One point worth making: the separation of church and state is a federal requirement. The individual states are sovereign entities, and may choose to follow this principle or not, each as it sees fit.

If the voters in Oregon want to make Wicca the official State religion, that is their right. Of course, the federal nanny would do its best to prohibit it...

" The term man and woman has been applied to marriage mostly with ties to procreation, but marriage is about much more than producing offspring. Married couples are bestowed with automatic inheritance rights. They enjoy the right to sue for loss of consortium if a third party injures their spouse; denying them services and companionship. Marriage rights afford spouses the right to not be denied hospital visitation or the right to make medical decisions for each other. Employers often offer medical coverage and benefits to spouses of employees. All of these rights are withheld from same sex couples because the government refuses to view their relationship as legally legitimate."

Oh where to start. First, gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry an opposite gender partner who is unrelated, sane, and in some states passes a blood health test. Marriage IS about procreation, always has been. The state has a vested interest in making sure there are stable couples to raise the next generation so they become productive taxpayers instead of felons (one parent kids). As far as the rights granted with marriage, every one of them can be obtained for oneself with some paperwork, marriage not required.

And surely we're not saying the government needs to be forcing companies to provide benefits to any employee, much less gays? Some companies provide no health benefits at all, some provide them to employees, some to spouses and children, and some to gay partners too. It is up to the company to decide what sort of benefits to offer to attract the workers they want. Period.

Marriage is not an inalienable rights. What a crock of horseshit.

We might as well do away with state governments and just let the feds run us all, if we're saying states can not choose what is best for it's own constituents via votes. And that couldn't be further from what the founders intended.

M3,,, Look at her go!

Marriage is not an inalienable rights.

It is when the government gives it legal benifits.

How about a compromise?

No one gets a legally binding marrige, everyone gets civil unions, and if you want a religous ceremony sanctioned by your particular magic elf go for it.

This is about bigorty plain and simple. The argument agints gay marrige has changed to often for it to be anything else.

First it was marrige was a religiuos sacrement.
But then you had churchs whos magic elf told them love is all you need(do you suppose the Beatles were the second comming?) and had the termerity to let gays be married by a church.

So the argument shifted to 'marrige is our word, you use a different one".
But civil unions have been shown time and again to fall short of the legal protections of marrige.

The the argumant shifted we cant force people(companies, government, service providers) to extend benifits to people can we?

This argument in paticular highlight bigotry, and desperation(dumbest argument ever)

Countered quickly by the obvious argument - equal protection under the law.

And now we arrive at the latest and hopfully last argument - semantics.

Of course gays can marry, just not each other.
Grow up people

> If the state performs courthouse
> marriages, there should be no
> reason any couple of two
> consenting adults cannot be wed.

Including me and my little sister?

For years you've been putting the cart before the horse this way. You *start* the argument why saying "There's no reason why...", and then someone presents about twenty reasons.

But all this text is irrelevant, because it's an article of faith with you: "You just want to do this for gays." What's rational or fair or coherent with your other beliefs about marriage has no bearing.

Loojy- That's all silly. That evolution of arguments is all in your head. Even if that's the sequence by which you came upon the arguments, it's got nothing to do with what this means to other people.

> This is about bigorty
> plain and simple.

It's apparently not all that plain, these are some of the most complicated relationships in civilization, and it's only about bigotry because people who've never had to risk anything are eager for a taste of heroic self-righteousness. 'They' haven't earned it. Being snotty isn't the same thing as being courageous.

Likewise, knowing Sean Penn feels so strongly about this speaks to the clarity of the matter.

(PS - 'They' ought to grow up.)

How about we do away with the entire concept of civil marriage?

The government oughtn't be in the business of choosing what behaviors it supports. It leads to bad fiscal decision making.

If we can't have that, then at the very least, the gays can get married when they figure out how to procreate without outside interference. You come up with a way for Adam and Bruce to make a baby without involving Jane, I'll grant your position.

Until then, no dice. Otherwise, what's in it for the government?

Just noticed loojy's last line-- That's adorable! The argument grinds at him and pisses him off and causes him to throw insults but he can't refute it.

GM supporters can never admit that what they're asking for is revolutionary, that few notable thinkers in human history have ever argued for it. If this is going to happen for them, it's absolutely essential for them to pretend it's a minor point, and not the sweeping redefinition of marriage that it really is.

That's cowardice.

Work, more later.

bradley13, the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states.

I'd still like to see "marriage" treated as just another contract, but short of that, Mr. Miller makes a strong case for allowing gay marriage. Government is not a tool for promoting morality.

I sympathize with those who fear devaluing marriage, but marriage has bigger problems that those people should be far more concerned about: some people marry flippantly, it's way too easy to divorce, and some people use marriage to prolong abusive situations. Gay marriage benefits society by promoting monogamy and multi-parent families.

If we can't have that, then at the very least, the gays can get married when they figure out how to procreate without outside interference. You come up with a way for Adam and Bruce to make a baby without involving Jane, I'll grant your position.

Shall we then also outlaw marriage between elderly couples, or couples for whom a health issue of one or the other partner prevents procreation?

I'd like to suggest that the equal protection clause ought to prevent the federal government from treating single people differently from married people.

Noting the generative capacity of heterosexual unions is not "shouting that marriage is for procreation." This potential alone is sufficient to elevate the importance of heterosexual unions, whether or not it's fulfilled.

Crid you want an argument against your moronic 'gay people can get married just not to each other argumet'?

MArrige was originally a transaction wherein a man bought a woman to fuck, life time sexual salvery

Polygmany, pedophillia, all of these have been canctioned at one time or another under the banner of marrige.

Sex sex unions occured in greece, rome, asia, in dozens of culters spanning history.

But you would have us belive that its illegal here and now because it wasnt set down in the constitution? Were is the clause on stright marrige in the constitution?

Gay marrige was outlawed in europe by the catholic church in the 4th century. There reasons were profit and hatred.

You also claim that we dont know what the fall out would be. How about you give us some worst case senarios rather than some nebulous fear?

I have never heard one rational reasonable argument agaisnt gay marrige. And something tells me I never will

Notice also the shift between the "its a religous rite" and "its about the government incentivising stable households"

My response

Some churches marry homosexuals, and take a good look at divorce and DV laws and tell me again how the government is pormoting stable houssholds

> Blacks and whites marrying was
> revolutionary, too.

No, it was a return to humanities earlier path after an ugly interlude. (And that whole discussion is about America and American trends, anyway.)

Name the great thinkers who've supported gay marriage (before say, 1970):

1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________

Can't be done, and you wouldn't do it anyway. None of you would care about this at all if it didn't nourish your personal feelings of grandeur and flatter you as daring and compassionate.

(PS- Fertility tech and automobiles are hardly unblemished innovations.)

> MArrige was originally a transaction
> wherein a man bought a woman to
> fuck, life time sexual salvery

Says who, goofball?

Or did you want to get the insults under control?

I love that slip, perhaps Freudian: "Sex sex unions...."

“Oh where to start…Marriage IS about procreation, always has been. The state has a vested interest in making sure there are stable couples to raise the next generation so they become productive taxpayers instead of felons (one parent kids).”

Oh where to start on this… first, as it has already been mentioned, there are couples well beyond the age to produce offspring who are allowed to wed, and second, with all the children in the world being raised by the “system” and in foster care, why do we have a problem with a gay couple adopting and raising a child in a loving home that a MAN and WOMAN created without any regard for the “next generation of productive taxpayers”? Obviously the state doesn’t have too much interest in making sure there are stable couples raising the next generation because if it did there would be laws about WHO was having children, not who is going to get married.

And just an FYI, not that I think a one parent household is the ideal, it doesn’t automatically create felons. As a matter of fact, my cousin was raised in a one parent household and is now a police officer. AND she happens to be a lesbian, but I guess even a person risking her life and protecting citizens shouldn’t have the same rights to happiness that you have just because you were born attracted to men rather than women, huh?

> it doesn’t automatically create felons.

Deceitful argument. No one's saying it's automatic. It's sufficient to note that felonies (and other bad outcomes) are preponderant in single-parent households.

1. Sapho
2. Diogenes Laeurtius
3. Aristophanes (actually 3 gender love)
4. Nero (Roman Emperor and author)

By the way, what's with the title of this one? Are you saying people who have religious beliefs have no voice in determining the meaning of marriage?

More later, working now, I mean it this time

Anyone who's divorced can't legitimately get on their high horse about gay marriage attacking hetero marriage. Hypocrisy just looks bad.

I've got a suspicion about Crid. You know how he hates for things to change, and keeps calling for people to support their arguments by citing ancient authorities?

I think if he's not a conservative, he's at least a connie sympathizer.

Those of you who've had failed "starter" marriages make more of a mockery of the institution than the gays ever could. And yet, you divorcees who couldn't figure out how to make your "legitimate" marriage work think you should have a say in their relationships. Amazing.
(Frankly, if someone wants to get married OR divorced, it's none of my business.)

"It's sufficient to note that felonies (and other bad outcomes) are preponderant in single-parent households." If a gay couple is married when they take a child how is this a single parent home?

The Other Lily:

Shall we then also outlaw marriage between elderly couples, or couples for whom a health issue of one or the other partner prevents procreation?

I believe I've advocated for this position in the past. From a purely financial standpoint, marriage is a bum rap anyhow unless you have kids.

ahw:

(Frankly, if someone wants to get married OR divorced, it's none of my business.)

The instant they expect government handouts or tax breaks, it becomes my business.

"The instant they expect government handouts or tax breaks, it becomes my business." DINKS don't get any tax breaks for being married. The tax breaks start coming for the breeders, regardless of how said child came about (planned, broken rubber, invitro, cousin got pregnant at 14 etc.) I'm not sure how this is an issue in gay marriage.

Then what the fuck do they want, vlad? Societal acceptance isn't going to come. The vast majority of us simply don't give enough of a fuck about where they put their genitals to give a damn.

Which leaves one of two things - government largesse, or the ability to divorce and cause all the acrimony that goes with it.

And neither of those reflects well on the people asking for it.

"This argument in paticular highlight bigotry, and desperation(dumbest argument ever)

Countered quickly by the obvious argument - equal protection under the law."

