gay marriage rendered parents "unnecessary"...? And what unique "characteristics" are we talking about here that moms and dads bring?
Cop-out line. They should be "accepted as they are", but I won't say what I think they are - other than to say they shouldn't allowed to marry as too many of them might own a penis. No, nothing you've said is contrary to the idea that homosexuals should be accepted as they are, except that you've entirely and epically skipped the defining point of your statement: what you mean to say is "homosexuals should be accepted as... [insert personal opinion here]" - what your own personal opinion is I couldn't possibly say.
No, I don't get the premise. Not even slightly. Again, I'm at a cultural disadvantage here. Who were the Crackers? What happened in Memphis in 1956? I had a quick Google check but didn't find anything that seemed relevant. Any help appreciated.
I'm not even going to reply to this. Feebie, your posts seem to get more ignorant as the thread goes on. You talk such utter bullshit it's unreal.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:10 PM
> Gays should not be stigmatized, but
> anyone who intentionally deprives a
> child of a mom and a dad should be.
This place is experiencing a serious outbreak of good sense.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 14, 2009 7:12 PM
"True, gender and race are different, but I see the parallel and believe it's appropriate."
Really? Share that thought with black people much? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to give you their opinion on the parallel.
momof4 at December 14, 2009 7:19 PM
Why?
Oh, look at that. Another substantive critical piece of journalistic wonder from Crid. You're right, no-one has shown up any of your argumentative shortcomings. You know why? Because you do it so well yourself. You want people to take you seriously? You want people to stop clucking at you? You want people to feel there's any justification for actually responding to what you say with any kind of constructive argument beyond calling you a pathetic windbag; beyond calling you patronising; beyond likening you to a pile of manure on a field of ignorance?
Try actually saying something.
Single parenthood != fatherlessness.
That's kinda funny. No, it's not bigotry to learn from history. that's the point the pro-gay crowd has been trying to make: history has shown us that those with the anti-gay-marriage viewpoint are standing firmly in the shoes of some of the biggest bigots in history. We're trying to change their viewpoint on the ground that history's lessons have shown their attitude to be bigotry.
I love "when you cease to stigmatize something that is bad for society, you get more of it. Gays should not be stigmatized, but anyone who intentionally deprives a child of a mom and a dad should be." Let's rephrase that:
"I don't mind gays being gay, so long as they don't try to get married. Gays marrying is bad and deserves all the stigma it gets."
Amy's opinion - I believe - on parental familial roles is based on the relationship between parents, rather than on the relationship between parents and children. So, she says that women prefer men to work; men prefer women to look after children. Whatever. However it's worded, Amy essentially says that parental roles exist as they currently do because of an evolutionary preference when it comes to one adult seeking a partner. Does it matter to the child who plays what role? I suspect not; so long as the roles of caring parents are provided, I would be surprised to find the child - social stigma aside - would have any reason to care one way or another about who's providing the dinner and who's cooking it.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:22 PM
"I guess the best answer to "how will gay marriage affect the family and society?" is, like the answer to welfare for single mothers before it, is this: wait a generation and see."
That would makes sense if it was some new concept, like welfare, but gay couples have already been raising children for well over a generation...and the verdict is IN: They do an equally good job.
This doesn't sit well with those of you who believe a child must always have a mother and father living in their home to thrive, but it's the truth. Attentive, loving gay parents, just as attentive, loving single parents, make sure their children are surrounded by good role models of both genders.
A family is only as good as the people involved. You can have two lousy parents of the opposite sex, or one great parent, and one lousy, abusive parent. Trust me, the child would rather be living in a single-parent home with just the one great parent - or with Bob and Steve - than with the lousy parent, regardless of gender.
The reason gay couples tend to do better with childrearing than single parents is that they largely escape the economic factors that cause single parenthood to look so bad statistically. That doesn't prove that comparing parents in the same economic level would produce dissimilar results.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 7:22 PM
Also, unlike welfare, I doubt scores of people will be rushing to become gay just to take advantage of this wonderful marriage benefit. They already have it.
lovelysoul at December 14, 2009 7:27 PM
See my message to you in the last post, Crid. It's relevant once again. This is my surprised face. No, really.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
*Wipes eyes*
Oh, man, you people are funny. What, you're threatening us with the idea that black might... what? Beat us up? Take offense at the very least, I assume, if we were so much as to mention the idea that the discrimination that's going on now is very similar to the discrimination that would going on then.
Thing is, momof4, there is ONLY ONE reason anyone - regardless of race - would take offence at that idea: they are homophobic.
The argument being made is very, very simple, but you anti-gay-marriage... oh, no. Stop. I'm fed-up typing that. Let me rephrase:
The argument being made is very, very simple, but you homophobes are missing it entirely: discrimination = discrimination = bad. It doesn't matter who you discriminate against, it doesn't matter why you do it, it doesn't matter who does the discrimination. Discrimination = discrimination = bad.
What part of that is so difficult to grasp?
donald at December 14, 2009 7:32 PM
@lovelysoul: "That would makes sense if it was some new concept, like welfare, but gay couples have already been raising children for well over a generation...and the verdict is IN: They do an equally good job."
___________
I have no doubt there are many wonderful gay parents, just as their are many single parents who do an admirable job. And I agree that the financial and supervision benefits no doubt help.
In fairness, to, let's keep in mind that gay parents probably have to jump through more hoops than heterosexuals, so we're really only counting the cream of the crop. It's like the studies that show single fathers do better than single mothers--it isn't because single fathers are better, it is because the standards to be one is much, much higher. (fathers have to be stellar to get custody, whereas some women damn near have to kill their kids to lose them.)
Given credit to great gay parents does not change the fact that society has not yet announced to a generation that moms and dads are interchangeable. Announcing fathers were negligable was not good, announcing they can replace mothers won't be good either.
It's a complex problem. I know changing someone's mind is tough because I really, truly understand the wonderful intentions the other side has.
Trust at December 14, 2009 7:34 PM
I want to take a half-time breather here and apologise for my AWFUL typing today. A mix of being cold and being... well, cold, mostly, has led to my fingers and my brain not doing entirely what I want them to do.
I'm normally not quite so illiterate. :/
donald at December 14, 2009 7:37 PM
@lovelysoul: "Also, unlike welfare, I doubt scores of people will be rushing to become gay just to take advantage of this wonderful marriage benefit. They already have it"
_________
You're right, they won't. It isn't the same in that regard. But the unintended consequence is similar: as welfare announced that fathers were negligable, gay marriage will announce fathers and mothers are interchangeable. Neither unintended consequence is true.
Trust at December 14, 2009 7:37 PM
You still haven't addressed this.
Look, here, it's done: MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE.
Please stop repeating yourself without justification. I've just announced to anyone who cares to read it that you're wrong. Not because I'm 100% convinced, but because I've yet to see any substantive argument from you in favour of your claims - and I'm getting itchy and sleepy. You've made your point. Kindly back it up.
donald at December 14, 2009 7:39 PM
Flynne, you're a sister.
