Yes, let's tax people on the basis of their sexual response.

Makes perfect sense. We should move forward with that straightaways.

Super.

You're absolutely right Amy.

Aren't heterosexual couples subject to similar discrimination when their relationships aren't licensed by the government?

Here's an example of an even worse kind of discrimination suffered by many heterosexuals:

A man who lives in an unlicensed domestic relationship with two women has about the same legal status as someone in an unlicensed heterosexual or gay relationship.

If he marries his two partners so they can benefit from community property laws, adopt each others children, co-own real estate, inherit each others estates and pensions, etc., the man can be arrested and imprisoned. The two heterosexual women would have the same legal status as a lesbian couple.

If another man marries into the relationship all four can be imprisoned.

The problem, I think, is letting the government define relationships, judge their validity and dictate and enforce its rules.

"The problem, I think, is letting the government define relationships, judge their validity and dictate and enforce its rules."

And just what entity is central to the lament that official notice is not given to unusual relationships?

Government.

You CANNOT urge government to butt out of marriage without giving up official sanction of same. Don't be schizophrenic and express that wish.

You also CANNOT interact with ANY society and disregard its rules.

Meanwhile, yes, the tribe HAS a vested interest in its members - and YOU have duties to the tribe: the exercise of the responsibilities that pay for the rights you are guaranteed.

Gay couples DO benefit society, in that a stable relationship benefits both and formal identification simplifies probate issues. This is true of "ordinary" couples, which is why we let notaries public, justices of the peace, ministers, rabbis and ship captains marry people - after they get a license from the county.

As I said before, the government should get out of the marriage benefit, and allow two people to enter into a civil union with any consenting adult of their choice. Let this other person have all the benefits of marriage. Not suggesting we should allow incest, but if someone wants a sibling to be their beneficiary and make end of life decisions, go for it.

How about we get the government out of the marriage, healthcare and social contract business altogether?

"You also CANNOT interact with ANY society and disregard its rules."

ANY?! Not even ONE? What is your definition of "interact"? Are they societies rules or the government's rules? Who decides?

The mechanics of this will be fun to discuss.

Specifically, for every morning you wake up with moist shorts, your property tax bill gets cut another 4.7% from a Jan One baseline, right? So, just twenty lonely dawns per annum and you're essentially off the hook.

Fucking magnificent. It'll be fun to see what Amy has in mind for income taxes.

This is how some people respond to a time of unprecedented fiscal malfeasance: Amy wants to excuse people from responsibility on the basis of their sheer cuteness to her. She is dreaming of the people she could move off the books, were she standing atop an authoritarian paradise... To express her love for them!

It's a freebie, Dahlinks...  Go now and be playful!

______________________


If sexual access isn't legally recognized as a component of marriage, infidelity cannot be grounds for divorce.

Got that? So once I marry my little sister, the bitch stays married, capiche? She's on the hook for my real estate deals whether she likes it or not...

...Because "The problem, I think, is letting the government define relationships, judge their validity and dictate and enforce its rules"...

...And in today's rockin' powerhouse culture of super-empowered and liberty-lovin' individuals, we just got no patience for the Man and his constraints. We've evolved beyond all that stuff.

This is gonna be great. Looking forward to the committee meetings where you make it happen.... I'll bring my Ipad to take pictures.

Superb.

Furthermore, some of us thought the space shuttle program was a bucket of shit from the word go. The spiritual magnificence of the American astronaut had proven vapid in the preceding decades, and we saw no reason to think things had improved during Blondie's ascent up the pop charts. They are (were) careerist fuckballs who don't improve the flavor of a box of Wheaties any more than do the Olympic champions... No matter how they choose to wiggle their privates for their sweethearts.

Roger, Houston.

Romance, y'know?

People have feelings...

By the way, please list the five important achievements of the space shuttle program that made it worth $209 billion back when that was a lot of money:

1. ______________________.

2. ______________________.

3. ______________________.

4. ______________________.

5. ______________________.

Alright, listen up, you snooties!

It's important that everyone get all the government benefits to which they're entitled, simply by being alive!

Got that, you BIGOTS!?!??!!?!!

I'm ambivalent about the term "hero" but for me it clearly applies to anyone willing to literally risk their lives to advance the cause of science. And whether her surviving partner needs Sally Ride's spousal benefits is irrelevant next to the fact that she shouldn't have to ask for them.

You can try to make this about polygamy, incest, keeping the government out of our bedrooms, or what have you. But that's just an attempt to obfuscate the issues, probably because the idea of anything other than tab A fitting into slot B makes you feel funny in ways you're uncomfortable examining.

Too bad. In practical, real world terms, there are hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples in this country who are being discriminated against because you either (a) can't tolerate people different from you, (b) secretly fear your own hidden desires, or (c) are afraid your primitive ThunderMonkey god will smite our civilization if we allow such shenanigans.

Farking grow up and join the 21st century.

Societies need a system in which adults can go to a court and say "Until you hear differently, we are a unit. If there is a child borne or adopted by either of us, that child is the responsibility of both of us until it is determined otherwise; tax accordingly. Income earned by one of us is used by both of us; tax accordingly. Property purchased by one of us belongs to both of us; tax accordingly." We can call it marriage (I wish we wouldn't; that word is sacred to me) or civil union or The Humpty Hump for all I care, but it's vital. I don't see any reason why such a vital thing shouldn't be open to any competent adult.

