This illustrates the insidious power of religion: It makes the believers think they are fighting for freedom when they are restricting others' rights.

"Rights", Andrew?

> "We leave you alone if you're not
> hurting anybody."

It's the infantile, Disney-princess selfishness of our age that causes people to think of marriage primarily as an expression of affection towards a single other person, or as an opportunity for society to pat a our little orphan-bots on the head, commending them for their wide-open hearts, and promising to send them a few extra checks now and then.

It's better to think of marriage as a promise to the surrounding culture: This partner and I promise to mop each other's filth, keeping a lot of our debts and problems off the community agenda. If GM supporters had ever thought to express what others would be getting out of this, it would have been done in 2002... But that's not the part of the (undercooked) personality expressed here. "Being left alone" is the last of the concerns expressed here, absolutely the bottom.

Besides, Amy, I thought you were against the state being involved in this stuff... A matter of libertarian principle, if I recall. This is kind of like treating cancer, but not for that one set of lymph nodes.

Comparing gay marriage to the right to keep and bear arms?

The latter is part of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Where in the Constitution is the former?

America in transition, bitches!

See also; they'd not have gotten the joke.

Where in the Constitution is the former? -- Bob at December 25, 2011 6:09 AM

Actually it is in there by its absence or the Tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

but it is in conflict with the Sixteenth:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

By giving Congress the right to lay direct taxes on the citizenry they also have the power to define the rules for the taxes.

You can get around this by using the Head of Household rule, just as many heterosexual couples do in states without a common law marriage clause.

It should not be a Constitutional question. It shouldn't be a Federal issue at all. But reality sucks.

This is the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

If GM supporters had ever thought to express what others would be getting out of this, it would have been done in 2002.

Not true. In 2002 and 2004 anti-gay marriage amendments were a popular technique for bringing out religious conservatives to the polls. Fortunately, while the older members of that demographic are unpersuadable on that issue, but the younger generation lacks their reflexive homophobia. Nationally, a majority favors marriage equality; gay marriage advocates have succeeded in persuading people that they are right, but (absent a Supreme Court ruling), it will not become the law of the land until the older members of the god squad are no longer an impportant voting block.

"This partner and I promise to mop each other's filth, keeping a lot of our debts and problems off the community agenda..." Crid, I realize I'm treading on dangerous ground by arguing with you directly, but... Is there anything in the quoted statement that is unique to hetrosexual couples?

First and foremost, conservatives should stand up for freedom.

Based on their professed government-should-get-off-the-backs-of-people belief, yes, they should.

But, of course, they don't. They typically are for government jumping on the backs (and into the pants) of people when it comes to things they don't like (e.g. same-sex marriage, pot-smoking.)

*

By the way, Amy, I had a post on your Christmas thread that got drop-kicked into your spam bucket...thanks.

...religious conservatives to the polls. Fortunately, while the older members of that demographic are unpersuadable on that issue, but the younger generation lacks their reflexive homophobia.

Christopher, while I'd agree that younger religious conservatives probably don't have the degree of dislike for gays & lesbians that older ones do, I'm not sure the difference is that significant. Is it?

Offtopic Balko.

> anything in the quoted statement that is
> unique to hetrosexual couples?

Where that statement reflects one's understanding of the institution AND the arguments offered by GM enthusiasts, yes. This movement is a pout, with breath being held until blue is turned... And after a petulant gasp, something inane about "rights". Argument that it's about keeping government out of our lives is a product of oxygen deprivation.

The homophobia comes out of religion. Which, per Hitchens (and he was right), "poisons everything."

I don't agree with Hitchens that religion poisons everything. I tend to agree with what I once heard Deepak Chopra say: that religion has been a force for both good and bad but, on balance, more bad than good (and perhaps far more bad than good.)

The dislike of gays & lesbians indeed stems from religion but, of course, not all religious people have that dislike for gays and lesbians. Religious people who are liberal/progressive (and, I suppose, libertarian) tend to not take scripture literally like their conservative counterparts do.

Verily

Perhaps (re DC), but I think he was right on that.

Comparing gay marriage to the right to keep and bear arms?

The latter is part of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Where in the Constitution is the former?

Posted by: Bob

Ohh I dont know, that whole pesky equal protection under the law thing where its illegal to deny anyone governemnt services and such on the basis of skin color, sex, and sexual orientation

That constitutional enough for ya?

@Jim On phone, can't dig up deets, but my understanding is that young generations of evangelicals lack the anti-gay enthusiasms of their parents.

@Crid Mostly, opposition to gay marriage seems like a pout to me; people don't want those they see as wrong, bad, sinful, less having what they have. Perhaps your reasoning is more developed but by and large gay marriage opponents haven't thought things through. They just don't think of sodomites as deserving equal treatment.

Thanks Christopher. No problem. Regardless of exactly how less anti-gay younger religious conservatives are, it's good that they are less anti-gay. Better a trend in that direction than the other.

They just don't think of sodomites as deserving equal treatment.

Absolutely. That's the reason.

> Perhaps your reasoning is more developed but by
> and large gay marriage opponents haven't
> thought things through.