Love ya with a passion, my brother.
Feebie posts: "Because denying marriage to people, based on race - in order to procreate (which is what marriage afforded those) create wealth, provide generational inheritance and legitimacy and stability to their offspring is not what the majority of the gays in the pro gay marriage movement are looking to secure.
Most gay couples are more well off than many hetero couples, primarily because they do not have the added burden of raising a family.
Discrimination is protected under the Constitution where it denies someone "life, liberty and property" you show me where gays have been denied any such thing because they cannot get married...
They are afforded all basic rights.
Now, if they want to start helping out with the child rearing - then we can talk...."
And the Donald replies: "I'm not even going to reply to this. Feebie, your posts seem to get more ignorant as the thread goes on. You talk such utter bullshit it's unreal."
How so? She did not post anything but the truth, except for the speculation of that last line, which you seem to have taken great offense to. I wonder why that is? It was stated far above in the thread that gays are afforded the same civil rights that everyone else is. It seems to me that gays want to be allowed to use the word "marriage" mainly because heteros can and do. Why is it such a big damn deal? You get the same rights in a civil union that you do in a marriage.
And in refernce to this, Patrick posted: "The be-happy-with-civil-unions argument..."separate but equal" didn't work for the civil rights movement. We have no precedent whatsoever to assume that it will work in the case of marriage."
But we have no precedent to assume that it won't, either. Hetero couples have civil unions, too, you know, and those seem to work out pretty well most of the time.
Trust posted: "By calling homosexual unions "marriage", society would in essence be saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That is not true, they are not."
And the Donald says: "Why not? Father's can't suckle, it's true. But other than that, who says mothers and fathers are not interchangeable? Surely - as has been suggested previously - the ideal is two loving parents - its doesn't matter how many of them have a dick."
Well, actually it DOES. Little girls need to learn how to relate to boys while they're growing up, and usually the first boy they encounter is their FATHER. Little boys need to learn how to relate to girls while they're growing up, and usually the first girl they encounter is their MOTHER. And MEN do some things differently than WOMEN. Some men are more nuturing than others. Same thing with women. Because by their very nature, MEN and WOMEN are DIFFERENT. Emotionally, mentally, physically. Speaking of which, and I really shouldn't have to point this out, but, mothers? Don't. Have. Dicks. Fathers? Don't. Have. Boobs. Biology, dontchaknow. In same sex marriages, with children, that lack of one or the other might not be a problem; well, at least not until a child gets older and has to learn about biology in school. And they will, you know, because it's required. Biology. You know, that male and female both are required to create another life? Yes two loving parents can be wonderful and can be of the same sex. But they can't create another life by themselves. Raising a child or children in their home will be no less a daunting task than a hetero couple will have, but it could create more confusion than is necessary, at least for a little while. Are people really willing to let that slide for the sake of vanity and the "right" to be "married"?
Flynne at December 14, 2009 7:54 PM
Okay, I can see this getting nasty, and I don't care to argue. Honestly, I doubt that anything would suffice as "backing it up" to donald.
So I'll just end by making this point, then kindly fading away:
The real tragedy of the past 50 years was we put the full power of the U.S. dollar, U.S. government, and family court behind the incorrect belief that fathers are negligible. It's proven disastrouns.
The real tragedy of gay marriage will not be that gays are not loving and cannot be good parents. It will be because we will not have learned our lesson, and will put the entire power of the U.S. government behind the false belief that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
I can't prove what the future holds, any more than donald or some of my other good-intentioned opponents can. All I know is history, and history tells me this is not a good idea.
Trust at December 14, 2009 8:02 PM
"No, I don't get the premise. Not even slightly. Again, I'm at a cultural disadvantage here. Who were the Crackers? What happened in Memphis in 1956? I had a quick Google check but didn't find anything that seemed relevant. Any help appreciated."
Yet you believe you are in a position to talk about institutionalized racism as it relates to the U.S.? Still, I think this is less of a "cultural" issue than it is one of common sense and historical knowledge.
The elephant story means that people can be crippled by a belief system that has been handed down (generationally) over a long period of time. They don't question it, or take it apart, or unpack it - they accept it as a religious black and white dogma and they don't even know why - this is how racism continues. Ignorance.
Jim Crow laws and segregation in the south regarding 1956.
A "Cracker" is a pejorative term for a *brittle*, inflexible, ignorant, white person from the south.
If you are at a cultural disadvantage, why do you challenge me as you do? You believe you have more of an intuitive ability to determine the intentions behind documents created by our founding fathers or racism in America? Please, say no more. (I don't think I do, but your posturing here is grandiose and pompous).
As far as having a person or persons thoroughly "checked" prior to marriage for reproductive capacity - "HOLY MOTHER OF GOD", would be my answer. This is one of the more ignorant comments that has been suggested on this thread, which does not even begin contemplate the unconstitutionality of it.
Some people are going to benefit more than others, - but that is life. You can't legislate fairness or human nature. You can't MAKE people do what you want. All you can do is (like our constitution says) have as little government involvement in our lives as possible, with the greatest personal freedom and equality.
Prohibition of gay marriage (unless the couple is raising children)is depriving no one of their constitutional rights here in the U.S. (life, liberty and property).
I've said it before and I will say it again, giving a child a loving, stable home with a mother and a father is the best case scenario and I think traditional marriage does the most to promote this situation. Second to that, would be a stable loving home with two parents of the same sex (not optimal, but better than many other situations forced on kids) so I would be willing to stand behind any changing of our laws to benefit these parents wherever possible *so long as it does not open the flood gates to erode the traditional family unit*.
Children come first for me, and I got a lot of energy when it comes to giving them the best start available to them in life. If it benefits them, I am okay with it. If it doesn't, I have no problem being called an ignorant bigot for my beliefs.
"Feebie, your posts seem to get more ignorant as the thread goes on. You talk such utter bullshit it's unreal."
Really? What specifically?
Feebie at December 14, 2009 8:05 PM
I can't prove what the future holds, any more than donald or some of my other good-intentioned opponents can. All I know is history, and history tells me this is not a good idea.
Word, Trust. Word.
Flynne at December 14, 2009 8:05 PM
> Try actually saying something.
Dear arriveste: I've been arguing this with people on this blog for the last six years, several times a year in punishing detail. Go to the archives in Sept 2003, and start reading forward, and don't leave anything out.
Lately I've decided not to bother arguing with young people or other obviously distraught souls, and "manure of the field of ignorance" gets you a pass. You spirit is well-represented here, but by all means, go nuts. I think your bitterness is an important data point for people to consider.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 14, 2009 8:20 PM
I love that you call me "the Donald". That makes me happy. :)
Ok. I may have gone a little off-chart on saying that Feebie's posts increase their level of bullshit as time goes on; perhaps I should have said the bullshit level has remained constant.
My problem is severalfold. ("My problems are severalfold"? "Several"? *Shrugs*. Who knows.)
