Cheese balls.

Frogwash.

Hooray for David Blankenhorn for seeing the light!

I don't see why they need to change laws and make new rules for approximately 2% of the population based on a behavioral choice. And that's such a flimsy explanation "I'm for gay marriage now because I've got gay friends."

But Beeg! Emotions, OK? Interior states.

Feelings.

The feelings of adults are MUCH more important than whether or not children have loving mothers.

(That was facetiousness on my part, OK?)

(I'm learning that we can't be too clear about these things here. There are a lot of people who can't deal with irony.)

I don't see why they need to change laws and make new rules for approximately 2% of the population based on a behavioral choice. -- BunnyGirl at May 25, 2013 7:23 AM

If it is a choice, please go to a lesbian bar and pick up lady for a night of hot sex.

================================

The problem is that the civil and religious portions of marriage have never been differentiated. The religious portion is how the various churches perform the ceremony.

Then the civil portion handles inheritance, taxes, power of attorney, other financial affairs. If the civil portion doesn't exist why can a judge or notary sign off on the marriage certificate?

So denying a gay couple the same civil rights a straight couple has is wrong. If the gay couple(s) is trying to force a church to marry them that would be a violation of the church's first amendment rights.

Well, gee, David Blankenhorn now suddenly has changed his mind because he has gay friends who are married and want to be.

Blankenhorn can go fuck himself.

Crid:

But Beeg! Emotions, OK? Interior states.

Feelings.

(Crid's disingenuous claim of being "facetious" or intending "irony" has been noted...as has the fact that he's full of shit.)

Who's "emotions" and "feelings" are you discussing, numbnuts?

Those of gay people who want to be married? Or yours, since your stance on the issue is based solely on the politics of revulsion?

It's alot less then 2%. It's closer to .1%

> Who's "emotions" and "feelings" are you discussing

Those of greatest concern to me belong to politically defenseless children; Children deserve a loving mother with a loving father.

We understand that these vulnerable souls are not on your radar, nor on Amy's.

Don't worry about it Patrick, my feeling is Crid is in the closet and sceered shitless someone will find out.

It's OK Crid, repeat after me!

"We're here, we're queer, deal with it!!!"

And yet, Crid, you fail, as always to cite a single scientific study that proves beyond all doubt (or reasonable doubt, or even massive doubt) that children of opposite sex parents fare better than children raised by same sex parents.

As I said, your stance is based entirely upon "feelings" and "emotions." Specifically yours, since you can't produce evidence.

"Children deserve a loving mother with a loving father."

Children often don't get them even if their parents are straight.

And by the way, dumbass, those vulnerable children who need loving homes are very much on my radar, and I've been posting here long enough to know they're on Amy's, too.

We're just waiting for the evidence! You know, the hard proof of what you're saying. So, cough up. Show us the proof that children of same sex couples are less happy, less successful, or just plain don't turn out as well, as children born to same sex parents.

Of course, I got a nice guffaw out of your indignant harrumph-fest that the "children aren't being judged."

But Cridsy-bear, what other yardstick is there to judge the effectiveness of parents? You know? Parents? Those people who are defined solely by the fact that they have children?

Seems reasonable that if you're going to measure the effectiveness of parents, the only standard they could possibly be used to determine their effectiveness is the happiness, success and ability to form positive relationships of the children. Right?

Or did you have some other standard of measuring parental effectiveness?

(I personally think Crid just needs to get laid.)

(And NO!!! I am not volunteering!)

Patrick, I tend more to Crid's side in this one debate but that was funny. Cleaning lemonade off my screen right now.

Didn't the American Academy of Pediatrics provide the evidence through careful study? If there is any organization that is unbiased and has the welfare of our children in mind I would trust them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/health/american-academy-of-pediatrics-backs-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

I think Amy just baits Crid and Patrick.

BunnyGirl how about you try and find out what it takes to get the same EXACT rights for gays as it does for married couples. You can't because most don't exist, like :
- insurance for spouses from work, married only
- retirement tied to work, married only
- social security carried to the spouse married only
- adoption has to happen twice, once for each person and paid for twice not once like a married couple.
- hospital visitation can and is denied even with power of attorney unless they are married (they can only make decisions)

There is more to marriage than the church, dress and sex after the party. I am all for the government getting out of marriage and converting every marriage to a civil union straight or gay and making the rules that applied to marriage apply to unions but which do you think is a harder goal?

Well, gee, David Blankenhorn now suddenly has changed his mind because he has gay friends who are married and want to be. ... Blankenhorn can go fuck himself.

Blankenhorn didn't change his mind because he has gay friends. He changed his mind because he made gay friends.

His frame of reference expanded. He was forced by now having gay friends to think about his position and how it affected his new friends.

That means he hadn't really thought out his position to begin with. He didn't consider the argument from all sides. He was an incompetent policy analyst and ignorant advocate for his position.

And now he's using his personal feelings as a justification for policy advocacy - not reasoned arguments and rational evidence.

He's still an incompetent policy analyst and ignorant advocate for his position. Even if it's the opposite of the position he took earlier.

You're right Patrick. Blankenhorn can go fuck himself.

Whether you're for or against gay marriage, let's hear reasoned arguments, not "some of my best friends are gay" or "ewww, men kissing each other."

"And NO!!! I am not volunteering!"