It should be obvious to you what a crock of shit your argument here is. Again, NO company HAS to provide benefits past pay, or extend those benefits to others besides the employee. Some choose to, to attract/retain workers THEY want. Their right. Plenty of companies offer same-sex partner benefits. None of the government's damn business.

Whether or not a man and woman Do breed when married, nature has decreed that they can. That's a huge difference.

As for all the kids in the system produced by crappy people, I'd love to be able to regulate breeding. I'd also love to do away with fertility treatments and tell people who want kids but can't birth them to go pick one up at the pound. And I have no real issue with gays adopting, as it is better for the kid than staying in the system. I have no issues with singles adopting. Doesn't mean we have to let singles call themselves married cause they raise kids, does it?

"The vast majority of us simply don't give enough of a fuck about where they put their genitals to give a damn." If that were true no one would give a rats ass enough to pass a gay marriage ban.

As far as what they want. Well property rights, visitation rights, survivor rights, etc. haven't polled the entire gay community but that's the general impression. All the same shit heteros get. Should heteros get these things is a different debate. As long as heteros get it gays should have access to the same thing.

If an insurance company gives hetro couples family insurance then they should do the same for gay couples by law.

"NO company HAS to provide benefits past pay, or extend those benefits to others besides the employee." That depends on how the contract written. So while you argument has logical merit legally it's crap. The argument is not that a company should or should not provide benifits but that it can not be allowed to deny benifits based on orientation. Almost all family insurance plans refer to spouse and children. Key word being spouse. As long as gay marriage is banned then same sex couples will be targeted by the legal definition of spouse.

"Doesn't mean we have to let singles call themselves married cause they raise kids, does it?" The difference between single and married is?

Whether or not a man and woman Do breed when married, nature has decreed that they can. That's a huge difference.

Nature has decreed that two people in their eighties cannot breed. Nature has also decreed that two people of the same sex cannot breed.

If my husband gets into an automobile accident, I have a right to visit him in the hospital and be consulted about his medical treatment. Some close friends of ours who have been together for 38 years do not have the same right without the support of their legal (i.e., blood) families. Which, fortunately, they have -- but not all gay couples are so lucky.

momof3, imagine your kids were adopted, and that they and your husband were involved in a terrible accident.

You rush to the hospital and tell them you are the wife and mother, only to be told that they dont care. They find you relashionship disgusting and contrary to their definition of right and wrong.

They refuse to give you any info on your husband or childs status, no one asks for your opinion as to what corse their treatment should take

Do you think that is fair?

And dont give me the argument that gay couples can have all these rights and powers of attorny written out.

Unless you happen to carry a copy of all the rights your marrige gives you with you every where you go

"Whether or not a man and woman Do breed when married, nature has decreed that they can. That's a huge difference." There are couples that are genetically incompatible. With other partners they produce normal healthy viable babies, together they produce dead or severely disabled ones. So nature sure as shit did not decree that hetero couples can produce a baby, even a healthy young couple.

lujlp, absent durable power of attorney, under HIPAA they can't discuss your medical information with your wife in the room unless they ask your permission first.

Care to tell me how that squares with your sob story?

lujlp, absent durable power of attorney, under HIPAA they can't discuss your medical information with your wife in the room unless they ask your permission first.

Care to tell me how that squares with your sob story?

Try it again, but this time you're unconscious in critical condition.

"Name the great thinkers who've supported gay marriage (before say, 1970):"

You're right, crid. All those great (male) "thinkers" in ancient (that's before 1970, yeah?) Greece were too busy fucking little boys to worry about much else - let alone marrying them.

"lujlp, absent durable power of attorney, under HIPAA they can't discuss your medical information with your wife in the room unless they ask your permission first." That actually depends on the situation. Medical treatment decisions fall to NOK starting with the spouse then the parents and down the line if the individual is not capable of giving consent.

If the person is awake and able to give consent that's different. Also consent is given to parents of dependent children by default.

Again, whether or not any individual male/female couple can or does breed, male/female couples are the only ones who can in nature. There's a reason for that. Pointing to the few who can't/don't together does not make them equivalent to couples who could never do so under nature (same-sex couples).

And please no pointing to the single-cell organisms that self-procreate. We're obviously not them.

"And please no pointing to the single-cell organisms that self-procreate. We're obviously not them." By single celled organisms do you mean sharks? Yeah I know we aren't sharks either. There are gay animals in nature.

There is however no marriage in nature which is a human construct. The in nature argument is horse shit here.

"male/female couples are the only ones who can in nature. There's a reason for that."

Yup. Procreation is undoubtedly one of the most important things we do on this planet, as a species who see a great benefit to itself to continue its existence. Luckily, there are enough of us so that we may choose whether or not to do so without causing homo sapiens (meaning "wise human" in Latin) to become extinct.

The funny thing about humans is that we're slightly more advanced than most other animals on earth. We have advanced societies, technology and intricate ways of communicating with each other. This means we possess a level of self-awareness which is thus far unmatched (as far as our science knows today). This sets us apart.

This self-awareness allows for inter-human relationships that are truly special and unique. In other words, humans don't live simply to produce offspring, unlike many other animals which are driven purely by instinct. We aren't cats. We aren't turtles.

We are humans, whose sexual orientation is almost certainly linked to our biology - biology which may, from time to time, vary b/w individuals of our species. I don't have any data on hand to back this claim of biologically determined sexual orientation, but, seeing as how my sexual orientation is very much *not* my choice, I think it's reasonable that homosexuality is also not a choice. Also, every gay person I've asked has told me that their gayness is something they felt since whenever sexual awareness set in.

Ergo, for an intimate relationship to develop b/w two people of the same sex is actually quite natural. Exactly as "natural" as a straight relationship, which was driven by biology.

Instead of "redefining" marriage, let's redefine what stake - if any - the government has in overseeing any unions whatsoever. If marriage is still a valuable thing in 2009 (I think it is for the privileges it provides to two committed people)then it should be equally extended to two homosexual persons. Their union is no less natural or valuable to a society of persons who are slightly more sophisticated than a society of blue jays.

So much to respond to -

"The individual states are sovereign entities, and may choose to follow this principle or not, each as it sees fit.

Not true. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was incorporated at the state level in 1947.

"We might as well do away with state governments and just let the feds run us all,"

I have no idea how this argument applies as against a Connecticut state decision based on Connecticut law.

"None of you would care about this at all if it didn't nourish your personal feelings of grandeur"

Or justice. Take your pick.

"And I have no real issue with gays adopting, as it is better for the kid than staying in the system. I have no issues with singles adopting."

Seriously? Because I far prefer the former to the latter.

The polemics in favor of gay "marriage" are largely nonsense, and the judicial reasoning quoted is an embarrassingly obvious display of "working backwards" from the desired result. The court can not identify a single benefit withheld from gays under civil unions other than "status and signicance." The idea that a court's pronouncement can mandate "status" and "significance" for gay relationships is absurd, of course. As is the idea that status and signficance are "rights" subject to being withheld.

Marriage, so laden with prohibitions and now so fragile, is hardly an "inalienable" right. If it were, then a spouse could not be summarily deprived of his/her marriage at the whim of the other spouse, right? And I would be free to marry my brother or sister, or my brother AND sister, correct?

Society is entitled to place limitations on marriage, and to indicate a preference for the only model of union that is capable of producing a child genetically connected to both of its parents, while ensuring that the parents are not too closely related to each other! That some couples included within this model are, for whatever reason, infertile, is completely irrelevant. The model is selected to cover the situation where children ARE produced. Criticism of the preferred model because society extends it as far as possible is proof only that "no good deed goes unpunished."

Rights are for individuals, not groups. Homosexuals already, everywhere, have the right to marry, so long as they abide by the same rules that apply to everyone else. Same-sex "marriage" for gays is in fact special privilege for gays.

Some states (not California) prohibit a man and woman who are first cousins from marrying. Are they being deprived of "inalienable" rights? Should gays have more right to marry than heterosexual first cousins (who, with abortion and contraception, can ensure that no "icky" kids are born)? And, if you are against incestuous marriage, does that mean you are a bigot who hates families?

I look forward to any thoughtful replies.

Gretchen doing the Victimology Politics Fan-Dance:

I don't have any data on hand to back this claim of biologically determined sexual orientation, but, seeing as how my sexual orientation is very much *not* my choice, I think it's reasonable that homosexuality is also not a choice. Also, every gay person I've asked has told me that their gayness is something they felt since whenever sexual awareness set in.
- - - - - - - - -
You "don't have the data" because after decades of media fluff pieces about "tantalizing evidence" that "may suggest that..." - there is still no hard scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. And in fact some of the data most often cited to "prove" this - such as twin studies - proves the exact opposite when you get past the media handwaving and look at the actual studies in refereed scientific journals.

So advocates like yourself retreat into the "it must be so because I feeeeel it" dodge. And your a "hateful chauvinist" if you disagree with me.

And in fact many gay men and women have lived as heterosexuals for long periods - radical Womyn's Studies profs love to remind young coeds that "sexuality is a fluid construct".

So "the facts" that progressives claim to have on their side seem to shift depending on the rhetorical need - as they do for global warming alarmists. Thus:

When promoting gay rights - sexuality is fixed and inborn.

When trying to loosen undergrads up for radical feminism/lesbian exploration - sexuality is "a fluid construct".

I'm pretty sure your condition is not inborn - and after living in New York and London, and seeing that both those "thriving gay communities" revolved around compulsive promiscuity, mutual exploitation, and self-destructive debasement, I'm pretty sure most gay relationships have very little to do with what The Rest of Us call marriage.

No matter how many carefully-groomed, cherry-picked lesbian couples the media features.

"and after living in New York and London" Cause I saw it then it must apply to at least a majority. Isn't this the same thing you commented with respect to Gretchen's argument.

The "compulsive promiscuity, mutual exploitation, and self-destructive debasement, " can be seen on most college campuses. Goes right along with being young and stupid.

As far as promiscuity there is some validity to this when applied to gay males data wise. However it falls apart completely when applied to lesbians.