Feebie says gays are not looking to protect generational inheritance, legitimacy or stability for children. Says who? Has anyone polled them?
Also, I thought a main part of the argument against gay marriage is how poor gays reputedly are as parents. You can't have both the argument that gays are bad parents and the argument that gays don't want to be parents anyway. Take one or the other and make a case. This reminds me of a silly story I heard while studying law - one of those "I know someone who knows someone who knows someone" stories. A man is accused of breaking his neighbour's lawnmower. Allowed by law to enter a primary, secondary and tertiary plea, he submitted the following:
1) The lawnmower wasn't broken when I returned it.
2) The lawnmower was already broken when I got it.
3) I didn't borrow the lawnmower in the first place.
That's what you're doing here.
My personal take on marriage is that essentially the only thing it really does is make it harder to break up a relationship. Why can't gays be looking for increased stability in their families' lives by going into marriage? Don't be silly.
Whether or not you get the same rights in one set-up as the other is essentially irrelevant. I don't know off-hand whether that's true in American law: what I do know is that insisting - even if the terms are the same - that one couple can do what they will while another couple has no choice is discrimination. Again, discrimination = discrimination = bad.
Finally, Feebie claims that the constitution protects "life, liberty and property". My understanding is that the constitution actually says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you're going to quote your own frikkin' constitutional documents, try to get it right.
If you feel so strongly that gays have access to everything that heteros have, then the question you pose turns back on you neatly: what's the problem with calling a gay union "marriage"?
Brilliant. I'm happy for them. BUT, they also have marriage. Why shouldn't gays?
Ah, of course. I forgot that girls never meet boys other than their father; and I forgot that boys never meet girls other than their mother. My mistake.
The whole rest of your paragraph makes no sense. It doesn't actually seem to be an argument. Some men are more nurturing than others and the same goes for women? Uhm, ok... so there's no difference in this regard, then?
Men and women are different. Yes. So are men and men. Emotionally, mentally and physically. For the record, women and women are also different. I've dated enough of them to have realised that. What of it?
I know guys have penises and women have breasts - I have picked that up. Thanks for the clarification, but I think most of the people posting here are aware of the fact. What of it?
Gay couples can't biologically conceive children? REALLY? Man, I didn't know that. I WISH I'd paid more attention at school. Or in gay camp. Or whatever. Well, it's a handy tip for anyone who didn't already know, but I suspect most of us did. Again, what of it?
You don't actually say anything. I can spout random biology factoids:
Did you know that your second largest organ is your liver? It's also your largest internal and glandular organ. Therefore we should allow gay marriage. Ithankyou.
donald at December 14, 2009 8:22 PM
If that's true, and children growing up in gay households fare just as well as children growing up in hetro households; then I don't have a problem with gay couples having kids. Moreover I never said it should be illegal I only said it would be selfish if those children were automatically put at a disadvantage.
Mike Hunter at December 14, 2009 8:29 PM
"Feebie says gays are not looking to protect generational inheritance, legitimacy or stability for children. Says who? Has anyone polled them?"
See, it's not a cultural thing - its a reading thing. I've said, if not implied in MANY posts that this applies to the MAJORITY of gays involved in the gay marriage movement. Gotit?
Feebie at December 14, 2009 8:35 PM
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Wrong. "Pursuit of happiness" was not written into the Constitution,- it was "property".
It is in our Deceleration of Independence, which contains this phrase and this Declaration is not enforceable by the courts. It shows the founders intentions behind the founding documents. My understanding is that this "pursuit of happiness" is individual freedom, and the right to choose to be happy without government interference (gay marriage requires government interference).
It is however, included in many STATE Constitutions... but that's a whole different ball-o-wax.
Feebie at December 14, 2009 8:48 PM
"I know guys have penises and women have breasts - I have picked that up. Thanks for the clarification,"
Reeeaaally glad we got that outtah the way!
Feebie at December 14, 2009 8:53 PM
Ah, of course. The candid yet quietly sophisticated parishioner makes his final case and then withdraws for fear of causing offence.
It's very simple. When I say "back it up", what I mean is this: provide evidence to support your conjecture. It's exceptionally simple. Have you ever studied any kind of science? Law? Mathematics? You simply cannot say "this is the way it is" without actually supporting your statement with evidence. I would happily and gladly accept evidence either in support of the pro-gay-marriage stance or in support of the homophobic stance. You haven't yet provided any. Not a jot. Not an iota. Provide some, I will read it, and I may be persuaded to change my mind. Blindly dithering about tragedy and love and neligible fathers doesn't actually achieve anything when you don't back up what you're saying. You're just saying the same thing over and over and over again.
You're right, and I accept that point. It's also how homophobia continues. Also sexism, and a whole bunch of other 'isms' that are equally unpleasant.
But that's exactly what you're suggesting. You can't have a policy of only having some people "checked" prior to marriage: either you check or you don't. If you do, you check everyone. If you don't, you check no-one That's how equality works.
Your addendum notwithstanding, I respect this paragraph. It sounds to me like what you're saying is you think that mixed-sex marriage is optimal but that you would stand in the way of gay marriage where gay couples don't have the option of being in a hetero relationship. It seems a convoluted way of saying you agree gay-marriage isn't the devil, but I appreciate what you've written.
I agree with this as well. The problem at the moment, I think, is a lack of unbiased, scientific opinion (or, "evidence", if you prefer) to make a clear case one way or another. We're both coming at the problem from a different angle, but it seems like we both have the same goal at heart: ensuring the welfare of children while allowing all possible freedoms to potential parents.
Well, much as I've disagreed increasingly with your previous posts (all of which I think I've responded to?), there has been plenty in your last post for me to apologise for that last response. As I said, I think we both have the same goal in mind and I hope we're both open to evidence and information as it turns up. We're coming from different directions, but that can't be a surprise, given that we're different people with different backgrounds.
I'm sorry if I got offensive. I get wound up when I care about an issue.
Without wanting to reopen a disagreement, my opinion is that racism, sexism, homophobia - whatever kind of discrimination we're dealing with, is not border-dependant. People are homophobic in Britain, just as much as people are in America. That qualifies me to talk about homophobia as much as you can. The times I talk about American history and culture, yes, I believe I know what I'm talking about. Your being American doesn't give you a monopoly on American history. The times I admit I don't know about a particular element of American history and culture shouldn't be a stumbling block to discussion. You've been kind enough to explain yourself on several occasions when I didn't understand your points or your references - I managed to pick up enough from that to understand what's being discussed.
No, not "word". I never claimed to know the future. The only person who's brought the future into the discussion is Trust himself. I have only ever mentioned the current and - most importantly - the past. The past is where the lessons lie for us to learn. Not the future.
If you want to sit on a high-horse, that's fine. If you want to open - and close - your account on this thread by saying "if you want my opinion, go to the archives in Sept. 2003 and start reading forward and don't leave anything out," that's fine.