(Or, he said parenthetically, they're people whose arguments are nuanced and hard to articulate, and they're not in the habit of articulating them anyway. Could be that.)

(Or not!) I don't take responsibility for anyone else's thinking or arguments. Besides...

> Absolutely. That's the reason.

Why are you so horny to think you know how other people's reasoning works? Why would anyone want to discuss anything with you if you think yourself magically equipped to dismiss their thoughts as irrelevant?

This is precisely the kind of childish bullshit that makes the discussion so depressing. GM proponents don't want to sell it. They just want to cluck, in the style of the seventh grade, that they're so much more mature than those working-class kids from the other side of town.

"Why not" isn't an argument. Until someone can explain why marriage WASN'T for gays for the last, oh, thirty thousand years, it's difficult to take them seriously. Additionally, if they could explain what it's FOR, than that would be really ducky. But nope, this all comes from people who wanna look down on others and call them naive...

As has been mentioned, everyone in America seems to think of themselves as a terribly sophisticated specimen, erotically. They want others to respect them that way on the basis of zero evidence. Statistically, it seems kind of unlikely....

that religion has been a force for both good and bad but, on balance, more bad than good (and perhaps far more bad than good.)

Communism on line 1.

Until someone can explain why marriage WASN'T for gays for the last, oh, thirty thousand years,

"Because we've always done it that way" is always an excellent argument against equality and progress.

Communism on line 1

I'm not sure that Communism viewed religion as Chopra did/does. I think it may have been more like Hitchens did, where it "poisons everything."

Until someone can explain why marriage WASN'T for gays for the last, oh, thirty thousand years, it's difficult to take them seriously.

Are you this dumb about the history of gays? Remember that being gay was a crime for most of U.S. history. For most of recorded history being gay was an abomination. It wasn't until the last decade that gay sex was legal in most of the U.S. You may remember mainstream Republican politician Rick Santorum arguing that gay sex no longer being criminalized was a step toward bestiality becoming legal. So that kind of thinking is clearly not gone.

So, yeah, the reason why gay marriage never came up before now is mostly historical and religious. Being gay was criminal and sinful, so rights for guys were not even a consideration. As it should be, right?

Additionally, if they could explain what it's FOR, than that would be really ducky.

Fucking marriage, how does it work?

> "Because we've always done it that way" is
> always an excellent argument against equality
> and progress.

I believe you are sincere. I believe you are that certain of your capacity for innovation, for daring, for breaking all the rules and never looking back, babe....

I believe you are that certain of your capacity for innovation, for daring, for breaking all the rules and never looking back, babe....

I believe that, if we were back in 1917, you'd be arguing against letting women vote because it was "breaking the rules."

I believe that, if we were back in 1917, you'd be arguing against letting women vote because it was "breaking the rules."

There is some ineffable insight and elective power granted only to born with two balls and a penis. Those who think otherwise are petulant whiners, holding their breath. What do women vote supporters want anyway? It's not they will oppose the candidates their husbands support. And if they cannot get a husband, we should not care for the opinions of such low women.

I'm enjoying the back and forth between Jim and Crid immensely...so much so that I'm going to just say "rah rah" and continue to read them. Ok, maybe, I'll interject....Crid, he's right. If this were 1917, your argument against women voting would be that it hasn't been done. Slavery was a way of life at one point as was segregation. Ok, I'll let Jim take over again because Crid and I were really starting to get on a good footing.

Crid, he's right. If this were 1917, your argument against women voting would be that it hasn't been done.

Thanks, Kristen.

From LearnCalifornia.org...

ARGUMENT AGAINST SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8
Prepared by J. B. Sanford, Chairmen of Democratic Caucus

Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a women consequently the privilege should not be granted to her. . . . The courageous, chivalrous, and manly men and the womanly women, the real mothers and home builders of the country, are opposed to this innovation in American political life.

Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, . . . Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of all mankind.

In The New Yorker: Judge Vaughn Walker's Opinion

www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/perry-v-schwarzenegger

Judge Vaughn Walker, who on Wednesday brought the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to a close by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, made it clear from the start that he wanted evidence, and lots of it. If the proponents of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriages, said that they undermined traditional marriages, he wanted to know how. . . And in the end, Judge Walker wrote an opinion that drove home just how unimpressed he was with the factual case the anti-gay-marriage lawyers had mounted. Their "evidentiary presentation was dwarfed" by the one presented for the plaintiffs by the lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson, Walker wrote in his 138-page opinion; with their two dubious expert witnesses, they simply "failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest."

Walker held that the ban on same-sex marriage did not pass even the most minimal scrutiny under equal protection law, because it denied a fundamental right—the right to marry the person one chose—without a "legitimate (much less compelling) reason." Tradition alone would not suffice; marriage had changed in all sorts of ways, and there were plenty of traditions that had outworn their welcome. The notion that the state was helping to protect marriage between people of the opposite sex would not do, since, Judge Walker noted, the lawyers for Prop. 8 had "presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage."

> I believe that, if we were back in 1917....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight... You, on the basis of God-only-knows-what naive, wounded, infantile impulse, believe yourself equipped to peer deep into the souls and machinations of passersby, making incredibly detailed judgments about machinations which are (in fact) a complete mystery to you.