HA!!!

I actually did LOL on that one...

Conan, thank you. He's on the side of the angels, for the wrong reasons.

He might have made gay friends, but his decision to suddenly decide in favor of gay marriage is patronizing. It stinks of that same smug attitude that liberals had toward black people when Obama was first elected. Some seemed to imagine themselves hovering like angels over the rest of us poor mortals, assuring blacks that "you've come a long way." (Direct quote from a liberal message board I used to frequent back when AOL had message boards.)

I felt then that they needed a self-respecting black person who would look at them, regarding the plight of blacks with such pitying gazes, to simply say to them, "Fuck you."

This is how I feel about Blankenhorn. I do not his patronizing attitude, generously proffering the support that he withheld for so long because he feels sorry for me. I need people to understand rationally why this is the right thing to do. And the kicker is, he still thinks gay marriage is harming traditional heterosexual marriage, but he's just torn out of sympathy for me, that he's going to give it anyway.

Well, fuck you, Blankenhorn.

And yes, Eric, I've understood for a long time that Amy enjoys watching Crid and I go at it with this topic. Why not? We've both been posting at her blog since the inception and our mutual antagonism established itself very quickly over this very issue.

"And yes, Eric, I've understood for a long time that Amy enjoys watching Crid and I go at it with this topic."

Well if you think about it, Crid does make the site more interesting....I prolly wouldn't come here as often if I didn't get to pick on him....

BunnyGirl: I don't see why they need to change laws and make new rules for approximately 2% of the population based on a behavioral choice.

Since you said "behavioral" choice, are you referring to the choice to be physically intimate with someone you're innately attracted to? Or are you saying you don't believe there's any such thing as innate attraction, that people choose who they're attracted to?

Crid has become tolerable since Amy created daily links threads, so Crid can be as tedious as he wants with his rapid tweets.

Crid and I did once surprise everyone, when we came down vigorously on the same side of an argument. And the discussion, believe it or not, had to do with homosexuality.

When Merv Griffin had died, Amy posted an article about a friend of hers, who took it upon himself to "out" him.

I don't know what sort of reaction Amy expected I would have, but I was disgusted by the arrogance. During his lifetime, Merv Griffin had deflected all questions about his sex life, as is anyone's right. No one, gay or straight, should have to answer any questions about their sexuality. But this smug ass decided that since Merv should have come out in his lifetime, but didn't, he was going to out him in death.

But of course, when Crid and I called him on it, he loftily pontificated, "If we're saying that outing Merv is wrong, we're saying that homosexuality is wrong."

No, we're saying outing people against their will is wrong. No matter how many people think that Merv should have come out of the closet, that decision is made by a committee of one, and he's not on it.

But, Amy, wouldn't you rather he argue for homosexuality based upon the merits, perhaps by arguing constitutional issues, or scientific findings that establish gay marriage can be just as stable and good for the kids as heterosexual marriage? Rather that just wanting to do right by his newfound friends?

...I think seeing gay people as a political entity and not as people who deserve the same rights straight people get is a problem....

Not see them as a political entity, give a reasoned argument why marriage should be changed to accommodate a new paradigm when the old paradigm has worked very well for Western Civilization for thousands of years.

But this smug ass decided that since Merv should have come out in his lifetime, but didn't, he was going to out him in death.

Harvey Milk used to do the same thing ... only he didn't wait until the people were dead to out them against their wishes.

Now there are people who want to name a US Navy ship and the San Francisco airport after him.

On a side note, most Navy warships get nicknames. The USS Enterprise is the "Big E." The USS Franklin was the "Big Ben" even though it was named after the Battle of Franklin, not Benjamin. The USS Theodore Roosevelt is the "Big Stick." And so on. I wonder what nickname the USS Harvey Milk will get.

I do not his patronizing attitude, generously proffering the support that he withheld for so long because he feels sorry for me.

It's kinda like how Robert Byrd and Lyndon Johnson became civil rights champions only after their side lost the argument.

So, in other words, an emotion spurred on his change of opinion. Does he also have empathy for Christian business owners impacted by pro-gay-marriage statutes?

Is it possible we finally got him to shut his trap?

...why marriage should be changed to accommodate a new paradigm when the old paradigm has worked very well for Western Civilization for thousands of years.

It has worked very well for straight people in Western Civilization.

Does he also have empathy for Christian business owners impacted by pro-gay-marriage statutes? -- mpetrie98 at May 26, 2013 2:38 AM

Now you have a right to put a sign up in front of your shop that "We reserve the right to refuse service."

So if you are a photographer, baker, caterer, etc. you don't have to serve Adam and Steve or Eve and Ada. But if the reputation gets around you will have people the are anti-gay choose you fro your stance. The one's that are pro-gay will find the anti-gay offensive. Those who don't care, probably won't see a change.

There is nothing in the law that should force you to serve anyone. And your business' choices are yours. But no one has to respect either side.

There is nothing in the law that should force you to serve anyone.

Well that, of course, is the libertarian view. People who support anti-discrimination laws beg to differ.

Anti-discrimination laws ban discrimination on the basis of who people are, or some characteristic -- their race, their gender, their religion, their sexual orientation -- not on how they behave. Anti-discrimination laws don't, for example, require a restaurant owner to serve someone who is screaming and taking his clothes off in the restaurant.