But don't patronise me, you pretentious prat. I assure you that, while I may be relatively young, I am not in any way incapable of understanding your discussions. I am not in any way incapable of forming thoughts and presenting them in a structured manner. I am not in any way incapable of getting involved in an active and lively discussion about pretty much any topic you want to bring up - especially one where my youth simply means that I haven't been inculcated by a bigoted society for however many years your mighty and well-developed reason has been stuck in the clouds of American ignorance.
I have no intentions of hitting bitterness and, so far, you haven't done anything to persuade me otherwise. You once again rouse yourself from deep slumber simply to poke a stick at the discussion - without actually contributing anything to the thread, you aim to foment anger to amuse your purile mind.
I say again, Crid. You have something to contribute? I welcome it. Say it. Otherwise, forget it. Hereon in if you want to actually make a point I will gladly reply to it. If you just want to make glib remarks that have less than no bearing on the discussion, I will ignore you.
donald at December 14, 2009 8:56 PM
Agreed, 100%.
Due to reading/writing/posting times, there is a backlog of conversation still waiting to happen. I'm trying to move away from conflict with you, Feebie, but I still have to ask: "majority"? Says who? That's my point here - that you can't give motive to the majority of people in the LGBT community without actually asking them. I'm just asking if anyone has asked them.
Ah, ok. I didn't know that. Interesting. Again - you've cleared up a point of ignorance for me. Thank you. So the Declaration is essentially a directors' commentary for the founding documents, then? I hadn't realised.
I understand the technicalities behind marriage requiring government interference, but it seems to me if the status quo is that marriage is an acceptable institution, there is more interference from the goverment in denying marriage to some than there would be in allowing it. But that's a niggardly detail and not - at the moment - worth arguing. I think.
Teamwork, that is. Bringing biological enlightenment to the uneducated masses. Go the Alkonites!
donald at December 14, 2009 9:03 PM
Well, donald, I've bowed out and won't make any more arguments. Not that anything short of full agreement with you will ever be considered "backing it up." I have to say this: I never wanted the last word (I knew you'd respond). My last ditch argument wasn't to cause offense, it was to try to clarify my admittedly long winded post before arguing.
So, you may wonder why I'm posting again since I've bowed out. Well, I haven't made any more arguments to my point, and I won't. Just think someone should tell you that you're being an ass. Not that you care, but most others are thinking it.
Trust at December 14, 2009 9:05 PM
@:My last ditch argument wasn't to cause offense, it was to try to clarify my admittedly long winded post before arguing.
_________
without arguing i mean
I've been nice. You've been a jerk. I'm done.
Trust at December 14, 2009 9:06 PM
"But that's exactly what you're suggesting. You can't have a policy of only having some people "checked" prior to marriage"
Where did I say that? Where? Show me and I will promptly correct it or re clarify.
"It's also how homophobia continues. Also sexism, and a whole bunch of other 'isms' that are equally unpleasant."
Sure, when countries are colonized, sodomy was used to embarrass, dispirit and show dominance over the colonized male population. This is not to say this is what makes one gay these days, but there is a history in many cultures that have a fear of this situation that runs deep. But it does not get to mean that while you can contribute your thoughts on homophobia (which is not what I have) that you can be so flippant about applying this to racism in THIS country as if you were some sort of expert on it - especially coming from the other side of the pond.
"I haven't been inculcated by a bigoted society for however many years your mighty and well-developed reason has been stuck in the clouds of American ignorance."
Aww nah you dinnn-hent!!!
Feebie at December 14, 2009 9:24 PM
Ok. A quick back-check shows me to be entirely wrong here. Sorry.
I misunderstood what you were saying, tied it up in a pretty little package with what others were saying and came up in entirely the wrong place. My line of thinking went like this:
People say gays shouldn't marry as they can't have children; I have countered by saying that not all hetero couples have children; someone suggested that couples should only get married to have children and that hetero couples should be checked to see if they could have children (I think sarcastically, to show it makes no sense as a grounds of refusing marriage to gays); you said that checking couples prior to marriage is wrong but you also seemed to oppose gay marriage.
I assumed that you were opposing gay marriage on the lack-of-children thing as that was the argument du jour and felt it a little hypocritical given that you didn't want people checked.
Meh. Long, rambling and slightly confusing. I basically made the mistake of taking everyone's arguments and lumping them together, then believing that you supported all of the individual arguments. Obviously, that's ludicrous. Sorry.
Expert I am not. And I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. Certainly I couldn't have justified it if I did. But racism is racism is racism. Roots and causes will differ, but racism is the same no matter how you paint it. My only point regarding racism - that I remember - was that racism, sexism and homophobia are all inextricably linked through the fact of their being discriminatory.
:)
Sadly, I did. But it was aimed squarely at Crid, who's being a prat. All I was saying is that I haven't had time to form so many preconceptions.
donald at December 14, 2009 9:38 PM
How old are you? And how old is Patrick?
This is all starting to make a lot more sense.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 14, 2009 9:38 PM
I know many people on this blog that would disagree with me, but racism is not unique per se - but in the US, it has been institutionalized unlike any where else - legislatively and through policies to restrict legitimate access to rights afforded by our constitution, subversively.
Remember the elephant story?
And as a Yank, I am giving you the stink eye until you take back that ignorant American comment.
Feebie at December 14, 2009 9:49 PM
Gay marriage is good or bad is depends on the persons mind.If person should like the other person as life partner and no any problem both of them then we have to give permission for gay marriage.
Free Matrimony at December 14, 2009 10:41 PM
I was thinking it was among the dumbest. For one thing, as we've already discussed, because someone is married, it does not imply they are parents. "Husband" does not equal "father," and "wife" does not equal "mother." Nor is there any obligation for "spouse" to become "parent."
For another, even if it were the case, gay marriage suggesting that mothers and fathers are interchangeable (as if "spouse" meant "parent"), is further to suggest that single parenthood means "mother" and "father" are amalgamable.
Donald, whenever Crid has exhausted his arguments and they've all failed him, he suddenly throws up a fabulous non-sequitur, usually by asking your age or about your upbringing, implying that the answers to these questions suddenly would explain your position. It's not a terribly effective misdirection tactic, but I will give him props for originality. Can't say that I've ever seen anyone resort to that before.
Patrick at December 15, 2009 12:04 AM
You're children. This was always about that. You've not sampled any reasonable number of family outcomes, and are just burning resentful teenage energies, pretending to be serious people.
Color me embarrassed! I'm going to forgive myself, though.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2009 2:22 AM
Crid, you kind of remind me of Cartman on South Park.
Patrick at December 15, 2009 4:09 AM
"By calling homosexual unions "marriage", society would in essence be saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable."
I don't think that's the message that would be sent. Gays realize something that most of us have a harder time admitting - that gender, like sexuality, slides along a spectrum. Not every man is masculine, nor every woman feminine, regardless of sexual preference.