"If it were, then a spouse could not be summarily deprived of his/her marriage at the whim of the other spouse, right?" Sure however the state can not deprive you of your marriage because where you moved people like you (gay, biracial, etc.) can't be married.

"The court can not identify a single benefit withheld from gays under civil unions other than" States are not required to honor civil unions, many states refuse to honor common law marriages (usually classified as civil unions).

"Society is entitled to place limitations on marriage" Up to the limit of civil rights. Discrimination based on orientation is still illegal, also color. That would be why Virginia was forced to lift it's banned on biracial marriages which were at one point a felony.

As far as fluid vs fixed. We don't know what defines orientation so either is an opinion or a guess. If it's a spectrum then both can be true depending where on that spectrum you lie.

Ben-David,

Thanks for making some really obnoxious, egregiously incorrect assumptions about me. If you disagree w/ me I think that's swell - because we aren't Borg and different opinions are fun. You're the one intent on ending the conversation by putting words in my mouth and throwing a few cheeky labels on to me. Congrats - you ARE a hateful chauvinist. Though I most certainly don't think that b/c you DISAGREE with me. But because you seem to be quite a miserable fuck.

I can't prove how our sexual orientation is wired within us. But you can't either. All I know is that I've never met a single person in my life who said their orientation was a conscious CHOICE. But what I can say is that there are lots of confused people out there. Why is that? Or is really quite simple - no more complicated than being indecisive about which color shirt to wear today? Blue or red? Dick or pussy? Life is full of tough decisions! Dunno bout you, but thinking about being personally intimate w/someone of the same sex pretty much makes me want to vomit. I doubt I can change that. Does anyone fault me for it?

I don't have data b/c I haven't put in a whole lot of time. But I am not such a pompous ass that that I would claim to know, with full certainty, something which I don't. We have barely begun to decode our DNA, let alone figure out how our brains and genes actually work. We might seem advanced in many ways, but alas I "feeeelllll" that our science has quite a lot of work to do in all regards. I'm still waiting for my own personal starship, by the way...

As for the promiscuous, self-destructive gay-scene, I agree with your observations. Lots of my gay friends have complained about it to me, saying they'd like a stable relationship like mine but that it's impossible in the gay community. And none of them can explain why it is so. But you know what? With a 50% divorce rate in this country, it doesn't look like straights take shit much more seriously.

"they'd like a stable relationship like mine but that it's impossible in the gay community." Had a completely different experience with the gay community. Know multiple gay couples that would be described as Amish in their relationship. Again these have been older stable couples out in the burbs. Not Boston, NY, or London. I'm familiar with the gay community in both Boston and NY. I see the same thing in the straight community of those two cities. Haven't been to London enough to see that there.

"That would be why Virginia was forced to lift it's banned on biracial marriages which were at one point a felony."

Perhaps it would be an argument for civil rights, if people had lived as a white for 20 years then divorced and decided they were black. This is anecdotal, but on TLC/Discovery health type birth shows in the last 2 months, I've seen 5 lesbian couples where at least one partner had been married before being gay, and had a child already from marriage. I've never seen anyone go from black to white or vice versa.

I imagine there is some biological link to being gay, or at least leaning that way. But it's obviously not an imperative, or no one who was so would ever be able to live otherwise. Yet plenty of people claiming to be gay have been married or in longterm straight relationships, and had kids (which requires sex). That undermines their arguments.

Gretchen, I'll see your anecdote and raise you two.

I know maybe a dozen homosexuals. I also know that two of them state quite emphatically that one day they just decided they'd had enough of the opposite gender. That's a hell of a percentage. But it ain't data.

Homosexuality is unlikely to be genetic, or it would be in decrease or stasis (like Down's, for instance). Long term exposure to gay marriage could be the proof of that, as they'd be largely self-selecting their genes out of the gene pool rather than marrying to "fit in".

I won't pretend to know what the cause is, but twin studies alone dictate that it must be something other than genetics, or at least something more than solely genetics.

as far as the 50% failure rate of hetero marriage, a lot of that comes from the fact that no-fault divorce makes it entirely too easy to back out of a commitment. There's no incentive to work out your differences when you can just walk away, and maybe get a good chunk of someone else's salary as a parting gift.

Thanks for the insight, vlad! I'm referring to a group 35 yrs. and younger (usually all in their 20s). These are people who haven't been "out" very long and are suddenly eating up all the attention and man whoring they can. Their behavior is a lot like what I saw in college only with legit IDs and gay clubs for venues instead of keggars at a frat house.

My experience with older gays is a bit different, but I only know a few. And they're all in long term relationships.

"I've never seen anyone go from black to white or vice versa. " Michael Jackson. Does the same apply for gender cause we know this happens (though surgically) often.

"I've seen 5 lesbian couples where at least one partner had been married before being gay" Again here there needs to be more research. I know several gay men who were "straight" till mom and dad died. Some were married and had kids because that's what they thought they were supposed to do.

"Yet plenty of people claiming to be gay have been married or in longterm straight relationships, and had kids" Which only means anything if orientation is binary. Current data points to a more fluid definition, as in shades of gray view. Though still nothing definitive genetically.

"one day they just decided they'd had enough of the opposite gender."

What does that even mean? They flipped a switch and were suddenly enticed by a different set of genitalia? Or was there an existing feeling of general ambiguity towards all of it from the start and it was just easier to be straight? I'd be interesting in asking those folks what they meant.

But I totally agree that my anecdotes and observations aren't grounds for legislation. Which is why we shouldn't be voting on this stuff until we're all experts. But that ain't gonna happen...

"Homosexuality is unlikely to be genetic,"

What about a genetic mutation? They will not decode our genome in my lifetime so I won't hold my breath for this argument to be resolved.

""Homosexuality is unlikely to be genetic,"

What about a genetic mutation? They will not decode our genome in my lifetime so I won't hold my breath for this argument to be resolved. " Unless we decode the neuro-chemistry of the human brain both genomics and proteomics (proteins formed by genes) won't answer this. It could be genetic, environmental, both. We may be all capable of being one or the other and expressing homosexuality may be more of societal/parental conditioned response. The reactions to same sex interaction push it towards the spectrum analogy. Everything ranging from "Oh fun" to "hell no" to "die". The behavioral response are not binary and not entirely genetic.

vlad - you're fun. I'm obviously not a scientist here...but my point is that I doubt orientation is a conscious choice people make, in the manner that I consciously decided to spritz on some Visa by Robert Piguet this morning instead of another perfume. Or why I like wearing a brown belt with blue pants better than black.

A lot of behavior is explained away by environment/nurture, but it's pretty clear environment has little to do with orientation.

I mighta missed the comment that presented this argument, but I'll go out on the limb... We could do something really crazy and just remove all these supposed "rights". Powers of attorney, wills and so forth would seem to take care of the movement of wealth when a spouse is incompacitated. As has been mentioned, tax breaks for marriages don't apply for a lot of people without kids anyway. In essence we seem to be arguing over "Marriage Perks" once you take the other religious or procreative arguments out of the mix. So, if we really wanted to level set this, we should make sure that nobody is getting a perk that someone else can't have.

As an aside, I have always wondered why the gay community is so enamoured with this... are you really fighting to up the odds of having your life eviscerated in a divorce? Other wise everything else is pretty much the same. If you stay together in a commited relationship, you're together. If not, then not. If you are religious, that can make some differences, but that is another question entirely in terms of the government. It seems to make sense to get hitched to get those advantages, but divorced people will prolly tell you that IF it ends the advantages once had just don't help. In retrospect, I certainly would never have gotten hitched, because I was bludgeoned with the divorce decree later. In Mass. we are already starting to see the divorces, and their court system is kinda confused about what to do about 2 mommies getting divorced. After all, which one is going to be better with the kids. Looks to be ugly.

Homosexuality is unlikely to be genetic, or it would be in decrease or stasis

Genes are ruthless: they can survive by increasing the survival chances of a family member. Direct reproduction isn't required.

it's pretty clear environment has little to do with orientation

My understanding is that sexual experiences at or around puberty have a big impact on sexual preference, which is why people who are molested as children are more likely to molest children later in life. How do you explain that trend without giving environment a big role?

"After all, which one is going to be better with the kids. Looks to be ugly." Good the court might start looking at an individuals merit as a parent rather then gender. Ugly is what changes laws.

I'm so far at a lose as to why they should be denied the happiness or misery that is marriage. The only arguments I hear consistently is 1) I find it offensive and should not have to look at, make the ugly go away. 2) My sky fairy said it's bad so, make the bad go away. I'm not sure why anyone who is not gay would really care, certainly care enough to protest and get it banned.

I'm pro choice but I can understand the logic behind staunch (though non-violent) pro-lifers. Gay marriage is one of those topics which I can't understand the vitriol against it.

"My understanding is that sexual experiences at or around puberty have a big impact on sexual preference, which is why people who are molested as children are more likely to molest children later in life. How do you explain that trend without giving environment a big role?"

I guess if you want to look at circumstances where severe psychological trauma is suffered that's cool. How their brains repair themselves is beyond me. In addition to future child molesters we also get dissociative identity disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. People react differently to that.

But for the majority of people, being either exposed to gay people or not doesn't "make" someone gay (let's assume here that exposure to gays isn't "tramatic"...). It just makes them either more or less likely to act on it or be out of the closet. Likewise, if someone kept telling me "you're gay" it wouldn't offset the fact I'm not in the least bit attracted to chicks. That's what I meant by environmental.

No, but if every relationship you had with a man resulted in your going to the hospital, your brain might compensate by deciding to no longer be attracted to men.

Yes, Brian - I won't argue that trauma inflicted upon someone won't cause a reaction the person never thought possible.

But, in your scenario, being not attracted to men wasn't my natural state. My natural state was altered due to the mistreatment. It's a reconditioning of sorts. I don't doubt that environment has some effect on sexuality in those extreme cases. I tend to avoid those examples b/c I'd like to think most people aren't sexually abused into their current sexual orientation.

That's where you and I differ. I have no evidence to support it beyond anecdote, but I suspect most homosexuals will tell you that they have "always felt this way", but if you dig deep enough, you'll find evidence of abuse in their past.

Fair enough. Interesting theory. I'm actually planning to go back to school to become a clinical psychologist (the whole business thing isn't as fun as I'd hoped. What a waste of $120,000. Heh.)