In short, I think you're lonelier than you are bright. But hey, little feller....

You're not alone.

> If this were 1917, your argument against women
> voting would be...

Is there any crystal in your ball beyond the gleam of your own brittle ego? Y'know, I think of how much of my understanding of the world in every hour of every day, and of the wealth of my own life, is predicated on a thoughtful appreciation of feminist principle, I think you must be an idiot. You are just not that sharp. You are not that compassionate. All you can do is imagine that someone who disagrees with you must be a a real meany. There is a word for women such as yourself. It hurts their feelings when they hear it... Take a second to admire my restraint, in these moments after Christmas, to avoid deploying it.

> Judge Vaughn Walker, who on Wednesday brought...

The liberal judge who (somewhat later) turned out to be gay, right?

He was the first known gay person to serve as a United States federal judge,[6] though he did not publicly confirm his sexual rientation until after retiring from the federal bench.[7]

'Kay.

PS---

Hey, Kristen! I'm pretty sure you're one of those people who voted, in 2008, to poke out the eyes of retarded children with sharp sticks!

Shame on you!

"Hey, Kristen! I'm pretty sure you're one of those people who voted, in 2008, to poke out the eyes of retarded children with sharp sticks!"

Oh, Crid, my feminazi co-horts tell me "retarded" is no longer politically correct. I'll find out at the next meeting the proper terminology.

I am all for equal rights. I am not for special rights.

I also think that this issue is far more complex than just allowing/recognizing gay marriage.

Some of our laws are based on the fact that man + woman marriage = kids. And the kids are presumed to be from that combo. Since woman + woman or man + man marriages have no way to produce children within that union without a third party, there must be accommodation for that.

It gets complicated since any laws would also have to apply to hetero marriages.

I contemplated this subject while I was raking leaves and the longer I considered it, the more complex it became.

I sure don't know the answer but the quick and obvious solution is not going to work.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who on Wednesday brought the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to a close by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, made it clear from the start that he wanted evidence, and lots of it.

That's where his liberal bias and unfitness for the case became clear. Evidence and data are things for the lefties.

The liberal judge who (somewhat later) turned out to be gay, right?

We certainly can't trust gays to be fair and impartial jurists, any more than we can trust them to make legal commitments to their partners. Letting Walker rule in this case would be like letting a black judge preside over a civil rights case. It's an outrage. Plus, Walker was appointed by the notorious lover of liberal judges Ronald Reagan, a notorious lover of commies and hater of all things good and true in America.

Some of our laws are based on the fact that man + woman marriage = kids.

The historical roots of marriage had do deal with property distribution and knowing which children were legitimate for inheritance. Current laws, however, do not require that a marriage produce children to be considered legitimate. So no, this is not a concern. Glad we could dispense with that as well.

I am all for equal rights. I am not for special rights.

Good. A gay man or woman can marry his or her partner, as can you. We're all done then.

Laura, when having kids biologically becomes a condition to get married, then you can equally deny gays as well as heterosexuals who are unable to have kids or choose not to. Ridiculous!

Amy, Your example is an exception to the norm. I realize there are exceptions.

Think about the laws and how they need to be applied.

Then think how it would be applied the same way in hetero marriages and see what I mean. It gets complicated.

It isn't just one or two laws to redefine. It is a great deal more complex than that.

It isn't just one or two laws to redefine. It is a great deal more complex than that.

Super complex. You are totally right. It is not as though changing laws about marriage has any precedent, or that one can look at states or countries where gays can marry to see how these things might be handled. We definitely should stay away from anything so complex.

I'm not saying it is not a worthy goal. Nor that it is unachievable. I am saying that our current body of laws would need a great deal of alteration in order to make it happen fairly.

A very messy proposition. And one that could be fraught with unintended consequences.

The same (prospective)law that allows a non-biological same sex parent to be parent within a marriage would also be applied to hetero marriages. And we've already hashed out on this blog how unfair it is for a man to be legally saddled with the responsibility or a child that is not his just because he is married.

Complex.

If you look past the surface, it just gets more and more murky.

If you look past the surface, it just gets more and more murky.

No, it really does not. There is nothing new here. A gay couple that has a child that is only biologically related to one parent is analogous to the hetero couple who needs a sperm or egg donor. The same precedent applies.

I think there is also a huge difference between a man being forced to pay support for a child he did not know was not his biologically and a couple whether gay or straight using a donor or adopting.

Are you truly unable to see the complexity?

In the most basic terminology, a person becomes a parent by biological participation or by legal adoption. The latter is usually only available after the biological parent either cedes their rights or have them removed in some manner. Our laws reflect and support these methods.

All I'm saying is that same sex married couples do not fit either of these two categories automatically according to our current laws. Which means changing the laws. And all laws would have to apply equally to hetero couples as well as same sex. And one cannot forget that there is still a biodad out there that will need to be contacted so that he knows there is a child and give up rights to it.

Not impossible, but it is complex.

I understand the difference.

I am not against same sex marriage. I am not against same-sex adoption.