My ex leans more to the feminine side. He is straight. In fact, quite a playboy, but he's not into the "manly-man" things. He's what they call these days a "metrosexual". He'd much prefer being at the spa having a manicure or a facial than out fishing, camping, or watching sports.
My son, on the other hand, is a born outdoorsman. It didn't matter how many years his straight father lived in our household, he wasn't going to learn much of that from him.
Fortunately, we have a neighbor who is a manly kind of guy, and he's taken both my kids under his wing, teaching them "guy" things and being a great role model of the masculine sort.
My point is that smart parents will be attentive to their kids needs and fill in any gaps. And just because there are two straight parents in a household doesn't automatically mean a child's needs are being met.
My mom, for instance, was not a "girly" type, though I was. She was a bookworm, who didn't care about appearance.
So, no one showed me how to wear makeup or dress...until I met my ex (ha ha).
lovelysoul at December 15, 2009 4:35 AM
Ah, of course. I forgot that girls never meet boys other than their father; and I forgot that boys never meet girls other than their mother. My mistake.
You're a fucking asshole. This is NOT what I said. Why don't you read the whole paragraph? What I said was the FIRST male a girl usually knows is her FATHER, and will take cues from HIM as to how she lets other males treat her. And the FIRST female a boy knows is usually his MOTHER. Or were you brought up by a cow? Actually, by most of your arguments here, it would seem so, because you're so bullheaded and obtuse.
Your response to me tells me everything I need and/or want to know about you.
Flynne at December 15, 2009 5:04 AM
Hmmm. I don't really know enough about racism anywhere, never mind in America. :/ I suppose the important thing is that it's pretty horrible regardless of where it happens and who does it.
And if you want an apology for the "ignorance" thing, then I'm sorry - ish. America as a nation is renowned internationally for its ignorance.
(Random link: http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch04252003.html)
Of course, every country has its ignorant. America isn't alone in that. And, obviously, not everyone in America is ignorant. I wouldn't be posting here if that weren't the case.
So, I'm sorry for implying that everyone in America is ignorant. That evidently isn't true.
donald at December 15, 2009 5:18 AM
I did read the whole paragraph. What does it matter who is the first male or female that a child meets? I could understand the problem if children never met other males/females at all, but given they do, what argument can you make around the fact they have to integrate with members of the other sex?
You seem to be saying "children need mixed-sex parents because they have to learn how to relate to members of the opposite sex". I'm simply saying that children meet plenty of people of the opposite sex - why is it so specially important that one of them is their parent?
Oh, and kindly leave my mother out of this. Any problem you have with me is with me - not with my family or friends. I admit I have bandied some insults - but while I've managed to call people stupid or ignorant, or whatever, I haven't yet had to have a go at people's families. And I'm the asshole? Sure.
donald at December 15, 2009 5:26 AM
The link picked up on the close-bracket at the end of my parenthesis. Fixed in the quote above.
donald at December 15, 2009 5:29 AM
My apologies to your mother. I'm sure she didn't think you'd be such a prat about this issue when there are so many more important issues in the world than whether or not gay people get to call their unions "marriages".
What does it matter who is the first male or female that a child meets?
I think it matters because of a little thing called "first impressions". For instance, my FIRST impression of you is that you enjoy stirring up shit for the sake of doing so. And that you like to paraphrase and parse other people's words to make it seem like you're making a valid point, when, in fact, you're blowing smoke.
Personally, I don't care what gay people call their unions. Marriage, when used to define their relationships, is just a word. The context of the word changes, however, from that describing a sacred union between a man and a woman, when there are two people of the same sex in that unions. (Yes I know you know this. I'm just sayin'.) Some people care a great deal about this. Some don't. Those that DO care and have the power to prevent it from happening are going to. That's just the way it is right now. The stamping of feet and crying of "no fair!" isn't going to change that any time soon. Probably, if enough people start trying to understand WHY gays want to have the right to call their unions "marriages" (which we really haven't heard a valid reason yet other than "the heteros can call it a marriage! why can't we?!?" *pout*), they will take it into consideration. But consistently saying "They can, why can't we" without some kind of vaildity just keeps the whole debate going round and round. And using the "rights" argument is flawed, because gays have the same legal rights that heteros do. Most married people have their last wishes spelled out in wills. Gays can do this too. It really isn't a matter of protection under the laws. They've already got that.
Flynne at December 15, 2009 5:46 AM
I do actually want to apologise. I got caught up in the argument and I have realised - actually shortly before reading your post, Flynne, that I got out of hand and out of order.
Had this been a pub, I'd have been kicked out long ago and told I could come back another time when I was sober.
I made my points about 80 posts ago. I should have stopped there. I have been an ass and I'm sorry. I'll aim to not let it happen again.
donald at December 15, 2009 6:02 AM
Aaahhhh, fageddabodit, donald. Everyone gets their panties in a twist over this, as I said before. Next time you're at the pub, have a pint for me, will ya? I'll have black and tan on this side of the pond for you. There's an open jam tonight at my favorite little pub. Gonna go get my ya yas out.
Flynne at December 15, 2009 6:11 AM
They don't have the same rights, Flynne. I supposed those on the gay rights side assume that is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated.
They cannot marry, and marriage is fundamental to establishing the security, stability, and legal protections that most of us want in a relationship.
In many states, gays cannot adopt children. They can foster children, but that is part of the absurd insult directed towards to them.
Basically, the message is: You're not fit to raise children. But, hey, if you want to take some of these unwanted children with special needs, we'll let you, because...after all, what kind of life would they have otherwise? If you screw them up, it's ok - they're damaged goods anyway. But we won't let them officially call you "mom" or "dad"...or give you or them any sort of legal protection that we won't come rip them out of your home.
It's insulting and discriminatory to the children, who diserve to be adopted. It's insulting and discriminatory to the gay couple, who are trying to build a solid family.
That's just one reason they do not have the same rights.
lovelysoul at December 15, 2009 6:14 AM
They cannot marry, and marriage is fundamental to establishing the security, stability, and legal protections that most of us want in a relationship.
Then I'm not understanding what rights they have under civil laws, I guess. Can't gays establish a civil union in which all their rights, including the right to care for/choose medical care/establish beneficiaries/etc. for their partner, are honored? I thought marriage was/is sanctioned by a church, not the state? The state is responsible for the legalities of security, stability and legal protections. Marriage is just ceremony that solidifies the civil union in the eyes of the church, no?
In many states, gays cannot adopt children. They can foster children, but that is part of the absurd insult directed towards to them.
But marriage isn't required for adoption in many states, either. There are single parents who adopt. A LOT of them, it seems, lately.
Flynne at December 15, 2009 6:28 AM
"I thought marriage was/is sanctioned by a church, not the state?"
No, marriage, at least here, is sanctioned by the state. You must get a state marriage license for it to be legal. You can have a church ceremony, and the officiant can handle the state paperwork, but the religious ceremony, itself, is not what creates the marriage. It's merely symbolic.