Maybe I'll accrue enough anecdotal evidence someday to figure out some of these mysteries for myself.

I'd love to see some clinical studies done, but there's too much political firepower aligned behind the "born that way" end of things for anyone to challenge it and remain viable.

And to think that just 20 years ago, we were being told to mind our own business and not judge homosexuals over their "lifestyle choices".

Regarding the fluidity of sexuality:

I read a book for a gender history class, I can't remember the title unfortunately, that discussed the rising percentage of lesbian relationships in the African American community. The author, a black woman, theorized that this has happened as a necessary response to the self-imposed demise of black fathers. More black women are finding ways to fulfill each others' needs - all of them - in an attempt to create some sort of family construct. It's an interesting, subconscious effort to obtain cultural and familial stability and happiness.

I discussed the book with my college roommate at the time, a black woman who identifies herself as a lesbian. She agreed with the assessment wholeheartedly.

"Gay marriage is one of those topics which I can't understand the vitriol against it."

Well, most of us aren't vitriolic. We'd just like to hear some decent reasons it's going to benefit society and not further ruin it like giving welfare to nonmarried mothers did. All we get now 1) wah, I want it! and 2) it's no fair that breeding couples get perks to incentiveize raising future taxpayers in intact functional families. I can't breed but should get the breaks anyway. Neither of these is really motivating for change.

Some examples of societies in which homosexuality was accepted are always thrown around when discussing the fact that marriage has been hetero exclusively throughout history, and there's probably a reason for that. Ancient Greece is usually one. The people throwing this out ignore the fact that 1)there is great dispute as to how accepted it was and 2) it generally took the form of pederasty, with an older well to do man and a young boy lover. Also frequently with slaves. And it was not in lieu of marriage to a woman. It's not an argument that helps gay marriage proponents any.

WHo knows but what some future society will look at our leavings and say we accepted pedophilia? There's certainly enough of it out there to be found, but we don't accept it as society. A few people writing that we do does not make it so.

Noting the generative capacity of heterosexual unions is not "shouting that marriage is for procreation." This potential alone is sufficient to elevate the importance of heterosexual unions, whether or not it's fulfilled.

No, no it isn't. That's all in your mind.

And just for the record, as an advocate for marriage equality.

I am advocating a revolutionary notion.

Just like if I had been alive and able, I would have advocated for the revolutionary notion that people who have skin of different colors should be allowed to marry. Just as I would have advocated for the revolutionary notion that people of different religions should be allowed to marry. Just as I would have advocated the revolutionary notion that the peasantry should be allowed to marry.

Just as I also advocate for the revolutionary notion that civil unions should be the standard and people can call it whatever the fuck they please....

Again, from the original text:

| If the state performs courthouse
| marriages, there should be no
| reason any couple of two
| consenting adults cannot be wed.

1. Says who? He made this up out thin air. There's nothing "legal" or even principled about his viewpoint. It reminds of how Reagan used to make up "new rules", transparent fabrications which gave him the illusion of backbone. Furthermore, the wording is coercive: "there should be no reason" suggests that if you actually have a reason, you'll be asked to leave town.

2. Does this include me and my younger sister, as well as me and my younger brother? How about me and a consenting person who's indisputably insane, or a parent and grown child? The exact words were "any couple of two consenting adults".

The language of this discussion is very, very sloppy. This is evidence of even worse thinking.

> The government oughtn't be
> in the business of choosing
> what behaviors it
> supports.

Which would be fine if you'd let anyone else attempt some influence, but of course you won't. You want everyone to be free to rampage like a monster at all times. In Iacocca's wonderful description, you "want America to be great by accident." Meanwhile, I bet you want government to do all kinds of other things to improve our lives....

> I'd still like to see
> "marriage" treated as
> just another contract

First, your quotation marks add no meaning; secondly, marriage (as better practiced) improves so much of life for so many that it's much more important than other contracts.

> Gay marriage benefits society
> by promoting monogamy

Have you ever advocated "promoting monogamy" in any other context? By what methods? How did the people around you respond?

> and multi-parent families.

Some of us don't want "multi-parent families". We want a loving mother with a loving father. "Multi-parent" is a technical-sounding but silly term.

> Blacks and whites marrying
> was revolutionary, too

As noted earlier, not in the larger view, only in the short context of our shame from slavery. Secondly, you implicitly concede that what you're asking for is a huge change to marriage. Amy, why just come out and say it in as many words?

> not that I think a one
> parent household is
> the ideal

Having already savaged the other half of that sentence, let me ask why you have to be backhanded about it. Why can't you stand up and name your ideal?

> 1. Sapho
> 2. Diogenes Laeurtius
> 3. Aristophanes (actually 3 gender love)
> 4. Nero (Roman Emperor and author)

I'd bet anyone in this forum could recite more lines by Barry Gibb than from any of these. To my (brief) knowledge, their comments regarding these matters were incidental. There's no reason to think –were their lives restored to our time– that they'd be aligned with your beliefs. I've never heard of anyone who regarded any of them as instructive... But we're glad you got your money's worth from your history minor.

> Anyone who's divorced can't
> legitimately get on their
> high horse

Again, "new rules." People who've fought in war can talk about war, as can people who've not. Women who've had abortions can have pro and con opinions, too. There's nothing particularly hypocritical about it, and even if there were, such an injunction would apply only to the (fractional) argument that gay marriage diminishes straight marriage. While I believe it does, I think there are other, larger problems with it.

> he's at least a connie
> sympathizer

Card carrying. I go to meetings. We have passwords, a secret handshake, everything!

> think you should have
> a say in their
> relationships

I don't care about their relationships, I care about their marriages.

> how is this a single
> parent home?

It was Ann who brought up the tangential matter of single parent homes, noting (inanely) that they don't "automatically create felons." I would argue that in a broad statistical sense, they do.

> As long as heteros get
> it gays should have access
> to the same thing.

They do have access to them. When they pursue the same behaviors, they get the same blessings.

> Some close friends of ours
> who have been together
> for 38 years do not have
> the same right

Those rights could probably be undeniably exchanged within a gay union for a small legal fee to prepare authority for death and crisis. People, even straights who love each other, do that anyway. Truth is, almost nobody cares enough to argue the point. [This is the spot where commenters start screeching these apocryphal folk tales of administrative cruelty in hillbilly care centers. {See Loojy: "You rush to the hospital...,"} But still nobody cares. You wanna give your gay sweety access to your health care decisions? Go ahead: I too want him/her to have it. But were you ever going to do so in a responsible manner anyway?]

> There are couples that
> are genetically incompatible.

Yes; Couples of men and couples of women. Every time. In every context since the dawn of the Universe.

Let's break: Gretchen deserves her own special takedown.

Well, Amy's spam filter ate part two, and there's a part three as well, so let's finish it up another day....

Y'know, some folks think "sex" means only eroticism. They think everything that happens to you or your mind or your heart that comes from sex is about fucking.

When these people are women, they're especially dangerous, because they tend to think of every masculine thought as the product of failed socialization. But let's set that aside.

I remember when Justin pulled this shit last year: "You find homosexuality repellent," he asserted, offering no citations. (There were none to offer. I just don't care what other people do with their wiggly bits. I've been bringing essentially the same arguments here for five years. The problem isn't what gays or lesbians do with their fleshy parts, it's that redefining marriage as proposed is a bad idea.)

But apparently, when you say the word sex to Justin, he thinks of fucking, so he thinks everyone else thinks of fucking, so he presumes that's the part that gets people upset.

Maybe Looj's mind works that way, too... It would explain the "sex sex unions" he mentions above. (And for the record, those unions didn't "span" history; they very lightly pepper it, clumping only in cultures you'd want nothing to do with anyway.)

(Spamfilter dodge- keep reading)

And heeeeeere's Gretchen, her tone sarcastic throughout, with clarity lost to layers of bitterness:

> All those great (male) "thinkers"

Why the parentheses? Do you not mean males?

Why the quotation marks? Do you mean to mock all male intellect?

I've quoted this in earlier comments: "The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the cave man era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture. Of course you would lose individual artists of merit: I'd sorely miss Jane Austen and George Eliot, Sigrid Undset and Willa Cather. But you would eradicate few if any true giants, and hardly anyone who radically changed a form instead of simply executing it well."

Anyway, we're five words in and the bitterness is pretty thick. But let's keep going.

> in ancient (that's before
> 1970, yeah?) Greece

Well, I specifically asked for someone to describe an argument for gay marriage before (some of) our lifetimes. I want someone to describe how this righteousness has been bubbling through the ages... Even a couple of well-known citations from elsewhere in the 20th century Western world would be great. But nobody's got any. Because there aren't any out there.

(Spamfilter dodge, keep reading)

> were too busy fucking little
> boys to worry about much
> else - let alone marrying them.

How millenia-old instances of buttfucking support modern gay marriage is mysterious to me. Nobody, nobody thinks children should be terrorized, or that modern gay life should take instruction from those guys. Even in her weirdest moments, Paglia's clear about what that stuff meant to a culture much different than our own.

So Gretchen, I just don't know why you brought it up. Unless you think that everything sexual that happens to someone is about fucking.

I don't think that's true.

> Or justice. Take your pick.

If it was about justice, there wouldn't be nearly as many snot-filled accusations of "bigotry!" This is a very special kind of group condescension.

(Enough for one night!)

Well, most of us aren't vitriolic. We'd just like to hear some decent reasons it's going to benefit society and not further ruin it like giving welfare to nonmarried mothers did.

And I'd like to hear just one exapmle of how gay marrige will destroy all of creation

All we get now 1) wah, I want it! and 2) it's no fair that breeding couples get perks to incentiveize raising future taxpayers in intact functional families. I can't breed but should get the breaks anyway.

All we get now is 1)We dont know what the fall out will be! and 2) Its wrong to force the govenment and companies to give gay couples the same treatment as strait ones

Neither of these is really motivating for change.
Neither of those is reson to halt change

Some examples of societies in which homosexuality was accepted are always thrown around when discussing the fact that marriage has been hetero exclusively throughout history, and there's probably a reason for that. Ancient Greece is usually one. The people throwing this out ignore the fact that 1)there is great dispute as to how accepted it was and
And there alwas will be when ever looking at things in the past

2) it generally took the form of pederasty, with an older well to do man and a young boy lover.
Same age difference in straight fucking back the too

Also frequently with slaves.
And no guy EVER had sex with a female slave, right?