It would take a complete moron to not understand that a MM or FF marriage cannot have babies without some third party of a different sex getting involved.

That third party must give up their rights as our laws currently stand in order for the same sex spouses to have the rights to the child through adoption. Which is different than having the rights to the children via the marriage itself.

Which means that the laws are different for MF marriages in relation to kids since there is no obvious, interested (or disinterested) third party.

It is not a value judgment from me saying that it is a different set of circumstances when it is, obviously, a different set of circumstances.

Laura, those legal concerns are worked out already - think of parents who have used a surrogate, or an egg or sperm donor. There is no difference in the legal principles involved. Your complexity is a non-issue.

Christopher,

Those issues are non-issues IF the parties agree legally. Wonderful. Perfect. No problem. Do the paperwork and everyone is happy.

That is a different matter than our laws that presuppose a baby born to a marriage is a product of the marriage WITHOUT additional legal machinations to make it so.

"Those issues are non-issues IF the parties agree legally. Wonderful. Perfect. No problem. Do the paperwork and everyone is happy."

Laura, you've confused me. In adoption, the parties legally agree. Why would it be different for a gay couple? What new laws would need to be created? I'm still confused by an earlier comment where you compare all of this to a man who is forced to pay support to a child he later finds out is not his biological child.

Okay... Let's try this again.

Currently a child born in to a married couple is presumed to be the child of both of those people by our laws. This is without any additional legal work. This is a (legal) benefit of marriage. No adoption necessary. Right?

There is no way a child born to a same-sex couple is the product of only those two persons. Mother Nature rather insists on there being a male and a female participant. Right?

There must be a third party involved in order for there to be a baby made in a same-sex marriage. Right? Every time. Right?

Which makes it different than our current legal presumption that a baby in the marriage is a product of those two persons. There MUST be a third party for same sex married spouses to create a baby. Every time.

Our laws allow for adoptions and surrogacy and sperm donors. Good. Great. It works. They do not allow such things without additional legal paperwork being performed. Additional legal steps that are not currently required for hetero marriages producing babies.

A woman cannot just walk away from her baby and give it to two married guys. Even if one of them is the father. It does not automatically make the second guy a legal parent. There are ways to accomplish the job, but it is not automatic. Same thing with two women married and one of them has a baby. There is a sperm donor out there somewhere that must sign off their rights before the second woman can adopt the baby.

It is possible but not automatic as part of their being married.

I am not certain how the laws could be changed to be even-handed to everyone, including the third party.

It is a complex issue.

> A gay man or woman can marry his or her partner,
> as can you.

No, a gay man or woman can marry a person who…

• is of the opposite sex

• is not already married

• isn't too directly related

• is of sound mind

• is of suitable age

• is otherwise appropriate (not imprisoned, medically unfit, etc.)

• explicitly consents to the union

…as can I.

Teenage Disney fantasists —such as yourself— enjoy daydreaming new standards for these things.

Aha! "PARTNERSHIP...."

Laura, what of the hetero marriages not producing babies? Hetero marriages where one partner is infertile? A woman cannot walk away from a baby and just hand it over to a hetero couple either. An adoption must take place. Its not very complex. Becoming a parent through sperm donors, egg donors, surrogates, or adoption all require legal documents, the same documents required for hetero and same sex unions. Its only complex if you make it complex. As it stands, having a biological child is not a requirement to marry. I suppose those who are fighting gay marriage can fight for that proposal.

crid, you forgot to mention that they also have to be of the same race, and of the same social class, and that women dont have free choice and have to marry the man her parents selected for her.

Oh wait, we changed the definition of marriage to do away with all of those requirments, and all within the last century

Can you give one logical reason as to why this change is any different?

• is of the opposite sex

Aha, gays can marry those of the opposite sex; always a recipe for misery and dishonesty. Let's just keep those pesky gays in the closet and all will be well. Yet I'm the Disney fantasist.

Aha! "PARTNERSHIP...."

Yes, that's a good word for successful marriages. Glad to clear that up.

> Yet I'm the Disney fantasist.

Yes, you sniggering little turd... You're a fantasist because you CAN'T RESIST the belief that you know everything that's going on in the hearts of others, and what that traffic is worth. Your enthusiasm for this is not about gays. It's about you. It's a ceaseless, tuneless, mundane hymm to your own presumptively exquisite compassion. It's shallow and I'm embarrassed for you.

Thing is...

I think, if you're a grown man, you should suck all the dick you want. Do it in pairs in exotic hotel rooms. Hell, do it in thousands at hockey games and country music concerts... I don't give a fuck. You're a grown woman, and you wanna munch carpet? Chow down, blissful sister! Do it for a lifetime! Move in together! Buy Subaru wagons to haul your mastiffs, write shitty poetry, and wear freaky clothes under your bad haircuts. Why would this be a problem for me?

Have ceremonies, OK? I'll send gifts to your "union".

Who's being asked to stay in the closet?