"Yes, let's tax people on the basis of their sexual response."

Let's not. Sexual response isn't even at issue---the people who want to tie their lives together will probably want to have sex, but maybe they won't. Who cares? Oh, right...you care, because some of those people might have sex that you find icky. Therefore, those people shouldn't be taxed the same way as people whose sexual responses, and choices in life partner, you agree with. Got it.

> it clearly applies to anyone willing to literally risk
> their lives to advance the cause of science.

Who knows why she took the risk? Maybe she wanted to be famous. Maybe she was attracted to risk. Maybe she was in it in for the money. Science was quite likely the least of it. In any case → Why do I care? Why exactly should I be expected to regard her as heroic?

You guys have sold your souls to one of the earliest, most transparent propaganda schemes from the Cold War.

Astronauts! Heroism! Sputnik! Courage/Risk... They're rocketing into the sky... And they might not come back!!!!

I think it's much more probable that you're a scolding schoolmarm with zero insight for the power of eroticism, or even affection, in the lives of others. There's no reason to credit you with cluck-worthy authority by sophistication or compassion. None.

> (b) secretly fear your own hidden desires

We're out of seventh grade school now. You know that, right?

"Dakota secretly has a crush on Hillary!"

Y'know, eventually, conventionally egocentric thinking becomes tiresome. For the people around you, I mean.

> I am not for marriage-privileging, but as long as we're
> marriage-privileging,

DEEPLY confused. You're in or you're out. (So to speak.)

More later.

So we are going to set aside thousands of years of evolution and pretend that it the government invented marriage? Ya, let's reinforce that myth.

So, because they CREATED this marriage arrangement, then they shall now have the sole authority to define (and redefine) at will -- and bestow special privileges on whomever they deem politically advantageous at the time? Yes, let's leave the fundamental structure of societal survival in the hands of intellectual midgets and political whores who can't even balance a fucking budget....greeeaaat.

I mean, doesn't that silly little document from 1776 talk about how we American's get our "rights" from natural laws and not from the government?

The government should only provide "protection" (which should be defined as leaving it be) to societal institutions that are fundamental to the security of society itself, not bestow political privileges or require permission from them to engage. Marriage for the purpose of RAISING A FAMILY is one of those institutions that does require recognition and RESPECT from government but NOT their political privileges or involvement. This is basic stuff here.

How many gays couples intend on getting married for the purposes of child rearing?

"those allowed to heterosexuals -- they should pay only partial taxes."

So how is this line of thinking any different than reparations for the descendants of black slaves? Why should stable heterosexual marriages be punished by increasing their tax burden because Sally and Sue can't get married and collect a marginal benefit. What about those people that are ok with gay marriage do they get an exclusion too? I mean they support homos getting married but aren't gay themselves. Why are you discriminating on them? They never chose to be straight.

What about those 18 year old service men that risk their lives for us. They can't drink legally why should they pay taxes? I mean they can die for us but no drinking? Partial taxes for them!

"None of our business unless we make that a requirement for straight people."

So you want Nanny Government to act as an intermediary to personal relationships, personal relationships that nature created for caretaking of offspring? You want the government to enforce a State created, politically privileged system whereby grown adults will need to seek permission from Nanny State if they can form a union?

Makes no sense to me.

"...allow people equal rights, including the right to marry the one person of their choice."

The one person of their choice? Is that the limit that you would have the government enforce?

"None of our business unless we make that a requirement for straight people."

No. It's none of our business. Period.

I am not for marriage-privileging, but as long as we're marriage-privileging ...

Why does marriage, and its privileging, even exist in the first place?

And since you want to extend that franchise to everyone, regardless of persuasion, then you really do need to wonder upon what justification you limit that arrangement to just one other person.

The problem is that the various governments adopted the term "marriage" to equate to "civil union" even prior to 1776.

As I understand it Pope Pius VI sent a letter from Rome in 1778 asking which office to consult about creating dioceses in the U.S. The response is go ahead and do it, we don't care. We aren't splitting up that way.

The common law back then was also based on the Christian Bible teachings. Since then, being a nominally Christian country a lot of our laws have gone that way.

There is a time to separate common law from Christian law. We are reaching that point.

The Christian compact is generally one man, one woman. But until the last century most couldn't afford anything else. But essentially for two centuries the U.S. had the church and the civil component matched up. Loving was a 14th amendment issue not anything else.

There were many churches that didn't recognize a civil marriage, and many couples never sanctified their marriage with the church.

Now we get to modern day -- the conservative right does not want to recognize non-traditional marriages, even those that have been around for centuries. Those on the left are trying to force using the word marriage even though that term was technically applicable from day one.

The whole federal government is fucked because they used the "Marriage" instead of "civil union" in writing tax code.

And the federal government should never have given anyone tax breaks on their civil status and connectivity to someone else.

Why does marriage, and its privileging, even exist in the first place?

Because benefits are given. You're one person, you can give your benefits to one person, not to a herd.

That is an epic inversion of cause and effect, which seems to be the cause of your confusion.

So, try again. Explain why marriage as an institution exists, then justify why it should be extended. You can't get there without drowning in non sequitur. That some people happen to be strict constructionists on this issue doesn't make them bigots. Failing (so far as I have seen) to comprehend and address their arguments makes your charges shrill and, well, bigoted.

... allow people equal rights, including the right to marry the one person of their choice.

Don't you see how that holes your entire argument below the waterline?