1. Says who? He made this up out thin air. There's nothing "legal" or even principled about his viewpoint.
Equal Protection Under The Law.

2. Does this include me and my younger sister, as well as me and my younger brother? How about me and a consenting person who's indisputably insane, or a parent and grown child? The exact words were "any couple of two consenting adults".
Insane people are legally incapable of giving consent, and people have incest all the time, why should I give a fuck about where you put your dick or who makes your heart go pitter patter?

AS you pointed out on more than one occasion, you can get nearly all the same government benifits and protections by filling out legal forms - but tell me what really is the difference betwwen signing one peice of papaer that says marrige licence, or signing dozens of other that dont?

Marrige is nothing more than a contract between two people, religon lost their grip on it long ago.

One last thought, for those of you who think homosexuality is a decision.

How many of you straight guys get an erection thinking about other men?

If being gay is a consious effort then that means you are choosing to not act on your arousal for other men.

So tell me Ben-David, brian, crid, what guys give you a tingle in your pants?

Also please explain why you refrain from having sex with other guys, is it a truly moral choice? Or do you abstain because you think god thinks its wrong and and hedging you bets for heaven?

Because I dont think you have to worry, I mean his representitives on earth molest children so I dont think he'd condemn you all for a little ass play

"Ancient Greece is usually one." Oh yes it's one I don't use cause they were mickey mouse compared to real ancient power. Rome was a real power in the ancient world. It only went to hell when the Jebus jockies took control. Incidentally also when the banning of gay marriage started. After year of taxing gay prostitutes, so while an "abomination" taking taxes from it was fine.

"I'd bet anyone in this forum could recite more lines by Barry Gibb than from any of these. To my (brief) knowledge, their comments regarding these matters were incidental." Are you serious, your counter point is that most people here don't' know them so they don't count? No they sure as shit were not incidental Nero married men on two different occasions, that would be the emperor. Some of Romes greatest were openly gay (Trajan, yup the one with the columns).

"Card carrying. I go to meetings. We have passwords, a secret handshake, everything! " Wow, are taking lessons in being glib now?

""The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the cave man era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture." Did you have an extra helping of are you fucking kidding this morning? Lets look up Sapho of lesbose(sp) on Google just for starters, the first known lesbian porn in poetic format (not work safe). The take a peak at writes of the suffrage movement, what you don't think women voting (and women's lib) has changed our culture? Now lets think about all the unknown artists that may or may not have influenced our greats, that's just not known. Wiccan writings has heavy influences on both modern neopagans and the whole Salem witch trials. Which ge wizz had a huge affect on American culture. Wiccan writings were done almost exclusively by women.

"it's that redefining marriage as proposed is a bad idea." A stance that you have not to my knowledge actually explained. Though you have stated it emphatically many times. I'm still not seeing any arguments against it that are not 1) Ewh 2) God hates it.

"2) it's no fair that breeding couples get perks to incentiveize raising future taxpayers in intact functional families." You mean like raising future tax payer that Jesus left in the orphanages in complete two parent homes? Single people adopting is very very difficult, and will remain so until the laws are changed.

"We'd just like to hear some decent reasons it's going to benefit society and not further ruin it like giving welfare to nonmarried mothers did." I see no reasons that it would further ruin society presented by your side what so ever. As far as benifits I'd say upping the adoption rate in two parent homes sound sufficient to me. You know it would reduce the number of criminals and increase the number of tax payers. Or is the correlation between single parents and felons only count for strait women?

"And heeeeeere's Gretchen, her tone sarcastic throughout, with clarity lost to layers of bitterness:" That's not bitterness crid that's anger at the mind numbing stupid from Ben.

Loojy, PLEASE BE CLEAR. It's a struggle trying to figure out what you mean. I can't tell which parts are quotations and which parts are responses. Nobody will ever care enough to figure it out.

The sentence fragment "Equal protection under the law" isnt an argument. We already understand that you think things are unfair. Simply saying "things are unfair" isn't convincing. Besides, gays have always had exactly the same protections as straights.

> why should I give a fuck about

You're arguing for wild west lawlessness. This isn't liberty, this is nihilism. Good luck selling that. (Does this extend to financial markets, or should those be more thoughtfully regulated than marriages?)

> religon lost their grip
> on it long ago

So tell Amy to relax.

> what guys give you a tingle
> in your pants?

Again, because this is about sex you think this it's about eroticism. That's all you've got... I think that's all the MOST gay marriage proponents have got: An eagerness to pretend to be more erotically sophisticated than other people.

> your counter point is that most
> people here don't' know them so
> they don't count?

Pretty much. In 2008 I never heard anyone cite Nero (or any of your other precious poets or dramatists) as a reason to support gay marriage in California.

Any schoolchild could name five critical names from the civil rights movement in each of the previous three centuries. But no one can chart the development of the gay marriage movement until just a few years ago. I think the explosive nature of this is part of it's charm.

> Some of Romes greatest were
> openly gay

Paglia convincingly argues that gay conduct back then had little to do with what people are about nowadays. It was about attraction to the adolescent male form. To call it "gay" in the contemporary sense is silly. These guys were not all about listening to Piaf and Garland as they drove around in their Miatas. Again, the point that someone was buttfucking 2000 years ago doesn't argue for gay marriage in 2009.

> Wow, are taking lessons in
> being glib now?

Yes, are taking. If you're going to be such a snot, you should proofread. Axman's joking comment was answered in a similar spirit.

> Wiccan writings has heavy
> influences

That's preposterous. NAME ONE.

Crid - I'm many things but definitely not bitter. I'm straight as an arrow, no grey areas for me. I've got it easy.

Vlad - thanks for havin' my back :-)

I guess my attempt to mock your challenge was misinterpreted. I was trying to convey that 1) women weren't considered to be thinkers back in the day in almost all major societies on the planet. Definitely not bitter about that b/c I wasn't born yet. 2) you act like gayness is some big, huge, new thing. It's not even remotely close to being new. My new-fangled generation didn't invent it. All those highly respected intellects from the past possibly engaged in homosexual pedophilia. (Mof3: these dudes took wives b/c that's what you were supposed to do: get married and make babies. Meanwhile they felt out those "feeeelings" of theirs outside the marriage.) Our attitudes towards that are different now. See the next point. 3) you also act like societies just don't evolve. They do. Big time. And at a seemingly increasing velocity.

I don't find any of these changes shocking. Maybe because I'm 23 and from MA being around gay people was always relatively normal. I don't see the point of marriage as simply a means to raise children, although I understand the point of rewarding married people probably had a lot to do with the fact society benefits greatly from having stable, two-parent families (and think people who want kids have a duty to provide this stability for the kids' psychological and emotional well-being). I just think that we don't pick our orientation consciously and that two-parent families are good, no matter if it's homo or hetero. Having both kinds of couples reap the benefits of raising healthy kids in a stable home environment makes sense.

"The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the cave man era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture."

Let's assume women didn't provide anything useful to culture.

Why didn't they?

B/c women really are stupid, lack creativity and are totally unmotivated to do anything except push out babies?

YOur start with a claim about not being bitter and end with a sarcastic, presumptuous insinuation about half of humanity being mocked as stupid.

WOrking now, more later

"The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the cave man era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture."

Let's assume women didn't provide anything useful to culture.

Why didn't they?

B/c women really are stupid, lack creativity and are totally unmotivated to do anything except push out babies?

Careful, Gretchen -- it may be that this is exactly what he does think. Unfortunately, that idea is not as self-evidently absurd to everyone as it should be.

If it is generally assumed that members of a particular group are intellectually and creatively inferior, then it is naturally (and fatally) easy to dismiss original contributions by members of that group as naive and presumptuous. This has been true for women throughout much of history, though it is (thankfully!) much less so in modern Western society.

Yes, I know the movers and shakers have always had an uphill battle, regardless. But when the defenders of established thought have an easy out ("oh, she's just a woman, oh, he's just a , they can't possibly understand") the slope becomes much steeper. And probably any number of possible contributions have been lost to that kind of thing.

Cridder: your arguments always boil down to the silly. It doesn't please, ergo it must go and Gretchen's absolutely right. Societies, hello, evolve. Despite religion. And I passed 23 a hell of a long time ago. Because I came from a religiously oppressive household, gays were new to me as a young adult (albeit immediately on leaving home two of my best friends were a gay couple who's union lasted three times as long as my marriage).

Momofalitter: your arguments are pure bigotry as usual. If you want to control who can and cannot procreate, how about we start with you about to be mom of 4 (and who knows how many more before that well dries up).

After all, I find pushing out numerous babies disgusting. Since gays and, apparently, single parents should be outlawed just because you're disgusted by them. Why should my personal bias (at least I recognize it as such) bear any less weight than yours. So since we're apparently operating on personal taste alone, I vote we outlaw any more than two babies per couple. This world has too many people already!!!!

As far as your ignoranant status towards single parents, fuck you. My daughter and grandson are far less likely to become a criminal than your precious 3 and a half darlings simply because they've had more undivided parental attention. I don't even want to think how you'll alienate any of the four or more if they should turn out to be gay or bi when they mature sexually. Nope. No potential for trouble there since you're married to daddy. At least so far. But if he does ever take a fucking powder on your ass be sure to blame the easy divorce laws instead of the individuals involved. God knows you never make mistakes.

Oh, and since we're marginalizing people based on statistics of convicted felons, I think it's more than fucking time religion takes a hit. Since the majority are religious.

YOur start with a claim about not being bitter and end with a sarcastic, presumptuous insinuation about half of humanity being mocked as stupid.

Hm... Crid, you might have served yourself better if you had provided more of the context of that "unvarnished truth" quote, as you did the first time you posted it. Out of context, it does sound like exactly that -- an attempt to dismiss half of humanity as inferior in intellect and creativity.