I think there are certain choices that disqualify us for certain opportunities. I think marriage is about men and women, because marriage isn't about patting every single person on the head and telling them they're perfect, just the way they are. (You kinda a peed a little at the end of that sentence, the Disney part, didn't you?) Properly-executed marriage, even when it's childless, is about the unions which make babies. Things that interfere with that execution, including shabby partner selection and divorce, are to be discouraged. Gay marriage is just the latest of these, yet another knot in the rope of adult selfishness that's choking responsible civilization.

I think you are so fucked in the head.

Ah, time for work.

Properly-executed marriage, even when it's childless, is about the unions which make babies.

I disagree. The baby-making part of the relationship is neither necessary nor sufficient. Marriage conveys other benefits to society than children. The writer above states it well:

If you believe in working hard and obeying the law, maintaining a stable and loving home, and raising self-sufficient and conscientious children, there's no reason not to be on the same team.

I think you are so fucked in the head.

Right back atcha.

You wanna raise "self-sufficient and conscientious children"? Giving them what's best: a loving mother with a loving father. It becomes apparent that you've never done the math.

"why marriage WASN'T for gays for the last, oh, thirty thousand years" Um first recorded history doesn't go back that far only about 6 thousand. Second there are examples throughout history where there are same sex marriages. Till 342 AD Rome had them Pagan Europe had them, China had them, Native Americans had them.

"is about the unions which make babies" No it is not. It's about a binding legal contract between 2 people. I think you are mistaking church ceremony and a marriage certificate. One is about spreading and affirming your faith. The other is a legal document.

"that's choking responsible civilization" Gay and lesbian are not producing hoards for welfare mooching scum. So no affect what so ever on our civilization there. Leaving your dieing wife to go fuck your mistress is most certainly an example of that.

Given that gays are raising children, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, it's preferable that they do so in a stable home with married parents.

> It's about a binding legal contract between 2
> people

And the surrounding community. People forget that for some reason.

> it's preferable that they do so in a stable home

You want what's preferable for kids, or what you want what's best. I want what's best.

And whats preferable is married hetro meth addict of gay doctors then?

that should have been "over" not of

You want what's preferable for kids, or what you want what's best. I want what's best.

And yet what you want ends up creating poorer outcomes, since it means kids growing up under much more uncertain home and legal conditions.

> And yet

Dance Sister, Dance. Pretend you're not thinking about this for the first time.

I'm not dancing. You want what's best for kids, if they're born to hetero parents. If their parents happen to be gay, then they don't merit married parents and all that goes with that.

> If their parents happen to be gay

Their parents never "happen" to be gay. That defies reason (which I'd bet you do a lot) just as it defies biology: Every person who's ever lived came from a man and a woman. You're eager to throw the kids overboard in pursuit of adult fulfillment. That's despicable.

Crid, I'm curious, and no I'm not thinking about this for the first time. What about all the hard to adopt kids? If a gay couple wants to adopt them, and there was a case in Florida, would you be opposed to that? Would you prefer they go from foster home to foster home as opposed to being adopted by a gay couple who would love to love a child?

I'll have to find the link for the kid I'm talking about though its not the only story, but I'll give you the short version. Gay couple visited and cared for a child who was basically a vegetable. The couple wanted to adopt the child but it was forbidden by the state of Florida because they were gay. A hetero couple could have adopted the kid, but no hetero couple seemed interested.

I'm a little tired this evening so could you speak slowly and clearly and not talk around a point in that confusing way you have? Please?

No matter how much it vexes you, Crid, gays are going to have children. Your preference is that those children be raised in homes without married parents. I think that is despicable.

> gays are going to have children.

They never, ever have.

> What about all the hard to adopt kids?

Turtledove, if you're confused, lay off the sauce and/or set aside your ego.

If you were to reach back through the deepest, densest mists of time, to ancient epoch within the shuddering bowels of Boosh's first term, you'd find that I (and I alone in the discussion) mentioned that consideration in the first appearance of this topic (for me) on this blog. Salient bullets: It'd be fuckin' great if GM proponents had offered that as a consideration... To recognize that straight civilization has problems, BIG problems, that they are perhaps uniquely equipped to solve. But we never hear that, do we? GM is all about TAKING things from others. They never talk about how their unions will mean anything good for the rest of us. The childishness and selfishness and smugness so thunderingly evidenced in Christopher's comments is precisely where their heads are at.

This isn't about gays, not for your easily-confused little self nor for the faux-blasé Christoper. It's all about pretending that in some silent, entirely effortless way, you're just more gol-danged compassionate than other people. But I see zero reason to believe so.

And as I look at the onrushing collapse of a culture that's decided to express virtue ONLY through government, I wonder if there are ten- or fifty-thousand other judgments you've squandered because you want to feel proud of yourselves.

They never, ever have.

Denial is not an effective form of argument. Gay couples have children, through adoption, sperm donors, surrogacy and other means. You prefer these children to grow up in homes where their parents are not married. I'm petulant, childish, and so on, while you only want what is best for children. Right.

> Denial is not an effective form of argument.

Right, so I don't understand why you can't respect this most fundamental biological truth... But that, presumably, you are so eager to imagine yourself as a heroically compassionate goofball. You're Rosa Parks without the righteousness, courage, logic, or practicality.

> Gay couples have children, through adoption,
> sperm donors, surrogacy and other means.