Maybe this will help.

Google:

"New York Times" "For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage"

Because, after all, marriage is just about privileging.

(You really have to find a way to allow links without suffering the spam bucket ...)

Marriage came about as a (reasonably) orderly means of resolving disputes, distributing property, and determining lawful issue for the purposes of inheritance; it was defined by various clerical and state authorities over time.

In current society, the essential legal appurtenances of marriage have no specific gender requirements; nor does the law require issue for a marriage to be considered valid, which was not only the case. There is no legal or moral case to disallow gays to marry their partners. And of course, those who oppose gay marriage are either theocrats or troglodytes.

> I am not for marriage-privileging, but as long
> as we're marriage-privileging,

Let's step back a coupla centuries...

I'm not for enslaving Negroes, but as long as we're enslaving Negroes, I don't think we should whip the lazy ones on Saturday night... Their cries of terror ruin the mood outside the dance hall when the couples sneak out to do their courtin'....

So Amy's dislike of marriage benefits in demonstrably insincere. But that's not where it ends. On several occasions recently (links upon request) we've had comments like this, above:

> allow people equal rights

Rights aren't allowed, or assigned, or given like gifts from compassionate other people to the downtrodden.

And all of these wretched comments make it seem like you think it's your time to be the Mommy-person to all the little people in the country... Which is not how adult citizenship works, most especially in matter of rights.

Sorry for typos, dentistry in the morning, no energy to keep going................

Well----

Here's the wretched comment.


> So, try again. Explain why marriage as an
> institution exists, then justify why it should
> be extended. You can't get there without
> drowning in non sequitur.

Exactly. One of the best conservative principles I ever saw on the internet —and I'll never forgive myself for not saving it to disk— was that you should never strike a law or custom until you clearly understand why it was put in place to begin with.

And most arguments for gay marriage, such as the twaddle from Ken R and Winna above, is teenage snark about the immaturity of others. They don't WANT to think about why society might have been constructed this way unless they can flatter themselves as courageous innovators.

Didja ever meet a courageous innovator? I shook hands with one once! 1978... I'll never forget it. He looked me straight in the eye and talked to me and everything.

He pointedly did NOT feign superiority to those who came before him.

___________


Brush your teeth, people. Floss. Have thick-jawed ancestors, and not just gorgeous ones, as I do. (PS- Whatever their dentition, I'm certain that each generation will have consisted of a man and a woman.)

Irrelevant, twaddle. Your comment exactly. Historical arguments carry no weight here, since it's only in the last couple decades that society has gained even a modicum of sanity about allowing gays a seat at the table. It's a little over 10 years ago that laws prohibiting sodomy were stricken from the books, over the strenuous objections of prominent conservative justices and Republican presidential candidates. Perhaps society's evolving a bit faster about equality for gays than blacks, but it's getting there. And your opposition to such is what is immature. I'm not an innovator in this case, I've just been persuaded that the cause of righteousness is not served by making gays second-class citizens; I am, however, ahead of people like you on this.

> I am, however, ahead of people like you on this.

I sincerely believe that nothing of your interest in this topic means more to you than saying so. I mean, y'know, that's your closing line. You're not concerned with children, or gays or anyone... You're looking for a reason to make distance from people.

Most of us would have given it to you anyway.

Marriage came about as a (reasonably) orderly means of resolving disputes, distributing property, and determining lawful issue for the purposes of inheritance; it was defined by various clerical and state authorities over time.

You buried the lede in all that verbiage.

Marriage exists as a societally sanctioned -- and until relatively recently mandated; see the NYT article -- arrangement solely to protect the two most vulnerable elements of society, without whom society cannot exist: mothers and children.

Furthermore, marriage -- the kind that yokes men to women and children -- civilizes men.

Asserting that marriage is nothing more than privileging is a conclusion without an argument. It ignores society's vital interest in stable families, instead viewing it as nothing more than a spoils system.

The burden of proof is upon those who advocate gay marriage: why should an institution that, by definition, has nothing to do with them be extended to them?

When there is no longer any benefit to be married, why bother?

Heck, if even one of the world's repositories of unexamined ideas, the NYT, can start to twig the consequences, then they must be bloody obvious.

Oh, I'm still perched on the edge of my seat, threatened with a sleepless night, to learn how limiting marriage to any two people is the apotheosis of moral enlightenment, but more than two is beyond the pale.

I remember that NYT piece... Good as far as it goes, but unwilling to concede that children might just need fathers, or be improved by fathers even if they didn't think they needed them.

Cowardice, that's the word I'm looking for... The popular take on single motherhood (etc.) is cowardly.

(Here's the link. I put it up here m'self a few weeks ago. Whatever its omissions, there's some good stuff in there.)

Pssst-

Women who really love children give them loving fathers.

Pass it on.

Sooo... gays don't deserve the same in life because you've got daddy issues?

Lesbians are ok, so long as both of em are hot.

AND they have to have kids, so long as the birthin' one loses the baby weight in 6 months or less, so they're both still hot.

Lesbians are ok, so long as both of em are hot.

AND they have to have kids, so long as the birthin' one loses the baby weight in 6 months or less, so they're both still hot.

Don't know why that posted twice. Sorry for tongue in double-cheekage.

You know, sometimes I get the feeling that what crid wants is to just have all the children not being raised by a maarried couple comprised of biological parents taken out and killed

> Sooo... gays don't deserve the same in life
> because you've got daddy issues?