Have we wandered far enough off topic yet? ;-)

"end with a sarcastic, presumptuous insinuation about half of humanity being mocked as stupid. "

Maybe I was confused about you dropping the quote re: removing women from history and it won't affect western culture. I'm being genuine here, dude. Almost every single quoted famous person, piece of artwork, sculpture and great piece of classical music was created by a guy. WHY?? I am asking you why you think that is.

I honestly don't think it's because women are incapable - but certainly, if an alien landed on our planet and knew nothing except for the fact that men were the sole contributors to 95% of cultural wonders on earth they wouldn't be out of line to conclude it's because women are idiots with no creative abilities. I thought we would know better. You can't drop quotes like that, with no context, and not get a bitchy reaction. You're being confusing - or I just need more coffee.

I don't even like this tangent. It's pretty pointless in the GM debate.

Lily -

I'll come right out and say what you think Crid was insinuating.

Women are, on balance, intellectually inferior to men. There are plenty of studies that back this up.

It isn't that women aren't interested in science, math, programming or engineering. It's that the bulk of them simply can't hack it. I know women in all of those fields, and they are all brilliant.

And they have almost no common social context with "average" women.

Which is why so many she-geeks are terribly unhappy, or they hang out with the boys. There's just not enough intellectual stimulation available in "typical" girl-talk.

Crid my last post wasnt about marrige but homosexuality itslef, and the people who claim its a choice

Actually, Gretchen, it's perfectly on point.

Gay marriage is the triumph of emotion over reason.

It's not on point, brian, to bring up why women are/are not capable of contributing significant cultural achievements to humanity.

I have no emotional ties to gay marriage. All I do is ask myself "what do I think marriage is about?" and whether being in a gay relationship means being able to satisfy my little qualifications more or less so than a straight one. That doesn't strike me as emotional.

Marriage is already quite well defined, Gretchen. It is the blessed union (that is, sanctified by religious entity) of two individuals for the purposes of procreation.

The concept of civil marriage as it is practiced now is nothing more than the government turning it into a profit opportunity and a record-keeping system.

It is the secular government trying to get in to the position that the church once held, and doing poorly at it.

If you wish to argue that there ought to be a government-sanctioned manner for joining two persons together for mutual legal benefit, then you need to outline the benefit to the state of such an arrangement.

Nobody has done so. All they've done is appeal to emotion - "It's not fair!".

So while you may have no emotional tie to the issue proper, your response is purely based upon emotion, not reason.

Isn't it funny how people on both sides of this argument accuse those on the other side of choosing emotion over reason?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been completely reasonable.

"Gay marriage is the triumph of emotion over reason."

Actualy, Brian that describes straight marriage too, unless the parents and older relatives arrange it.

Jim - you'll get no argument here.

Given the divorce rate, I'd almost take it as an axiom.

"quite well defined...for the purposes of procreation."

That's my point. I disagree that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage in our society NOW. Marriage and the roles of the individuals within it has changed significantly over time. We actually get to pick our partners, instead of our parents. Virginity is not a requirement for the whole thing to go happen (might I add that tons of guys wouldn't stick around long enough for marriage if she WERE saving it?). The whole picture is different now than it was 100 years ago. What we go into marriage for and what we think we'll get from it aren't what they were in the past.

A lot of folks marry for an icky, emotional thing called love. 'Cause they like each other. I don't need to marry to get taken care of. I don't know a single chick my age who does.

And, as I stated a few posts ago, the necessity for each couple to procreate is null. We don't all need to do it. There are enough couplings willing to do so that it's not necessary for all. Originally, marriage for procreation was necessary to establish a mutually beneficial system where both partners were given a safety net of some sort (she gets a roof over her head, he gets someone to tend to his babies). It was a whole transaction set up, outside of religion, between a father and a groom. But it's not like that in the U.S anymore!

Maybe that means we abolish any and all legal recognition of marriage. Period. I'm not sure. It's just that I think definitions of things change over time, and that procreation as a requirement for a legal coupling is not a point I agree with at this point.

"All they've done is appeal to emotion - "It's not fair!"...your response is purely based upon emotion, not reason."

Again, I can't agree with that. Unless we're reading to separate blogs. A lot of people on here have outlined exactly why gay people should have the chance to have a homosexual marriage. The reasons I have for maintaining the institution of marriage for straights holds for gays. The benefit to society of having stable couples raising kids is equal from either group.

I fail to see the emotion there. Try imagining my words being read aloud by Spock. That might help.

"I don't know a single chick my age who does."

I'll add a disclaimer to that comment - I do know ladies who would *like* to get taken care of and whose intention is to find a man who will, as I also know men who actually want a wife to stay home and do that whole bit.

Point is, it's not necessary for survival anymore.

Women are, on balance, intellectually inferior to men. There are plenty of studies that back this up.

Suppose for the sake of argument that this is true (do you have a citation, BTW?). In what way is it useful information, beyond supporting bigotry and making it more difficult for brilliant/talented women (whose existence you don't dispute) to get the training and recognition they need and deserve to fulfill their potential?

"beyond supporting bigotry "

To play the devil's advocate - if women are intellectually inferior creatures, might we be less deserving of respect, etc.? In which case anti-women attitudes and behavior wouldn't be "bigotry", but in fact would be fair. Just thinking out loud.

"That's preposterous. NAME ONE." Sure but first I need a time period that would be legit in your eyes. I know classical pang lit is out as that happened to long ago to be valid in your mind. Yule log would be one pagan tradition that carried over, but that was a long time ago.

"It isn't that women aren't interested in science, math, programming or engineering. It's that the bulk of them simply can't hack it." Neither can most men, have you looked at the kill rates in college Engineering programs. My almamata had a predominantly female biomed program. Which was general considered the hardest of the engineering disciplines by EE ME CS etc.

"And they have almost no common social context with "average" women." Again how much does the average male engineer have in common with a male factory worker.

I'm curious about the inferiority studies. Where would they be. I know in hand eye coordination they have us beat.

"It is the blessed union (that is, sanctified by religious entity) of two individuals for the purposes of procreation." If this is the definition of marriage then the state should stop recognizing all marriages, which is fine by me. I'm married with no kids currently so I get no benefit from the current laws.

Lily:

In what way is it useful information, beyond supporting bigotry and making it more difficult for brilliant/talented women (whose existence you don't dispute) to get the training and recognition they need and deserve to fulfill their potential?

Maybe society could get over its hangups? First, the idea that everyone is precisely identical. We aren't. Get over it. Second, the idea that geeks ought to be ostracized.

These twin ideas cause the problems I have seen. The pressure that everyone must be precisely identical has led to educators holding everyone back to not embarrass the "normals". And the pressure to conform is much stronger for girls than boys. Which is why girls who are not afraid to embrace their intellect find themselves ostracized (and hence hang with the guys).

Another problem these false ideas cause is that women who actually ARE capable of being good engineers, etc. are actively dissuaded from pursuing such things because "those things aren't for girls, honey."

Gretchen:

To play the devil's advocate - if women are intellectually inferior creatures, might we be less deserving of respect, etc.? In which case anti-women attitudes and behavior wouldn't be "bigotry", but in fact would be fair. Just thinking out loud.

That doesn't necessarily follow. I don't think respect is a function of intellectual capacity. Respect must be earned however. And if you've got a thousand women's studies majors yapping on about how unfair life is, then it's reasonable to discard their opinions.

We should not treat every opinion as equally valid. Nor should we say that a woman's opinions ought not be scrutinized the same as a man's.

Brian -

I'm all for society getting over its hangups, but in my opinion that will require us to gain enough objectivity to evaluate each individual on his/her own merits.

Obviously, everyone is not identical, and we are ill-served by the educational policies you describe (which I, alas, have also heard of). But I don't think the answer is to make generalizations that are only slightly smaller. Statements like "Women are, on balance, intellectually inferior to men" do not encourage the individual evaluation and training of individual girls based on their individual talents.

What we really need to do is try to eliminate the kind of lazy thinking that leads us to imagine that we know what to expect of any given individual based on their gender or racial heritage. Once we can do that, it won't matter whether there are more brilliant women than men, or fewer, or the same number. We'll be equipped to find them and help them reach their potential regardless.

Lily -

My blunt statement was put forth as my indicator of where the problem begins.

We need to accept that there are innate differences in people. Sometimes generalizations are useful. Sometimes not. Depends upon how they are used.

The reaction to the generalization about female versus male intellect (it's all about the distribution around the mean, btw) has been varied, and almost exclusively wrong.

Old-time educators reacted to it by telling women not to worry their pretty little heads about things, Completely failing to serve the outliers at the upper range of intellect.

Gender feminists reacted by saying it was all a lie put forth by the patriarchy to justify holding women back, and then convincing women who had no business going to college to take on massive debt to get utterly useless degrees.

I mean, look at the reaction that Larry Summers got at Harvard when he brought it up.

What I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that while generalizations are often useful, adhering to them too strictly can lead us to make bad decisions.

What I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that while generalizations are often useful, adhering to them too strictly can lead us to make bad decisions.

Regardless of my opinion of your premise ("bald statement") and some of your arguments, I have no quarrel at all with this conclusion.

As long as the individual is well-served, I couldn't care less where the bell-curve means are. But we're not to that point yet.

Discrimination (between individuals) on the basis of race or gender or [insert group category here] is a fallacy, and serves us badly. Failure to discriminate (between individuals) on the basis of talent or character is also a fallacy, and serves us equally badly.

Agreed?

"What I'm arguing for is an acknowledgment that while generalizations are often useful, adhering to them too strictly can lead us to make bad decisions." No argument.

Gretchen said "We aren't cats."

The original K-State author certainly is a Cat.

"Mof3: these dudes took wives b/c that's what you were supposed to do: get married and make babies. Meanwhile they felt out those "feeeelings" of theirs outside the marriage."

Or, maybe they were attracted to young boys like some guys are attracted to younger women than their wives now and cheat? Still no argument for gay marriage, is it?

T's Grammy, I'll have as many kids as I damn well can afford. They are all sane, healthy, and productive. Less successful mothers should not throw stones. In fact, I think the world would have been better had you pushed out none at all, and I took up your slack. I'd love to know how your daughter got so much one on one time when you worked. And how a mentally ill woman gives her son so much time. I have a college degree, and can work/earn if needed. It's not needed, so I stay home and raise startlingly intelligent children. Children who were accepted to the most exclusive private school in Austin, the kid who test and interview every kid to make sure they're worth the effort they'll get.