Yes yes... Heartlessness malfeasance contiguous with the heterosexuals –robotic women and reckless men– who bring children into the world knowing one "partner", almost always the man, will not be present in the family. You admire this horror and are eager to extend it.

Sure, less-than-optimal circumstances happen all the time. So for whom do you first feel concern, and what do you want for them? My first concern is for those who can't speak for their own interests, and I want what's best for them... Not what's best (or what's trendy) for adults whose egos are so strong that they can't respect fundamental truths.

By your logic, we might rip every second baby from its mother's arms in the first hour, allowing greater opportunities for tales of heartwarming adoption....

Ever hear of the Stolen Generation? This will make you spazz-cream your compassionate little Disney britches.

You had me at Turtledove....

"you're just more gol-danged compassionate than other people." Fuck that Crid I'm just as hateful or indifferent to people as you are. Has noting to do with compassion it has to do with limited government. So long as they insist on being involved they get no say what so ever as to the validity of any marriage.

"And the surrounding community. People forget that for some reason." Pretty damn sure that my marriage certificate doesn't have you name on it nor my neighbors and sure as shit not the mayor. It's me my wife and the priest or in some cases the JP. My duty if any to the community is to raise functional adults, mow my lawn and pay my taxes. How I choose to do these things is none of their damn business.

"GM is all about TAKING things from others." Huh? I'm listening in only out of morbid curiosity. What would GM take from any hetero, or even the community?

"They never, ever have." Crid gay or lesbian SEX has never produced children. Gays and lesbians are for the most part biologically intact and can very easily produce children. This only requires a member of the opposite sex to be withing spitting distance so to speak. It can also be done in a lab using some very high end tech gear but a turkey baster is all that is required.

A comment last night got spamtrapped.

All you guys are wrong about everything.

Ah, there it is at 1:54am. Genius is a sleepless burden, especially when you're reading Christmas books

My first concern is for those who can't speak for their own interests, and I want what's best for them.

My first concern is for those who can't speak for their own interests, and I want what's best for some of them.

FTFY.

How could you be so naive? How old are you?

I'm not naive at all. I accept the reality of the situation. I think you do not:

People have really strong urges to have a child; they will go to extraordinary lengths to do so. Gays, too. Being denied marriage is not going to mean that gays stop becoming parents, it's just means that they will be parents under circumstances where they are more likely to fail.

That's just daydreaming. There's no misconduct in the world for which you can't say 'people are going to do it anyway', especially when you remove all controls and stigma. You're happy to throw the well-being of children overboard in order to feel smug about adult fulfillment: Your repetitive loops of baseless condescension towards imaginary meanies have demonstrated that it's all about your ego, with no concern for virtue. You can't even ASK people to do well.

We'll go a few more laps around if you want to, but what would be the point? You're naive and tinkled pinko in your presumption... You've got nothing, nothing but the belief that you're more sophistimicated than other people, especially about the naughty bits. Good luck out there.

Whokay. You think being opposed to gay marriage will somehow prevent children from the horror of growing up in homes with gay parents. Yet I'm the naive one. This also makes me a pinko. We have achieved clarity on this issue.

Aaaaaaaand there it is again. You can't help but cartoonishly mischaracterize my position: I say "what's best for kids" and you pretend it's "the horror of growing up in homes with gay parents."

Your fantasy of superiority is all you got. It's your bedrock, your blanky, the one thing in the world that won't let you down even as logic, courage and events have forsaken you.

Amy's all time "Translator" list!

The people who can't read a comment without converting plain statement into the arguments they want to answer:

1. Tressider (ca. 2006 - 2010)

2. Lusjeufykp (ca. 2007 - present)

3. Christopher (new contender!)

Your fantasy of superiority is all you got.

It's no fantasy. My position is superior and I am more sophisticated in my understanding of this issue than you (though your arguments are at least based in something more than religious pronouncements).

You can't help but cartoonishly mischaracterize my position...

I'm caricaturing your position because logic puts the lie to your claims that you want what is best for children. In the real world, your preferences on the gay marriage issue are worse for children than those of gay marriage supporters.

You only want the best (married parents) for the children of hetero parents.

The children of gays, well, tough luck in the parent lottery. You do not want them to live in homes where their parents are married. You don't want the best for these kids; you do not even want second best for them. Nothing.

The only way that – if charitable – one might be able to claim your position is what is best for kids is that somehow, denying gays the right to marry is going to make them stop becoming parents. I think that this is an insane position to take, and mocked it.

My position is that it is unavoidable that gays will have and raise children in families with same-sex partners, and these families deserve the right to marry.

That gays would seek to marry and raise children was inevitable once they and their relationships were no longer characterized as pathological and criminal.

One should not be surprised that when being gay is considered, if not typical, then within the normal range of human behavior, that gays would start to want to do normal things – marry, settle down, get fat, buy a house in the 'burbs instead of a flat in the Castro. And yes, raise children. This is the world we live in.

I suppose one could work really hard to convince gay people that they are normal enough to do most things, but not raise children. I suspect that would be quite the quixotic endeavor.