Correct. I much more concerned that children have a loving mother with a loving father than that grown men and women all have "the same in life."

"I sincerely believe that nothing of your interest in this topic means more to you than saying so."

What matters to me that I support the right side of this issue, and that the good people I know, and those like them who are in committed relationships, are able to marry their partners whether that person be the opposite sex or the same sex. That it helps to identify people who are probably wrong on a whole host of other things is a bonus.

"When there is no longer any benefit to be married, why bother?"

This is dumb. There are lots of benefits to being married; for the married and for society. I guess if gays can get married, then that's one less thing for homophobes to be happy they deny them. Perhaps that's the benefit lost here. Otherwise, this makes no sense at all.

"Women who really love children give them loving fathers."

This is a red herring when it comes to the discussion of gay marriage. But nice try.

> They're people, they fall in love, they have
> children.

That's INSANE. That's LUNATIC.

No two gays ever fell in love and made a baby. You're a grown woman. You should have the courage to say that out loud, and to comprehend in the implications.

Aren't you the one who pretends to have a "rigorous" understanding of the scientific method?

"Correct. I much more concerned that children have a loving mother with a loving father than that grown men and women all have "the same in life." "

And that's why divorce doesn't exist.

Keeping gays from marrying doesn't make straight people stay married, or prevent gays from having biological children.

Or prevent couples who hate each other from staying married "for the sake of the children" and mindfucking em worse than the court order on who gets the family dog.

A man gets thirsty one afternoon... And then a bus full of schoolchildren are dead!

(Because he got drunk in a bar and drove home with willful disregard for their well-being.)

"There is no reason, other than bigotry and religion, neither of which have a place in who we do and do not grant rights to"

That is just not true, Amy and a failure in recognizing the complexities of this cultural shift and the impact of how the structure of societies (throughout history) has managed to move forward from generation to generation. It's complex.

If government recognized "Family" in lieu of "Marriage"...I would have a lot less problem with this....but no one wants to have THAT discussion, because that is not what is behind the big push for the government blessing of same sex marriage.

My problem, besides the Nanny State - is now that the government has come along and inserted themselves in permitting marital unions (as if they had the authority), it becomes about the just allocation of resources.

The bulwark of society (nuclear family) is now having resources STOLEN by FORCE because the majority (sans two gays wanting to create a family) of gays are seeking validation and political power by using the government as their weapon of choice.

I think that is horrendously fucked.

I see your BIGOT and raise you a FASCIST!

That last line was not meant to sound as directly personal as it came off. I'd like to change it to your exact phrase.

Bigotry.

I see your bigotry and raise you fascism.

Okay. I feel better now. :-)

Fascism = extending rights to people. You might want to check your definitions.

This is for you Winnie!

Fascism
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Facism = use of force. Centralized autocratic government. Suppression of opposition.

Had you read my posts, that would have been obvious?

You still in HS?

PS. So you believe people get their "rights" from the government, eh?

May want to check YOUR understanding of the US Constitution there, sister.

I had no idea Sally Ride was gay. I learned this by coming across a story about Harvey Fierstein beating her corpse as it were for not "coming out" during her life on a facebook posting. Talk about crass.

I'll care about the "equality" of civil rights argument for marriage when the gay lobby as a whole denounces hate crime laws.

> It's pretty sick, actually.

So, I'm a drunk driver. And, like, I just knocked this school bus full of Cub Scouts and Brownie Scouts into a 70' ravine at 52 miles per hour. A lot of the kids are pretty fucked up, and of course, some of them aren't moving. But that one kid, he's got a lot of flow happening from his ears and mouth. Now, I'm pretty sure I can apply my belt as a tourniquet around his neck to staunch the bleeding. But these two crazy Mexicans from this plumbing van that just stopped here, they won't let me GET to that kid!

Isn't that SICK?!??!?!?!?

(Comma,) "Actually"?

"I had no idea Sally Ride was gay. "

It was pretty common knowledge around NASA. I don't recall it being discussed much because it wasn't particularly relevant, but a lot of people associated with the Shuttle program knew.

"PS. So you believe people get their "rights" from the government, eh?"

Governments choose to recognize rights, or not. In this case, the rights of gays have been, and still are in most places, not recognized.

Your equating gay rights with Fascism is laughable. I hate to do this, but going to have to call Godwin on this one. You lose the internets.

German Kulturkampf. Circa 1870's.

Ho hum.

"Governments choose to recognize rights, or not."

Which government are you speaking of because the US Constitution (here in America) specifically recognizes that Natural Rights/Natural Law are inaliable and no further action be required from the government other than to protect/recognize them - and those rights would be LIFE (which, ensuring the procreation and propogation of the species by virtue of NATURE, is unarguably one of), Liberty and Property.

So, Winnie, name me one fucking person that has DIED (life?), been unable to purchase or secure property (property) or denied legitimate access to resources for the SOLE reason of not being able to be married to another person of their same sex? Name me one. Name me one that it has impacted SO egregiously that it has robbed them of those NATURAL RIGHTS. Basic, fundamental rights....

Hmmm, pumpkin? I am 36 years old and never married....How the FUCK did I manage going all these years without being married?

Now if I had kids, that would be different (but my point is precisley that people with families should be given recognition). But two grown adults?

Political reallocation of resources and power by use of force.

"Your equating gay rights with Fascism is laughable."