And statistically, no, your kid and gkid are much more likely to be felons. Single parent, mental illness, poverty. All contribute greatly. I don't care if you, as a single mother, don't like it. It's fact.

It's always possible that my husband might take a powder. That would argue for some shitty judgement on my part, wouldn't it, procreating with someone like that? Shitty judgement that I'd own up to. Wish more women would.

I'd prefer not to attack you personally, but since you insist on spouting your crap, I might as well.

> I was trying to convey that 1) women
> weren't considered to be thinkers
> back in the day in almost all major
> societies on the planet

The relevance is lost on me. But since you dressed it in a tailored tuxedo of parentheses –as if there was a whole bunch of elegant reasoning underneath– it seemed appropriate to consider the point carefully.

> you act like gayness is some
> big, huge, new thing

Do I? Really? Is that true? Gretchen, you've been coming here for years, and you've probably read ten thousand of my words. Can you point to any that describe "gayness [as] some big, huge, new thing"?

Or have you just been reading me say that gay marriage is a poor idea, and extrapolating backwards into your own unfounded presumptions? Do you do that every time someone challenges your first impulse, or just for this issue?

> you also act like societies just
> don't evolve. They do

They don't "just" evolve, they also devolve. Thirty years ago, Afghanistan was one of the most hopeful, promising of our third-world societies. (More links on this later tonight.) This drift toward gay marriage is a move toward fulfillment of adult, individual desires at the cost to the entire society, most especially defenseless children (see below). That to me is as bad as chasing little girls out of school, as the manly Taliban often does.

> I just think that we don't pick our
> orientation consciously

I don't care about orientation at all, whether we pick it or whether we don't. Again, I think you're hung up on the fucking part, which is not of interest here. The part I care about is this:

> and that two-parent families are good
> no matter if it's homo or hetero

I strongly disagree. Not even so much about the homo or hetero part; gays have been raising kids since the human dawn, and we want and need them to continue. But...

I think a child who doesn't have good love from both a mother and a father is suffering a tremendous, often irreparable loss, inexcusable when brought about by clumsy adults. I think each gender has particular things to offer and teach, otherwise each wouldn't be necessary for genesis. (Nature is lavish with suffering, but never reckless with causality.) This seems just jaw-droppingly obvious, as blinding as the midday sun, and I can't understand why people can't see it...

...But I have some suspicions. People are pissed. They're pissed because we've had several decades of reckless divorce causing poverty, abject fatherlessness, and embittering family circumstances. That pissiness seeps throughout the culture, whether any individual family was tarnished by it or not. And of course, weakness takes root in every generation, even those where culture's done its best to protect children as they grow.

So you get arguments like the one from Justin linked above. ("Gay marriage is a fundamental right! Um, no, wait... It's an experiment! Whatever, let's just do it anyway! Everything sucks and needs changing!")

> If it is generally assumed that members
> of a particular group are intellectually
> and creatively inferior...

Not at this computer. Personally I think there are other reasons besides inferiority that caused women to be excluded from the Big Arena for so long, not any innate lack of capacity.

> It doesn't please, ergo it must

What's with you guys and the word "ergo" this week? Do you really use it that often?

> if you had provided more of the
> context of that "unvarnished truth"
> quote

For shits sake, I've used that quote three times here, and linked the fucking book
on Amazon each time! Libraries have it too! Highly recommended, even if you disagree with Henry's feelings about elitism, as I strongly do.

But if you want just a smidge more context, here's what follows the passage from Henry above:

"I could expand on this assertion, but I doubt it is necessary. I have tried it out on several dozen male and female acquaintances who are learned and cultured, in most cases as a vocation, and they have all agreed with me, though each and every one asked not to be quoted. This does not mean women are inferior. It simply means they didn't have the opportunity. There should be no shame in this for modern women-- and certainly no reason to feel that the works of Shakespeare, Rubens and Beethoven should be less inspirational to young ladies than to young gentlemen. But this inescapable fact incenses many feminist scholars...."

(I agree with some of that, and thanks for asking.)

> WHY?? I am asking you why

> you think that is.

(Oh... You really did ask.)

Because women are somewhat more inclined to want children, and to desire the interpersonal experience of raising them... Especially when, as was the case until very recently, they'd risked their own lives to bear them. This time-suck of child-rearing, coupled with a natural impulse on the part of men to exclude them from public affairs (see middle eastern countries and elsewhere) kept them off track until civilization caught up with the truth: Half the brains and half the talent.

(Favorite passage from the Indiana Jones movies--

Adult Indy to his father: "You never cared about me when I was a kid!"

Indy's father: "As soon as you were old enough to be interesting, you moved away!"

Or as Bill Maher once put it in a interview I cut at work: "Adulthood is where the action is.")

> You can't drop quotes like that,

> with no context, and not get

> a bitchy reaction.

You can't smirk through parentheses like those without catching attention, either.

> I don't even like this tangent. It's
> pretty pointless in the GM debate.

I thought so too, but points shouldn't go unanswered.

> Maybe that means we abolish any and
> all legal recognition of marriage.
> Period. I'm not sure.

I'm surer than you are. If we don't want legal recognition of marriage, we need some other social pressures to encourage people to do well for their kids. People are lazy, they get distracted, and they often won't do their best until someone asks them to.

Afghanistan photos, before the wars and after.

My favorite. It's got girls in it! Sure, they look kinda geeky, kinda like my sister did when she was that age in those years. But do you suppose the young women who live there now are showing that much exposed leg without fearing for their lives?

Civilization can go backwards, especially when large numbers of people are certain they already know what needs to be known, and when that something just happens to give them a personal ego goosing.

Short of stripping our children naked and drop-kicking them into the forest, I can't imagine anything worse then telling them that as a normative family condition "you have no Mommy" and / or "you have no Daddy."

Another Afghanistan today pic. Even western media don't bother with pesky details of what her life is like...

"Children who were accepted to the most exclusive private school in Austin" Being smarter than the average red neck sister humper isn't something I'd brag about. Not saying your kids are anything but "startlingly intelligent" but if you look at the average IQ of that state being smarter than them is not an achievement. Most Texans I have actually met reinforce both my support for 2nd amendment and my need for a class three license, not all but most. Oddly enough one of the most well read and tolerant people I know is from Huston.

"I have a college degree" Which means jack shit, I have two doesn't mean I'm a good parent, nor that I'm intelligent. Means I can sit through a huge wad of boring shit and that I'm good enough to recite it back.

"People are lazy, they get distracted, and they often won't do their best until someone asks them to." Ok, no argument there, actaully I'd go one further and say the won't do their best until forced. That would be my main gripe with socialism and welfare. If you remove both the impetus and the need to do well most people won't. However even in Soviet Russia elitism bread the elite with the only reward being prestige, not money or power.

"I can't imagine anything worse then telling them that as a normative family condition " There a huge spread between normative and a hell worthy abomination. Also there is a big difference between normative and legal. Alcoholism (so long as you don't drive or attack anyone) is perfectly legal but it sure as shit isn't normative.

You can't argue the point without distorting the position of opponents: "hell-worthy abominations" or "big huge new things".

People are into this for the FUN of ridicule, and nothing else. Amy did it again on her lead post today.

"You can't argue the point without distorting the position of opponents: "hell-worthy abominations"" Rev. Phelps. who I'd say is very much a staunch anti-gay marriage advocate. It's not a distortion it's sim0ply how he says he feels about it.

My point exactly. You want to believe it's a cartoon, and you're the Casper the Hero against that dastardly Mr. Phelps.

I notice, broodmare, that you sidestep my last and final point. If you want to overgeneralize based on prision population, it's your little angels that will be the criminals. Since most prisioners are religious. Not my heathen offspring.

As far as digs at mental illness (did I touch a sore spot?), she's 26, never been arrested. So I guess winding up in a hospital with an illness she didn't know she had and taking care of said illness now equates with jail? Hmmm?

Or, hypocrite, does that only apply to demon possession. As you nutcakes so often ascribe to the particular disease she has.

Really, really, really, hope your children all turn out as Stepford as you demand they be. Of course, you decrease the odds of that with each new one you shove out.

Oh please, prove that the majority of people in prison are religious-and did not "convert" after incarceration.

What nutcake religious person actually believes in possession, in this day and age? Got any proof or just more of your ignorant spouting?

I didn't say your daughter had been in jail. Learn to read comprehensively. I said mental illness ups your odds of going. As does being raised by a single parent. Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

My kids will turn out fine. Probably mostly because they have a mom that has never and would never wish she'd aborted instead. And should they ever have kids, I'll not wish THEY had chosen abortion instead either. Something about having a mom who has written in black and white many times that she wishes she'd never had you has got to be bad on the psyche, don't you think?

Oh, and I wouldn't care at all if one or more of mine are gay. I wouldn't be advocating for their marriage, either. Something people who are so proGM just don't get. We don't hate gays and don't care who they fuck. We do care about marriage. Marriage is more than fucking. In fact, it's almost entirely more than fucking.

Vlad, I can't even bother to respond to your elitism on assuming most people here have low IQ's. I'd love to see your research on that. Research that doesn't include spanish speaking illegal immigrants who can't understand the testing, and do crappily in school.

If you can't back an assertion with peer-reviewed stats, say it's your opinion and not fact, please. I always try to. I just got off a little internet research for links on the myth of the gender wage gap for an article on PJM, actually. It's not hard.

"You want to believe it's a cartoon, and you're the Casper the Hero against that dastardly Mr. Phelps." Side stepping the issue aren't we.

"Got any proof or just more of your ignorant spouting? " I do.
http://tinyurl.com/da5pmn
Christian Pastor in MCKINNEY TX way back in the ancient days of 2006.

Actually the IQ rating was a hoax that got the Economist as well. So there you are right I don't have data. The reaction of Waco Texas to Bill Nye and the moon reflecting sun light would back me up anecdotal.

Whew! That was a close one!