Given that gay couples are going to be raising children, they should man up (or woman up, as the case may be), and do it as married couples, with all that entails. The status quo - with them raising children without the stability and legal obligations and protections of marriage - is clearly not what is best.

> You only want the best (married parents)
> for the children of hetero parents.

ALL CHILDREN ARE CHILDREN OF HETERO PARENTS.

Your repeated, lunatic episodes of disregard for this fundamental biological truth demonstrate the desperation of your need for heroic posturing... Pathos. Path-OOOOOOOSS.

Infants, both of you. You should be ashamed, but I'm plenty ashamed for you.

ALL CHILDREN ARE CHILDREN OF HETERO PARENTS

All children are born of a woman and a man; those who raise them are the parents.

Rant on, wild child! You're the Rosa Parks of your imagination! Logic means nothing to you. Your own arguments mean nothing to you. You put whatever words you want in the mouths of opponents, which makes it hard to care.

But please, never tell me you're concerned about the well-being of others. I'll know better.

Logic means nothing to you. Your own arguments mean nothing to you. You put whatever words you want in the mouths of opponents, which makes it hard to care.

I've not contradicted myself, and I have been logical.

I have not fundamentally mischaracterized your arguments, cept here and there for fun. You don't think gays should be able to marry. That has certain implications, which I explored in detail in my 6pm post.

But please, never tell me you're concerned about the well-being of others.

I articulated above why my position is the better one for others' well-being and why I think yours is worse. But hey, keep believing in your righteousness and compassion.

> cept here and there for fun.

No no no, those distortions are absolutely essential for your auto-erotic ego-boost, e.g. "They just don't think of sodomites as deserving equal treatment." That's who you want your opponents to be. (I love Amy's blog for its quick indexing the in the Google cache.) It's far, FAR too late in the thread for you to say Jus' Kiddin! ALL YOU GOT, your only interest in the issue, is for your social pretension.

That's who you want your opponents to be

That's who gay marriage opponents are in much of the U.S. They are religious conservatives who think being gay is sinful. Anti-gay marriage initiatives were used as a tool to bring them to the polls; these are widely known facts. I think these people are ignorant and misguided.

You claim a different motivation for your opposition, and I took on your arguments as well. They didnt stand up very well.

You know what crid, enough is enough - does it really warm the thing you call a heart to ridicule me for a structural abnormality in my brain which makes it difficult for me to notice spelling mistakes and word displacements? Are you really that petty?

As for your stance on 'the children' you dont give a fuck about them, this is about you and your ego and your pathological need to be the winner.

You are a bigot and an asshole who would rather see thousands of childrens futures fucked over by living in group homes and bouncing from foster home to foster home over being adopted by a couple of homosexuals?

What the fuck is you problem that you dispse homos so much that you are willing to fuck over kids?

Studies show the children of commited homos do just as well as the childrens of heteros

And before you your digital dance and proclaim "STUDIES" like the scum sucking piece of shit you've become, might I remind you that those same studies are what you used to get our host to change her mind on single motherhood?

Maybe thats it, seems to me going back over your posts its never about right or wrong, or correct or incorrect, its weather or not crid made the observation first, and if you didnt you'll argue agaisnt it for no other reason then someone somewhere learned something from some source other than you.

Stop pretending you care about the kids, its quite obvious you dont. Life is full of uncertianty and know one gets the best of anything let alone everything, second best and third best are better than nothing at all, and the fact that you advocate FORCING kids to have no paresnts at all over your personal idea of whats best proves the lie that you care anything about the thousands of kids in foster care.

Also go fuck yourself

You kids can't make the argument you want to make when considering my position thoughtfully, so you don't.

I've considered your position thoughtfully. You have no answer for the fact that your position is not what is best for all children, because it leaves the children of gays in a situation with unmarried parents. The only way you can claim to want what is best for all children is if you somehow have a plan to keep gays from having kids. Which you do not.

What christopher said crid

Also, go fuck yourself

> it leaves the children of gays in a
> situation with unmarried parents

THERE ARE NO CHILDREN OF GAYS. You cannot hear this: It interferes with your delusion of grandeur. Yet since humanity dropped from the trees to scour the savannah for a bag of Cool Ranch™ Doritos, roughly one hundred billion people have lived and died, with seven billion more still at it. Zero have come from a gay union. (It's a biology thang. There are some explanatory materials on the internet.) Hence –as regards your inane yet seemingly erotic attachment to the locution "children of gays"– the ratio of my rhetorical victories to your rhetorical victories = 107,000,000,000.00 / zero.

Zero as in zed. Zip. Zilch. Goose egg. None, Nada, Nadia Comaneci.

When gays have children, it's because they've wittingly or unwittingly involved a person of the opposite sex in the process. Either way, where they're prepared to answer the attendant responsibilities with loving enthusiasm, I'm cool with it. If you don't want to (Disney tears dripping softly to my 21-st century moustache) 'live a lie', then don't. You're a big boy, or a big girl.

Capiche? I VALUE THE EMOTIONAL FULFILLMENT OF CHILDREN MORE THAN THAT OF ADULTS.