Only to those feeble minds who lack perspective , contex and forsight of the unintended consequences of FUCKING WITH NATURE.

"Wow - that's pretty awful. I'm for civil rights for all people and I'm also against hate crime laws. I don't make one contingent on others' opinions or lobbying efforts."

Yeah, awful indeed. Its called quid pro quo Amy. At this point in my life, I have no faith that most of those promoting gay marriage will stop there. Most of the PC agenda folks promote ideals and laws that are anti equality and anti liberty (unless its in the bedroom). When they give me a reason to trust them, I'll give a darn on the political side.

Dave:
"It was pretty common knowledge around NASA. I don't recall it being discussed much because it wasn't particularly relevant, but a lot of people associated with the Shuttle program knew."

Makes sense. I don't care that she was gay and its generally none of my business. Its her personal life, she can promote it or not, her choice. People will bash her for promoting it and as is the case here, bash her for not coming out of the closet, sad to say. Reminds me of people who call me a prude for not being very open about my sex life at times who then get upset if I make a joke about their sex life that they've openly bragged or talked about.

Bah, I'm just tired of this whole debate. Marriage means jack squat anymore, whether its straight or gay marriage. No fault divorce has killed it along with various support laws.

As Guinn points out, marriage has plenty of meaning.

"big deal in a world of non-religious people like me. "

Amy I used to think that too but not anymore. Non-religious countries, like Japan, are super homophobic. Here is a country where there are "love hotels" where you can pay for an hour or two EVERYWHERE. Where you can find hookers pretty easily and yet these love hotels BAN gay people.

Russians aren't really religious are they? And look at the gay pride ban (FOREVER) in Moscow.

I think it's natural for alot of people to hate gay people. I think it's natural to dislike/distrust/hate people of other races when you are not exposed to them.

Oh and I know a couple of atheists that hate LGBT people.

I think there is a big diff between "hating" gAy people and protection of children within the structure of society. I voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage before the whole prop 8 debacle, and quite frankly, I was pretty disgusted by both the religious right, and the activist left. I witheld my vote for prop 8 because I didn't agree with either side. Not the amendment, nor the activist judges, mayors or whomever.

I think we should work to undo the various aspects of federal and state tax laws and get the government out of choosing benefits of personal relationships. They have no business being involved in anything but recognizing FAMILIES, gay or straight. Period.

It's complete bullshit that grown adults take advantage of these systems who DO NOT PLAN ON TAKING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RAISING CHILDREN. I think it's selfish, self centered and destructive and I am bloody pissed that the government got involved in the first place in the manner in which it has.

With privilege comes responsibility and I certainly don't see any measurable contributions from gays ( a little goodwill would go a long way here) towards an equitable solution from activist gays.

If that makes me some bigot... So be it. But I am not willing to sacrifice what little resources are left to people raising families by foisting really destructive policies that reflect no compromise for a necessary institution just because shit ain't fair!!!!

"Marriage means jack squat anymore, whether its straight or gay marriage. No fault divorce has killed it along with various support laws."

Yeah. When gay friends ask me about gay marriage, I want to tell them "Be careful what you wish for!".

And Purplepen (is that you?), I too thought Amy's statement was a non sequitur when I read it. From the polls I've read, people who self-identify as atheists support gay marriage at a far higher rate than those who self-identify as religious I'll give them credit from that. However, I also note that support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is far higher among atheists -- and most of their arguments in support of it consist entirely of appeals to authority! I've just spent about 45 minutes searching for various articles written by atheists about global warming, and all the ones I saw consisted of "all the expert agree, and the deniers are sloped-forehead hicks! Neener, neener!" Atheism, in and of itself, is not proof against irrational belief.

...as slavery.

All so that milquetoast, tepid personalities like Franko—

> probably because the idea of anything
> other than tab A fitting into slot B
> makes you feel funny

–can pretend to be erotically dynamic and psychologically adept.

Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em with a stick.

Exactly right--

> I think there is a big diff between "hating"
> gAy people and protection of children within
> the structure of society.

That's Feebers, aka the Feebmeister, aka the Prehistoric Flying Feebasaures, and she understands perfectly.

And such is this hour of history that insisting our children receive the love of both their mother and their father is mocked as "sick."

THAT's how concerned Amy is with adult fulfillment. It's every bit as savage and oblivious...

OK, I posted those two comment in backwards order.

And I feel bad about that.

But I feel worse about confusing Ken R and Franko in the earlier comments.

Ken R is thoughtful and steps gently through this issue (even if I disagree). Franko does not.


Sincere apologies to Ken R.

Feebie I was not attacking anyone personally here. I dont believe people opposed to gay marriage "hate" them. I think Amy's idea of not taxing gay people the full amount because they dont have "full" rights is ludicrous. What about if you are bisexual but happen to marry a person of the opposite sex later divorce and then marry someone of the same sex. How do we figure out what to tax you?

I'm saying being non-religious does not automatically grant you an acceptance of gays. I know several people who hate gays and do not believe in God. I've been to several Asian countries where religion does not exist (I'm looking at you Japan!) and being gay is not something that is accepted. It's not a religious thing-it's an internal human thing. Being non relgious does not automatically grant you a gay favor card. Hell even gay people hate being gay/other gay people. It's an internal hatred. Just sayin' non-religious people being all high and mighty of their acceptance doesnt jive.

(BTW I'm an atheist)

> (BTW I'm an atheist)

Me too

" Have thick-jawed ancestors, and not just gorgeous ones, as I do."