Gays can try to give their unions protections through other legal documents, but it's time-consuming, and less secure, as each document could be challenged, especially any involving children.
lovelysoul at December 15, 2009 6:37 AM
>>But marriage isn't required for adoption in many states, either. There are single parents who adopt. A LOT of them, it seems, lately.
Flynne,
I don't agree at all with your fears that same-sex parents might condemn their kids to bewilderment about biology but ironically...the formidable gay couple I know best HAD to be single men to adopt!
They adopted an older child from Vietnam - where attitudes to officially gay couples are not friendly.
Jody Tresidder at December 15, 2009 7:18 AM
Gays have the same right to marry as everyone else, and always have had.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2009 7:38 AM
Jody, it's not something I'm afriad of, per se, it's just that school-age kids can be really cruel, and once they're of an age where biology is taught in schools, for some kids of gay parents, that could get a little confusing until they sort it out, and in the meantime, they're subject to taunts and outright hostility from their peers whose parents are of a more conventional relationship. It's not right, but it is there. Shouldn't loving parents try to not subject their kids to this kind of ridicule? The kids can't help their parents' orientation, obviously, but why should they be subjected to harassment about it? And in school, they will be. Tolerance is taught, yes, but not always embraced by everyone. There are people who teach their children intolerance of anything different than themselves, still. The learning begins at home. Until that changes, there will still be taunting, bullying and harassment.
Flynne at December 15, 2009 7:49 AM
..it's not something I'm afriad of, per se
Flynne,
Yeah "fears" was a lousy, tabloid choice!
sorry.
Jody Tresidder at December 15, 2009 7:57 AM
That's no reason to give in to taunting, bullying, and teasing. In fact, doing so is what prevents things from changing.
My daughter is 15, and she was talking last night about how tolerant her high school is - towards obesity as well as homosexuality. Several of her friends are openly gay, and one friend has lesbian parents.
This sort of tolerance would not have happened in my school at her age...or any age. Nor were black kids treated fairly back then. They were openly discriminated against, and both teachers and parents condoned it. The same argument was made for interracial relationships - "but they'll be teased." Well, so what? People must stand up against that sort of intolerance by living their lives and setting an example.
Times and attitudes change. Our kids are more tolerant than we were. There's a new train acomin'...get on it!
lovelysoul at December 15, 2009 8:01 AM
OK - sorry no time to read all the recent posts, I'm sure many have covered this, but I had to respond to Feebie. She quoted me:
"tell me on what LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL basis it is RIGHT to deny homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have?"
She replied:
"Bcause denying marriage to people, based on race - in order to procreate (which is what marriage afforded those) create wealth, provide generational inheritance and legitimacy and stability to their offspring is not what the majority of the gays in the pro gay marriage movement are looking to secure." .. then "Discrimination is protected under the Constitution where it denies someone "life, liberty and property" you show me where gays have been denied any such thing because they cannot get married..."
They have been denied equal protection under the law. And marriage does legitmize certain property rights (inheritance by operation of law w/o a will, etc.). You do not get to pick the basis on which you think they are / should / should not be discriminated against. Marriage is not just to create wealth and have a family; some see it as a personal statement of commitment the state prevents many fro making. And how about the "liberty' to marry? You do not get to make the rules nor choose the bases you want to. It makes no dofference WHY gays are looking to get married, not your concern or the state's; the only question is whether they can or cannot marry, and whether denying marriage to them discriminates against them (it clearly does), and if there's a legit basis to so discriminate. Your argument from way back that "they can have civil unions" also harkens back to the race issue; "separate but equal is inherently unequal" - sound familiar? Is your argument really that a couple should only be allowed to marr of they need it financially or plan to have kids? When do we start the prequalification testing? WTF?
Mr. Teflon at December 15, 2009 10:49 AM
Oh, btw - all the fuss about banning same-sex (SS) marriage as then "they' can have kids: "they" already can! Does that mean those of you opposed to (SS) marriage wish to alter adoption & custidy laws such that same-sex couples cannot raise children at all?
Mr. Teflon at December 15, 2009 11:40 AM
"separate but equal is inherently unequal"
That gets to the heart of the matter. This is what those opposed are trying to justify. I used to support "civil unions" too until I realized that was the same as "separate but equal."
Let everyone have the same state-sanctioned, legal marriage license. If straight couples want to add something to the definition, like "sacred union" to set theirs apart and show that it's between a man and woman, then they should be the ones to do that. But don't deny gays the basic right to legally marry.
lovelysoul at December 15, 2009 12:09 PM
Does a man equal a woman? Does a woman equal a man?
Oh, okay then, thanks.
Feebie at December 15, 2009 1:02 PM
Does a man equal a woman? Does a woman equal a man?
Oh, okay then, thanks.
Feebie,
I understand your point here - but you're forcing a false conclusion.
The gay male friends I mentioned earlier who are parents are not interchangeable in the least.
They have different individual qualities as parents - as do we all - are committed to each other, and to lovingly raising their family.
Jody Tresidder at December 15, 2009 1:14 PM
Does a man equal a woman? Does a woman equal a man?
Actually yes:
3+3=4+2
Equal is short for 'has equal value'. It isn't the same as 'identical'.
-Julie
JulieW at December 15, 2009 1:29 PM
> Equal is short for 'has equal value'.
> It isn't the same as 'identical'
Don't pussyfoot. You mean it or you don't.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2009 2:43 PM
>>Don't pussyfoot. You mean it or you don't.
Oh go slip on your speedo and quit scolding, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at December 15, 2009 2:59 PM
@donald: I made my points about 80 posts ago. I should have stopped there. I have been an ass and I'm sorry. I'll aim to not let it happen again.
___________
I know you weren't responding to me, but I'd also like to apologize for any escalation I caused, especially through repeating the same points. I kept trying to reword myself hoping the tone would be right, which really was never the problem. This is just a highly charged issue with well-meaning people on both sides.
Merry Christmas
Trust at December 15, 2009 7:57 PM
> quit scolding
IOW, you don't mean it. Knew it all along, Momma Tressider
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 15, 2009 10:13 PM
Don't pussyfoot. You mean it or you don't.
It is math Crid, it doesn't pussy foot. Either it is correct or it isn't.
We make claims that all people are equal under the law, that we all have the same value and will all suffer the same punishment and feel the same benefits in the same circumstances. We also know that rarely does our society live up to that ideal.
Giving two consenting adults the option of entering into a legal marriage doesn't erase the value of moms and dads. It is not a political statement about the value of parents in any way. Each time we suggest marriage in this blog a subgroup starts railing on the idea that marriage only exists for procreation. That is beyond a load of bullshit. If that were the case, we would all still be required to take blood tests before we got a marriage license. Legal marriage is simply the opportunity to adopt a non-blood related adult as your next of kin. For those who want it to be more than that, feel free to attach whatever meaning you want, but that is the legal reality.
When dealing with the abilities and freedoms of an adult, before you make any laws that restrict that freedom, you need a good solid reason and must adopt a law that will treat everyone equally. That is not the case for laws restricting gay marriage.