And adulthood is the part where you realize that some things that might be fun or rewarding or flattering to you are not going to happen because there are standards you cannot meet or choose not to meet. The importance to a child of intimate nurturing love from both a man and a woman, specifically a mother and a father, is not something that should be bargained away.

You can pretend it's not important, but I'll think you're a fucking savage if you do. You'll prattle about metrics and science, as if any study would mean anything to you if the results went against you, as if science of this type weren't horribly famous for political influensce, and as if social sciences weren't worst of all.

You read that link to the Stolen Generation, right? That's you, kitten. As a rule, people will be as cruel and heartless and smug as they're allowed to be. Single motherhood has exploded in the United States, with attendant poverty, social incompetence, imprisonment and bitterness, because we normalized it... Often financing it through government. We've encouraged incompetent pairings, and then doubled down with idiotic chatter about how these brutalizing family breakups were actually good for kids.

And you're not done. You want to go to your liberaloid cocktail parties, take your dick in your hand, and say out loud that the love of a mother, or of a father, is unimportant to a child.

This is not the mentality of a man who's seen much of the world, or considered that matter beyond that first sip of white wine.

You are not a nice guy.

iTHERE ARE NO CHILDREN OF GAYS

Tell that to the kids who look at the two women or two men who are raising them, and explain that one ior both are not their parents. That should be fun!

Acting like gays are not parents means you do not occupy reality. You wish they were not parents, but no pony for you.

You'll prattle about metrics and science, as if any study would mean anything to you if the results went against you

I would never argue the scientific evidence with a conservative. I know you don't believe in science. It's all about your gut, it knows best.

This is not the mentality of a man who's seen much of the world, or considered that matter beyond that first sip of white wine.

Motherfucker you are a presumptuous prick, and know nothing of me. I think you are ignorant of life, and haven't lived much yourself.

I've been with the same woman for 12 years, and I treat her well. She's great, and I am a lucky man; but she did OK too. I know something of a successful marriage. I doubt, with all your self-sure proclamations of what is in my heart, or those of others, that you know much about what goes on in a successful relationship. For that, you've gotta check your bullshit, and you find yours delightful. You're a smug know-it-all; few people take kindly to that crap.

I also know that you know fuckall about being a parent or what a child really needs. I doubt you've once awakened in the middle of the night, exhausted, and made your kid smile while you cleaned her poopy diaper. Or delighted in putting her in her carrier and taken her on an evening stroll after a long day at work. Or fretted about what she did or didn't eat. Or weighed spending more time making money versus more time with your child. "Not being a parent is fun", I recall you writing, yet you think you've got the essential ingredients to parenthood knocked. You know squat.

Being a parent means you have to deal with good and bad. And sometimes not just bad but epic tragedy. I have been there, too. The awful and the delightful; the awesome and terrifying. Often in close proximity to each other. And lots of the mundane, which you'd better figure out how to make at least some of a pleasure. That is parenting,

And when things get bad - as they will - you want your counterpart to be solid when you are not, and you want to be the sort of person who can stand up when she is falling. It's a team effort.

I want children to have strong families. Raised by parents who love them, take good care of them every day, and work hard to teach them resilience and honesty and decency and hard work; and who provide the security and discipline to help their children make their way confidently in this world. My wife and I are doing our damnedest to that, as are most couples who take on the responsibility of being parents. If these parents are doing that I don't think any sane person should care about cock/vag ratios. There is too much awful shit that incompetent, stupid, bad, hateful or crazy parents do to their children.

It's not gender that makes a marriage or parents. With both, its doing what you need to do, day in and day out, even when it's not the most fun option. Because that is what you sign on to do. If you knew much about succeeding at either, you'd know that.

Sorry to get all anecdotal on you, but I tired of your snotty assumptions you know something about me.

You are not wrong that single motherhood (or the rarer single fatherhood) is bad for kids.

Your opposition to gay marriage is grounded in a fantasy about how you would like the world to be and is based on a deep ignorance of children.

You are not a nice guy.

A better man than you, I am certain.

You're "astute and wel-read"!

So first its gay are inapable of having kids, and then you argue a senario where many indeed do have kids.

i know you've been remarkably stupid since your return, but ussually one does not point out obvious exceptions to their own absolute

You also seem to be under the delusion (one of many) that parenthood is soley a product of biology.

And therin lies the faltal flaw to your twisted logic - so tell us oh wise and powerful Oz, if a bio mom and a bio dad in a state of matrimony is the only thing good enough for kids what would you do with all the kids of divorced parents? All the kids of single parents? All the kids in the foster system?

Tell us genius, what would you do?

Also, go fuck yourself

You're "astute and wel-read"!

Oh noes, I maded a typo. It'll haunt me forever.

What does it say when your opponents only two arguments are basically 'you spelled that wrong and spelling of your statement is more important than the content' & 'You just dont understand what I REALLY MEANT by what I wrote'

> Tell us genius, what would you do?

1. Practice my punctuation as well as my spelling.

2. More inapable senarios!

Seems "inapable" isnt a word crid

Gots to waches the spelling mis stakes when ridiculing others

Also, go fuck yourself

Well, I must confess on that post I did it purpose