Huh. Skips a generation, doesn't it?

BTW, the Shuttle was sold to serve the International Space Station (source: Roger Tetrault, Columbia Accident Investigation Board, in a presentation at SRS).

It put the Hubble telescope in orbit. So your chart isn't empty.

Here's the list of missions.

Yes, there are cheaper and safer designs. Talk to Congress.

Cridster! How the heck are ya! :-)

And purplepen - my comment was a followup in agreement. The logical fallacy presented earlier (false dilemma) concluding that if you don't support gay marriage you are either a religious nut or a bigot is just that - logically screwy. I fit neither. A lot of people don't support gay marriage (as is being presented) and yet we are boxed into these labels to drowned out any rational alternatives to a solution.

I am especially perplexed because this is the SAME logical error that libertarians point out between voting republican or democrat!!! Right?!?

"you are either with us or against us". Right!?

"Only to those feeble minds who lack perspective , contex and forsight of the unintended consequences of FUCKING WITH NATURE."

Fascists thought the natural order was that blonde, blue-eyed, people of northern European descent were naturally superior.

PS - our courts have declared marriage a right.

Suck it, internets loser

Fascist are not limited to race.

Cite your fucking source (which court case)?

I think I see what she's getting at.

"that if you don't support gay marriage you are either a religious nut or a bigot is just that - "

Ah OK =) misunderstood.

I have serious doubts about gay marriage. I'm for it sorta kinda-reluctantly.

And like Jeff Guin said

"And since you want to extend that franchise to everyone, regardless of persuasion, then you really do need to wonder upon what justification you limit that arrangement to just one other person"

Exactly, why DO we limit it to one person. As a single person who has no partner can I now enter a partnership with anyone I please without sex involved.

(Because a marriage can be dissolved in most states if the "wedding night" never occurs i.e. sex)

Why is there a superiority to people who have romantic partners? What about those of us that dont have any? And what about those that have more than one?

ETC....

"Cite your fucking source (which court case)?"

Loving v. virginia, duh.: “Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Musta been fascism when the court changed the to allow blacks to marry whites. Some whites disagreed!

Gays HAVE children. That bell's not going to get unrung, whatever your concerns are, and they're based on prejudice rather than research. Judith Stacey's research shows that kids of gay parents do as well or better than kids of straight parents.

Judith Stacey's research, like nearly everything coming under the heading of Social "Science" was an exercise in wish fulfillment.

Ironically, this "research", which you never fail to cite amounts to an extraordinary claim: ceteris paribus, gay parents are better than straight parents. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which this one doesn't begin to have. Therefore, your belief in it is religious: an assertion that flies in the face of both common sense and widespread evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, there is a question you need to ask yourself: what if research (as opposed to flagrant cherry picking) were to show the opposite of what Ms. Stacey claimed? Then what?

(BTW, it's too late to look for the link, but further research not only proved the opposite, but also highlighted the glaring shortcomings in Ms. Stacey's "research".)

Yes, gays have children. Just as single women have children by choice.

That doesn't stop them being egoists whose sole concern is their self fulfillment.

And while we are on the subject of children, let's talk adoption. If gays are equally entitled to marry, are they equally entitled to adopt? Because that is where you are headed, kids be damned.

Oh, I'm still practically hyperventilating in anticipation of finding out why marriage between any two people is hunky-dory, but more than two is out of the question.

Marriage is (sorry, was) a specific institution with precise defining characteristics. Remove those, and you have no ground left to stand upon, other than "on account of because."

Charles Murray recently published an excellent book (the odd example of social science that isn't wish fulfillment) entitled "Coming Apart."

There is a lot in it, including the pivotal importance of marriage as an institution of nuclear families.

Loving is a case involving a MAN and a WOMAN that were denied the right to marry due to race laws. Marriage provides protection of offspring. They, like most married people, were going to have a family. So again. I ask. What court case are you referring to? This case has a direct argument as marriage of a right with the contextual basis of rearing a fuckin family!

"fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

TO THE CHILDREN!

I've never been married. It was never fundamental to my very existence and survival.... So RIGHT THERE, we KNOW with use of that "fundamental" right, this is referring to the protection the institution of marriage provides two people for raising a FAMILY.

Thanks for proving my point.

Fascism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-431502/The-Fascist-Left-turned-Nanny-State-Bully-State.html

> That bell's not going to get unrung, whatever
> your concerns are, and they're based on
> prejudice rather than research.

You're pretending to be a scientist again. Your entire approach to this matter is about pretending to be more sophisticated than other people, and you will happily throw the souls of children overboard in order to maintain your posture. You'd rather die than miss a chance to be condescending.

These aren't "bells" being "rung," these are children being deprived, and you should be ashamed.

Maybe you had fights with your Dad, or with your Mom, or some of their promises for your life didn't work out. Maybe one of them dropped the ball. Or perhaps you feel that despite these advantages, adult success and fulfillment just weren't in the cards for you on a personal level, so your ready to express some bitterness. ("Prejudice.")

This doesn't authorize you to savage civilization's fundamentals on the basis of some "study" from Dr. Suzy McFuckball at Creosote University in Enid, Oklahoma.

The actions of one do not define the majority - but I find it peculiar, the lack of media coverage (and outright suppression) of the story of Larry Brinkin, the icon and founding father of the same-sex marriage movement who was arrested for child porn (details, if you can even find them - let alone stomach them are HORRIFIC and include racist statements screamed at a black child while being raped).