Without mentioning gay parenting, God, the bible or how icky you think the gay sex act is, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to adopt another adult as their next of kin and call it marriage like the rest of us? What good reason is there to not allow them to marry whom they choose?
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 9:05 AM
> Either it is correct or it isn't.
It isn't.
> how icky you think the gay sex act is
&
> Oh go slip on your speedo
There it is, there it is. In retrospect, I'm even gladder that I happened to get the first comment here, because it's so convenient when I want to send people back to it.
I tell a story of a man who rescued children from the horror of choking, briny death,and hear snickering sex jokes in response. Other commenters use fraudulent quotation marks to ascribe beliefs to me which have no basis in fact. And then little 'minus Julie' stops in at the end of the party to presume that this is about feelings of "ickiness".
Again, again, again — This is all about your (youthful) impulse to signal that other people are so much less sexually sophisti-micated than you are...
I just don't think about gay sex much. Sure, guys can blow each other if they want, and they can fuck each other in the ass, and they can squirt goo all over their preciously coiffed hair.
Girls can munch carpet from now through the Fourth of July and it's OK with me; they can rub their little boobies together and drive their little Subaru wagons all over town and even cast their little votes for the Democratic ticket if they want to.
This is the same disinterest I hold for most every straight couple. They can do missionary, they can do dorsal; they can hump and pump and do whatever they want until they tumble into their graves, and I just don't care. Maybe they woo each other with chocolates and flowers, maybe with bitchslaps and arguments... Whatever, man. No skin off my nose.
This is not about fucking.
But it's obvious to me that for you, it's not about any kind of civil rights, either. And it's certainly not about what's best for children.
You just wanna be snotty.
Relax; it's working.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Again, again, again — This is all about your (youthful) impulse to signal that other people are so much less sexually sophisti-micated than you are...
Thank you for calling me youthful Crid. As a woman in my mid-thirties, I don't hear that often.
I don't claim sexual sophistication, nor was I attributing all that I mentioned to you. I was paraphrasing the arguments I've heard thus far on this thread. Frankly Crid, with your worship of most things Paglia, you are the last person I would think would give a flying fuck about who fucks who when.
But it's obvious to me that for you, it's not about any kind of civil rights, either. And it's certainly not about what's best for children.
Actually, for me it is about civil rights and equal treatment under the law. Period. And frankly I see gay parenting as a separate issue from gay marriage. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop gay parenting, and neither will allowing gay marriage increase gay parenting. Gay women just need a willing dude and a turkey baster. Gay men can hire surrogate. And it happens all the time without any legally recognized marriage. Again gay marriage and gay parenting are two separate issues .
However Crid, neither you nor those on this thread that agree with you have provided any reason why gay marriage should be banned. You just enjoy being a shithead and erecting straw-men. So, explain to me why the legal rights of adults should be restricted. I'm still waiting.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 10:27 AM
>>I tell a story of a man who rescued children from the horror of choking, briny death,and hear snickering sex jokes in response.
Actually, Crid, it was billed as a story about a big hunk of a guy wearing a speedo.
Jody Tresidder at December 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Clucking hen: The legal rights of gays aren't restricted... They're exactly the rights that straights have.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Clucking hen: The legal rights of gays aren't restricted... They're exactly the rights that straights have.
So explain why straight people are allowed to marry their romantic partners but gay people are not.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 10:34 AM
Clucking hen: The legal rights of gays aren't restricted... They're exactly the rights that straights have.
And how is what you said motivated by something different than the people who said,
"All people can marry within their race ... outlawing bi-racial marriage isn't bigoted. Everyone lives under the same restriction."
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 10:40 AM
> So, explain to me why the legal
> rights of adults should be
> restricted. I'm still waiting.
yeah yeah, you're terribly impatient. But after writing this out a few hundred times over the years, I've lost enthusiasm for reciting the arguments people who haven't done the logic of this. Or the reading. (And are you sure there was no pretense in that "icky" thing? Coulda fooled me... Very distinct clunking-hen kinda vibe to it.)
Besides, the legal rights of gays aren't restricted. They're exactly the rights that straights have: Thus the precise configuration of our continuing dialectic seems to have eluded you, as it's perhaps eluded Amy in composing this post... You're the one petitioning civilization for a change, not the other way around. It's not your role to imperiously fold your arms and snarl Convince me!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 10:40 AM
But after writing this out a few hundred times over the years, I've lost enthusiasm for reciting the arguments people who haven't done the logic of this.
What a surprise...Crid has decided that he is too experienced, logical and superior to explain why he has the beliefs that he does and why restricting the rights of consenting adults is a good idea. Look who is folding their arms and saying 'convince me'.
1) Gay people are not given equal treatment under the law. They are not allowed to marry their love partner.
2)We claim to have a free and equal society. No one has arrived at a reason why gay people should be restricted from having the ability to marry, with all of the rights there in.
3) The existing legal paradigm to assign next of kin privileges for gay people is ineffectual...gay partners are frequently not allowed to make medical and legal decisions on behalf of their ill or dying spouses, inheritance is often disputed in ways that marital inheritance would not be.
4) The parallel between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage is hard to ignore. Why did we work to allow inter-racial marriage but not gay marriage?
Is that enough of a head start for you Crid?
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Sorry about the double thing... Big mornign here at the ranch, many distractions....
But again, my "motivations" –pristine, righteous and compassionate though they most assuredly are– are not the issue.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 11:00 AM
But again, my "motivations" –pristine, righteous and compassionate though they most assuredly are– are not the issue.
What is the issue to you?
For the record, I'm not interested in your motivations. I'm interested in why you believe it is legally appropriate to keep consenting adults from designating next of kin. I don't see why we should keep people from making their own decisions and feeling their own consequences, especially in this case.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 11:20 AM
> I'm not interested in your motivations.
You're the one who mentioned them... So I just want to make it clear that my motivations are the bee's knees! They're symmetrical, polished, and featureless in their excellence. Schools of theology and philosophy have invited me to lecture on the electrifying beauty of my motivations; but I'm just too busy editing mid-level television shows in Hollywood... Don't we all wish there were more hours in the day? Of course we do.
> I'm interested in why you believe
> it is legally appropriate to keep
> consenting adults from designating
> next of kin
I'm don't.
Besides, "legally appropriate" is a weird turn of phrase, as if law were all about pinky-extended cotillion politeness. Women under thirty, and selected seniors, should be cautious with that word.
> What is the issue to you?
My first concern is to defend the interests of those who can't speak for themselves.
(See? Beautful!)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 12:59 PM
Besides, you can't seem to take the point:
> Look who is folding their arms and
> saying 'convince me'.
Exactly. I'm the status quo guy. You're supposed show there's a better way, and you're not up to it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 1:01 PM
My first concern is to defend the interests of those who can't speak for themselves.
And in this case, who might those be? This is often used as a start for a WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN argument. In this case, there are no children...we are speaking of adults marrying adults.