But the gay rights advocates managed to deploy general umbrage and inflammatory statements to spin the conversation away from any hard scientific discussion of whether homosexuality is genetic - or if it's a disorder because of the well-documented patterns of compulsive promiscuity and self-destructive behavior.

Is homosexuality caused by abuse?

Well, what kind of abuse?

Sexual abuse? The rate of sexual abuse in the general male population is around 1 in 17 (5-6 percent). Among gays the reported rates are anywhere from 1 in 3 to 1 in 6.

Considering that the gay "community" is just 2-3 percent of the population, it includes a large number of the men who suffered sexual abuse as boys.

Emotional abuse or neglect? Large numbers of gay men report the classic triad pattern in early childhood - distant, absent, or belittling father and enmeshed, demanding, or dysfunctional mother. In a major study by the GMHC back in the 80s, over a third of gay men reported this complete pattern - and almost two thirds reported the "father-deficit" side of the pattern. (This study originally was used to gather sympathy, but then was thrown down the memory hole when the evidence of gay dysfunction was seen as too convincing.)

So: gays feel that "they've always been this way" because in a sense they have - boys differentiate from mom and identify with dad (or men in general) during two crucial developmental slots: early childhood (2-4 years old) and adolescence.

There is strong evidence that homosexuality develops in most cases as a response to "environmental factors" - missed developmental opportunities and/or traumatic emotional/sexual experiences - during those crucial slots.

The compulsive behavior, fetishization of extreme sexual stereotypes, and high rates of depression and substance abuse aren't reacions to the "hate" of "bigots" - they are evidence of dysfunction.

Which is why these patterns of dysfunction persist in swinging Amsterdam, Scandinavia, or other places where the gay rights agenda has already been adopted. As confirmed by copious data from the Dutch and Swedish Ministries of Health, and the Health Departments and AIDS Task Forces of New York, San Fran, and other cities with "thriving gay communities".

The numbers and patterns are similar for lesbians.

http://tiny.cc/hU9h7
Actually found one more that was based on SAT scores. I doubt very much that illegal immigrants take the SATs in large enough numbers to skew the values. Let me know if you find a retraction for this one. They have a link to the other retracted IQ rating at that site as well.

"The numbers and patterns are similar for lesbians." Would that be why the CDC rates lesbians as the lowest risk for VD transmission?

> Side stepping the issue aren't we.

Not at all. I firmly believe this is about GM supporters stroking their own egos, and not about thoughtful adjustment to marriage policies. You will never/never/never read one of these threads without finding comments (from people who have no opinion about other world or public affairs) using the word "bigot".

That's all they got. Like Gretchen in this instance and dozens over the years here and in every other venue where this gets discussed , it's all about pretending to be more sexually sophisticated than other people. They're in it for the condescension. They're in it for the fun.

One wacko kills her kid (which is unfortunately not that rare) and decides on a somewhat novel defense, and that means christians believe in possession and death by dismemberment? Come on, you can do better than that. I can link 30 articles about other horrific crimes by atheists. Doesn't mean all atheists are sadistic killers, does it?

I'll have to check out your link and get back to you. I found the discredited study, and one other that didn't seem discredited yet, that had texas smack in the middle and averaged at all of 2.5 points lower than the highest state. Can you tell someone's IQ is lower than yours by 2 pts? Doubt it.

Of course, the SAT is always getting pounded for being biased against minorities and women. I find it doubtful and more of an excuse, but it's still not the best indicator of IQ. Some students test poorly but have great grades. Are they dumb?

My brothers and I all kicked ass on teh SAT. And ACT. So we did our part to represent the motherstate.

"and decides on a somewhat novel defense" I meant the priest not the nut. Nice try at deflecting though.

"They're in it for the fun." Sure some are, there are plenty of us who are quite not sophisticated, fucking Amish in my case. I don't see how this changes the fact that you have not actually presented one possible fallout from gay marriage. Well with the exception of gays marrying.

As far as the disorder argument there might be some merit to it. However delusion is also a disorder, people who believe in the tooth fairy, monsters under the bed, or radio station steeling their thoughts are all crazy. Now call it god and suddenly they are perfectly normal.

"maybe they were attracted to young boys" Now you the one spouting the ignorance. When homosexuality was listed in the DSM is was listed under paraphelias but completely separate from pedophilia. Look both of these up since your deep meaning full research on the salary gap should make you an internet expert.

babyfactory,

you're ignorant as always. If you truly do the research you claim to (somehow I think you're spouting opinion instead), I recommend you do some on mental illness and enlighten yourself. Since your ignorance about the topic is showing.

About your kiddies, it's too early to know how they'll turn out. And since you can't read entire posts, mine's now managing her illness and doing fine.

T is a little renaissance man -- artistic, creative and athletic (all boy) but, like yours, it's too early to know.

Experience has taught me this. You don't have my experience at childrearing yet.

And just because I'd choose differently if I had my life to do over again, doesn't mean I love them any less. Just means I'm now experienced enough to know I made an immature decision to have a child before I was ready and so did my daughter. Um, possibly because I did? Hello?

What you can't handle is the truth. But, God forbid (he probably does, at least several fictional versions of him), a mother and a grandmother should have the balls to speak the truth. Such sacrilege! Wrap your little mind around it.

Your kids may turn out just fine; they may not. You won't know until you see how they turn out. You know since -- hard fact of life -- you don't have 100% control of that. All you can do is do your best by them and minimize damage where you can. Do what you think will be best for them and not fuck them up but THERE ARE NO FUCKING GUARANTEES!!!

Oh, and btw, since you missed it, my point about most prisioners being Christians wasn't to imply the reverse -- that most Christians will end up criminals. I'm not stupid enough to think so. My point was that that is exactly what you are doing. Or do you have polls/stats on all adults raised by single parents? Not just those in prision.

;) Funny thing about stats, they can often be manipulated to say what some asshole wants them to say.

TG -

You knew that you were defective, yet you reproduced.

You and your daughter both know that she's a head case. And yet she reproduced.

Why? You claim to be responsible, yet you've allowed your daughter to create a child that has a very high statistical likelihood of having serious mental health issues.

Yet the woman you belittle has mentioned no such details of her past, so it's a pretty good bet that mental illness won't affect her children.

You've managed to create two generations of people that are always, in some way, going to be a burden.

Please don't lecture us on responsible child rearing.

"Please don't lecture us on responsible child rearing." Then why would a divorced women be able to question someone else marriage. I mean holy shit you already failed at that proposition once.

That depends upon whether or not one learns from one's mistakes.

"maybe they were attracted to young boys" Now you the one spouting the ignorance. When homosexuality was listed in the DSM is was listed under paraphelias but completely separate from pedophilia. Look both of these up since your deep meaning full research on the salary gap should make you an internet expert.

Vlad, I was discussing ancient Greece, (which you would know if you could read) and yes almost all homosexual relationships then involved older man young boy. IE: being attracted to young boys. Learn to read.

Thanks Brian. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who reads her nonsense. It's like if you saw someone committing murder, and everyone else was walking right by, you'd start to doubt what you were seeing.

Ok, "I can see daughter and T should not have been born but love them anyway", heres some links for you to educate yourself about single parenting and it's statistically likely outcomes:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Or better yet, instead of me trying to educate you, do a little reading yourself instead of assuming single parenting is just A-OK. Most everyone on this board knows it's not.

There are no guarantees. A plane might fall out of the sky on me and mine tomorrow, who knows? But there is stacking the odds in your kids favor, and stacking them heavily against your offspring. One is smart, one is not. Guess which one I did?

Oh, and you can call me a litter-breeder or broodmare all you want. I am proud of my kids and the fact that I birthed them and am raising them. You are complementing me.

"Guess which one I did?" Got divorced? Your current marriage is far more an affront to hetero marriage the gay marriage can ever be. On man and one women till death do you part. One man and one women your all over like shit on Velcro. Till death do you part not so much. Hypocritical pick and choose, or am I missing something.

Also if you want to get hot shit on stats second marriages have a higher fail rate than first ones.
http://tinyurl.com/bde56h
So her trying to beat the odds is bad but when you do it it's good. Again the hypocrisy is staggering.

Sorry Vlad, fraud is valid grounds for ending a marriage. According to anyone, even the bible for those of us who believe. He actually committed the sort of fraud that gets you jailed, and that's where he is. I wasn't the only one he defrauded. I have no problem with till death do us part, but no contract is valid when based on fraudulent circumstances.

I do know second marriages have higher divorce rates. They've already proven to be quitters. As do marriages between people who cohabitat prior to marrying, and a whole host of other subsets, all of which combine to bring the aggregate rate up near 50%. Premarital counseling lowers it.

It's not hypocrisy. It's blatant she willfully brought someone into the world she had a good idea would be faulty. And her daughter did it knowing damn well it was almost a given, seeing how she turned out. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. I am, without any doubt in this world, a better mother than her. And my children are worth more to society than hers is. Doesn't mean they have no right to exist, they do. Does mean she needs to keep her fool mouth shut on the topic.

"I am, without any doubt in this world, a better mother than her." That would only be in your mind. No one has ever evaluated this statement. Experimenter bias would render all your observation meaningless.

"And my children are worth more to society than hers is." Unless they started taxing small children or one of them has a Nobel prize no they aren't. In fact they are providing you with tax breaks we don't get. So based on what do you feel that they have to this point contributed anything to society. Also you have no way of knowing what T may or may not do with his life.

"Sorry Vlad, fraud is valid grounds for ending a marriage." A marriage that you entered into willingly. So you are either guilty or stupid, you pick.

Vlad, no contract is valid when one party signs with a fake name. And yes, at 17 I was damn stupid. Not so stupid however that I had kids with him, which is one argument in my favor (gosh, birth control is easy to use!). I have no problem stating I was stupid, I did so in some detail on an Obama thread here, where someone used the fact that he went to Harvard to try to prove Obama's imtelligence. I responded that I was accepted to Harvard but was still stupid because I married this con man blah blah blah. Lrgally and morally invalid marriage, but yes I was stupid. Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea fucking culpa.

I've never wished my kids didn't exist, that I had aborted them. Ipso facto better mom, raising kids who won't be dependent on their compliancy in taking a daily pill to be a functional citizen.