He was also a Nanny-Stater.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/06/sf-gay-activist-arrested-for-child-porn.html

If this had been a Christian in the center of the Prop 8 debate, you think the coverage would have been different?

Me too.

And for the record, gays don't "have" children in the colloquial sense. If two gays are raising a kid, it's because the opposite-sex parent dropped the ball or was pushed out of the picture.

(Unpleasant truth, right? Distasteful!)

(That's one of the ways to know a truth is authentic... It doesn't flatter anybody.)

See also: Women who really love children give them loving fathers.

(Now, giving a child a loving father can be a tremendous pain in the ass. Amirite? A lot of work! Difficult! Nuanced! Years of effort. Risky! So it's fun to pretend that it's not true.)

(But it's true.)

Amy, the "prejudice" is yours, and it's on behalf of human weakness. Weakness needs no spokesman... It makes friends wherever it goes.

"See also: Women who really love children give them loving fathers."

If you actually cared about this issue, you'd be harping on the outrageous rates of divorce and teen pregnancy, and investing money in organizations that educate women about contraception. Since gay marriage has nothing to do with it.

"Loving is a case involving a MAN and a WOMAN that were denied the right to marry due to race laws."

I'm aware of that. I find its logic persuasive with respect to gays, too. Different races marrying at the time was considered by many people to be unnatural, just as you consider gays.

And your points about fascism continue to be spectacularly dumb; and linking to that phenomenally incoherent editorial doesn't help.

Fascists, you might recall were not keen on minority rights, which is what we're talking about. They were about the majority enforcing its will, which seems closer to what you support.

> If you actually cared about this issue, you'd be
> harping on the outrageous rates of divorce
> and teen pregnancy

I do that quite a bit. Been on here for nearly ten years, pestering single mothers and others... Ask around. But you're new here, and again, the only reason you're participating is to convey a posture of social distance, so you wouldn't care. (And again, if you'd prefer just to give us genuine social distance, we'd be totally cool with that.)

Seekers, we will ALWAYS have good reasons to dislike each other. There's no point in dreaming up bogus ones.

I feel bad about dropping the ball and pushing out of the picture both in the same sentence. I'm going to make it up to you guys.

"I do that quite a bit."

Great, why raise it here as your one note response in a thread to which it is irrelevant?

"Different races marrying at the time was considered by many people to be unnatural, just as you consider gays."

I don't care what you find "persuasive" I care about the fucking facts, capice?

I didn't say that. Where did I say that? I don't care what it is - I am talking about the evolutionary FACT that human existence as we know it would not be here had it not been for PAIR BONDING and marriage of two adults (male/female) that predated government and churches. Racial laws prohibiting marriage is a construct of a fascist government. And it is wrong. Take that away and you have no change to the institution that provides a stable construct for the reproduction, protection, and raising of offspring. Take the so called "discrimination" away from gays - and there is NO natural ability to procreate between the two to start families and very little of the majority wishes to utilize that institution to do so - through adoption or whatever. I am not the one passing judgement here - I'll leave that to you and Amy. "Bigots!!!" So don't project your crap on to me with my thinking gays are "unnatural" because it's not what I said - in fact, I don't give a shit.

The fascist inclinations of the activist left is well noted, by the use of force for an increasingly more and more powerful centralized government (the ones that get to define and redefine things like marriage), as well as the bullying "Bigot!" stiffling of speech of the rest of us in order to shut out opposition are require everyone to conform to YOUR belief system. It's in the political principles of "it's for your own good" and political correctness.

Look no further than the collective actions of the activist left when Prop 8 passed. The beatings, the vandalism, the hate....

If you don't see it - there is no point explaining this any further. And I happen to believe that is a statement about you, not me.

> Great, why raise it here as your one note
> response in a thread to which it is irrelevant?

Because it's precisely on point. There's a special kind of drive-by idiot out there (perhaps you have one in your own home) who wants to pretend that what's making things so difficult for children nowadays is that parents aren't allowed to be as irresponsible as they can possibly be. This "one note" is an inclusive, unmistakably theme for all these idiocies.

To wit: Why did you so publicly and assuredly presume that I didn't care about single motherhood? Because you don't care about children, or the facts on the ground, or thoughtful rhetoric. You're here to blow snot.

Well, you've come to the right place in human history (and the right blog) for doing that.

The very fact, Winnie, that you are accusing me of saying things I never said and making up stories about me - that are completely contrary to not only my charachter but WHAT I SAID and what can be actually proven to be posted above in BLACK AND WHITE is a huge statement about how fucked up your internal world must be.

It's kinda creepy.

Lovelysoul?

> you are accusing me of saying things I never said

Yes. See also Posted by: Jenny Pokes a Puppet at July 24, 2012 12:34 PM & Posted by: franko at July 24, 2012 12:03 PM. No matter how sex-positive, GAY-sex positive, feminist, or liberal someone is nowadays, it won't be enough for some commenters. There's this compulsion to accuse others of being sexually unsophisticated.

I seriously believe this comes from watching television.

It's just fucking creepy.

Gays can't have kids, and yet gays marrying means more kids without dads. It makes no sense.

Feebie, your posts are part of lengthy but silly tradition on the tubes of calling anything you don't like by the government fascism. Libs did it when bush was in office, now cons do it with Obama. The word is meaningless at this point.