Exactly. I'm the status quo guy. You're supposed show there's a better way, and you're not up to it.
It isn't that I'm not up to it, it is that you are refusing to even debate the issue. You won't even mention why you think it is justifiable to keep gay marriage illegal, or respond to any of my reasons why it is as archaic and antiquated as keeping people of different races from marrying. You just say "I'm right, and I have good, pure, reasons too!" It is obvious that you are the one not up for the debate.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 1:15 PM
> we are speaking of adults marrying adults.
Oh! Never mind then.. Since marriage is the public union of a man to an unmarried, unrelated, sane, consenting, age-appropriate woman, we have no dispute.
Or are you in denial about the scope of the change you're trying to make?
> that you are refusing to even
> debate the issue
Yeah... Right. Y'know, one problem with folks today is that they think they, personally, invented decency... Or as I so often quote Cosh, that "Elvis Presley invented fucking".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Oh! Never mind then.. Since marriage is the public union of a man to an unmarried, unrelated, sane, consenting, age-appropriate woman, we have no dispute.
Or are you in denial about the scope of the change you're trying to make?
I'm in no such denial. I am only looking to change the definition of marriage to the following:
"[M]arriage is the public union of one adult to another unmarried, unrelated, sane, consenting, age-appropriate adult."
Y'know, one problem with folks today is that they think they, personally, invented decency
I hold no such delusion, however I also don't believe that the status quo is sacred. The government should restrict our actions as little as possible, have as small an authoritative foot print as possible, and shouldn't provide opportunities to one group without providing them to all. Allowing heterosexuals the opportunity to marry their love interests, but not allowing gay people to marry theirs is the government providing opportunity to one group over another. It is not equal consideration under the law.
You still have not provided a reason why this change is unacceptable, illegal, or unconstitutional.
-Julie
JulieW at December 16, 2009 2:37 PM
Again again again... I'm not the one who needs to provide reasoning. (And I don't think your petty concerns about equal consideration are convincing. This is not about being nice to grownups.)
> I am only looking to change the
> definition of marriage to the following:
Golly... It's interesting that you'd didn't think to say so earlier! It's like... It's like you haven't thought about this very much. No reason not to strike down some other clauses whilr you're at it... unrelateds, age-appropriate, etc. Let's save some time! After all, does sanity really matter when you're in love? Let's just go sick with this!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 16, 2009 5:01 PM
Momof4 stated: "Yes yes, let's completely redefine marriage just to give some gay people-what, I think spouse's employer-paid healthcare is the only thing that married people get (IF the company offers it) that gays can't give themselves with a little paperwork. If you're too lazy to do the paperwork, you will NEVER make it in a marriage."
PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH. The attached link is a report to a GAO report that lists OVER 1,000 FEDERAL (i.e., it doesn't even include various state) BENEFITS AND RIGHTS that afforded to married couples. See: http://gaylife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=gaylife&cdn=people&tm=19&f=00&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
And, I don't know if you're aware, even with the single example you gave - did you know that when a same-sex partner receives health insurance from his partner's employer, he has to pay income tax on the value of that insurance because he is not married. A married spouse, on the other hand, does not have to pay income taxes for that benefit -- does that seem fair to you?
Flynne writes: "Everyone always gets their panties in a twist over this, but the bottom line is, gays can have a legally recognized civil union, in which you can specify that one is legally bound to the other and therefore incurs all the legalities and responsibilities that go with that. Just because the law doesn't call it a "marriage" doesn't invalidate that union. Stomping your feet and insisting that you be allowed to call it a "marriage" just reinforces your selfishness about it all."
I respectfully disagree. No contract between 2 consenting adults can force the federal or state government to grant you rights. Just try drafting a contract that will guarantee your partner social security survivor benefits or the right to file their tax return jointly (and, perhaps, pay fewer taxes) and see how far it'll get you. Although some benefits can be legitimized via contract (for example, a will can grant inheritance rights), do you think it's fair that gay couples have to incur the legal expenditures in order to do so - whereas heterosexual married couples do not?
Finally, courts are free to invalidate any contract that they feel are contrary to the public interest or are illegal. (For example, a court would never enforce a contract in which a person is employing the services of a hit man.) In a state that has a law that makes gay marriage or civil unions illegal, it is highly plausible that a court might refuse to honor any contract that "stinks of marriage" between a gay couple.
factsarefacts at December 17, 2009 8:14 AM
Brian's statements do not pass muster. He stated:
"Donald, there's no equality involved. And there's no hate. There's just a tantrum by a bunch of self-centered egotists who want something to which they are not legally entitled.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT TO MARRIAGE (emphasis added). There is no Constitutional argument to be made that one's gender preferences ought to entitle them to the fruit of another man's labor.
Civil marriage as it exists is a simple thing - a contract with the State. Which is why you need to get the State involved when you want out.
AND PART OF THAT CONTRACT IS THE PROMISE ON THE PART OF THE MARRIED COUPLE TO PRODUCE NEW TAXPAYERS (emphasis added). Not the promise to raise someone else's previously produced taxpayers."
Your statement that the constitution does guarantee a right to marry is questionable. Please read the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Loving v. Virginia (1967) (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1). In it the court stated "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Unfortunately, your argument that marriage includes a promise by the married couple to produce new taxpayers also fails. As several posters here have already stated, there is no law that requires married couples to produce children. If it's "part of the contract," why isn't it stated clearly. I've never seen a law that requires a heterosexual promise to have children in order to stay married. I've never seen a law that prevents infertile or elderly couples from marrying. I've never seen a law that invalidates that marriage of a couple that has only a severally disabled child (i.e., one who cannot grow up to be a taxpayer). IF IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT, THEN IT SHOULD BE STATED CLEARLY!
And FYI, there are some gay couples who have children who have not "previously been produced." Ever heard of surrogates or turkey-baster babies?
factsarefacts at December 17, 2009 9:05 AM
> Ever heard of surrogates or turkey-
> baster babies?
Yeah. Their mothers, having "previously produced" them, abandon them.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 17, 2009 1:29 PM
Sorry, Crid, but how on earth can one state that a lesbian who gets impregnated with a turkey baster has abandoned her child?
Are you opposed to all sorts of non-traditional methods of procreation as a general rule (including fertility doctors)? Or just for gay and lesbians?
factsarefacts at December 17, 2009 3:49 PM
> how on earth can one state that a
> lesbian who gets impregnated with
> a turkey baster has abandoned her child?
Like this: The woman has choosen –as the first example of manhood for her child, and the one who ought to make the child's protection and development his highest priority– a guy who wants to do nothing but squirt and run, perhaps for money; The child's best interests are thusly abandoned.
> Are you opposed to all sorts of non-
> traditional methods of procreation
> as a general rule (including
> fertility doctors)?
I think people, including many I deeply admire, have goofy ideas about this stuff. (Though, of course, many people with goofy ideas are just assholes.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 17, 2009 10:50 PM
Leave a comment