Only - I've used facts, instead of glittering generalities, unsubstantiated accusations and name-calling, like you.

I could draw you a picture, but that certainly isn't going to change any "silly tradition" of calling me a bigot, or putting words into my mouth that are not based in facts.

And fascists have won this one. It's unthinkable to the average goofball that there might be a difference between being anti-gay-marriage isn't the same as being "anti-gay."

Freakazoid— People think marriage is a pat on the head, a lil' kiss 'o sweet interpersonal approval from Daddy Gubmint.

They think it's about TAKING things from society. And they want more of it despite the impending collapse of public finance.

Different races marrying at the time was considered by many people to be unnatural, just as you consider gays.

When I'm that wrong about something, I apologize.

Take the so called "discrimination" away from gays - and there is NO natural ability to procreate between the two to start families and very little of the majority wishes to utilize that institution to do so - through adoption or whatever.

Son of Heather and Sarah: "Mommies, who is my daddy?"

Heather and Sarah in unison: "What the heck do you need one of those for? Research proves it!"

Gays can't have kids, and yet gays marrying means more kids without dads. It makes no sense.

Huh? Do you mean to say you have never heard of artificial insemination?

Of course, that leaves men out in the cold, relatively speaking, since they require surrogate pregnancy, rather than merely a vial and a baster. (Monty Python, as usual, nails it.)

Of course, since everyone is equally entitled to be married, they are equally entitled to a family, which must mean married gay men are equally entitled to adopt children, and must mean there will be more children intentionally raised without any hope whatsoever of a normal family structure.

Now what could possibly go wrong with that?

This doesn't authorize you to savage civilization's fundamentals on the basis of some "study" from Dr. Suzy McFuckball at Creosote University in Enid, Oklahoma.

That slime against Enid is totally uncalled for. I lived there for year and …

Oh. Wait. Never mind.

---

I take the lack of response on the question of why marriage should be restricted to pairs of people as dispositive of my assertion that the free rights argument to gay marriage is baseless.

What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.

"What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father."

Granted. Now:

1) What's next best?
2) Is gay marriage robbing children of this?
3) Is reducing promiscuity a bad thing?
4) Is simplifying inheritance and survivor's benefits and the rule of succession a bad thing?

Loving is a case involving a MAN and a WOMAN that were denied the right to marry due to race laws. Marriage provides protection of offspring. - Feebie

Laws based on religious values that niggers marrying white people was unnatural and immoral and had nothing to do with whether or not they had a baby

Just as laws against homos getting married are based on religious values that hmosexuality is immoral and unnatural. And have nothing to do with whether or not they raise children.

There are plent of ways to get children.

Homos and heteros can adopt.
Homos and heteros can use surrogates.
Homos and heteros can have sex. Sure the homos may not enjoy it as much but they arent physically incapable.

And given anywhere between 1 in 10 to 1 in 25 men are raising a baby their wife had by some other man I fail to see how that is any different between a couple of gay guys who used a surrgate or adopted.

I do not happen to think a same-sex marriage arrangement is optimal for raising children (optimal would be one of each sex... Ying/yang) but Certainly better than a single parent home. But that is not what is being presented to us here is it? How many same sex partners want to have access to this institution for purposes of raising a family, luj? A small percentage of the already small percentage.

And as far as Loving, you don't think same sex marriage laws were based on prevention of having "mixed blood" offspring? Really?

That should have read interracial marriage just above.

Its irrelevent. Based soley on the amount of money you would have to pay lawyers to draft and file the proper documents to recive most, not all, of the legal benifts of marriage it is discriminatory to deny it to gays.

Gay people can still have biological children, it might be slightly more complicated that the average straight couple, but no more so than the odd straight couple who have problems.

I have yet to run across a single rational reason to deny expanding it.

99.9999999999% of the arguments I've ever heard boil down to nothing more than a)its immoral, b)I dont like their attitude, c)they cant have kids without assistance.

And the other .0000000001% is crid saying its wrong to intentionaly raise kids without two parents of the same sex. Which is meaningless as he has proffered no plan to prevent heters from raisng kids in single parent households, or given an explination on how two stable homos is wrse than a group home or an orphanage.

Marriage is abut more than kids, it is also about inheritance, property, the right to visit a loved one dying in the hospital even if their parents hate the fact that their son sucked your cock.

Personally, I think the government shuld pass a law stating that no marrige is recognised by the state, and matters of dissolution of civil unions will be held in accordance with the terms of heretofoe MANDATORY pre nuptual agreements

I actually agree that children probably do better in with two parents of opposite sex. The research includes very high end gay parents. And by definition gay parents are self-selected, they can't really have a child "by accident" the way straight parents can. This is the exact reason why they are better than may straight parents. They planned the children.

However, I do not think that is enough right to prevent gay parents from adopting their partners' bio children or orphan children.

Two same-sex parents are better than single parents or no parents. More children need adopting than get adopted...I'd rather them with gay parents than no parents.

Gay parents need a way to say the non-bio parent gets custody in the case of death. And in the case of a split that the social parent gets as much time with the child as the bio parent. Because that child usually doesn't know the difference between the bio parent and the social parent.

These things are already occurring. The law should keep up to protect the children in these cases.

Here's a dumb idea: GET RID OF THE ESTATE TAX ALTOGETHER! Government should have no right to confiscate someone's property from his or her heirs, gay or otherwise.