"Constitutional?" But for the first 220 years or so, nobody thought to mention it? Why constrict this to consenting adults? Does that leave family members and the insane into the party? C'mon, you constitutional scholars you, don't afraid to DARE!

And, please - tell me what the tribe gains by supporting you in marriage.

That's the key. Get this out of welfare arguments.

I'm seeing something of a pattern in the blog of late, Amy... :D

Complain about gay marriage; complain about muslims; complain about Obama - repeat.

I'm popping in here to see how many of the old arguments everyone rehashes over the course of the next 137 thread responses.

Didn't we do this one in some detail already?

Bottom line is that the government is in the "marriage game" because when a man nails his wife there is a good chance she'll sooner or later get knocked up. And if they stay together in a successful marriage, then they're shouldering the burden of raising the next generation of law abiding tax payers.

Yes there are couples who choose not to have children.
Yes there are men or women who cannot have children.
Yes there are men and women whom we all know should NOT have children.

But those numbers comprise a very small percentage, and are not statistically relevant because most couples can and do have children, and determining qualifications to do so, however tempting, is constitutionally difficult to propose.

However:

No matter how many times two gay domestic partners ass ram each other, or how well a pair of lesbians scisor each other, 0% of them will EVER create a new life. None, zero, zilch, ever.

True they can adopt.
True some of them do adopt.

However the bottom line is that it is not statistically relevant for legislative purposes.

The bottom line is that the government has NO interest in seeing gays get married, and neither does the rest of society, we don't benefit in the least, in fact if anything, we suffer some loss.

What, divorce courts aren't already packed enough with straight couples that we need to throw lesbians & gays in there too?

To say nothing of inheritances...you see where this is going. Society is being asked, no, demanded, that we shoulder a whole new administrative and legal burden for a segment of society whose entry into that requisite contract provides NO counterbalancing support to the society itself.

The truth is that every benefit save perhaps federal tax laws are already available. A living will & power of attorney take care of almost all that, and costs less than a wedding does.

Oh and by the way, those federal tax benefits for married couples exist solely to encourage men & women to get married and have kids, something as we've already covered, gays of neither stripe can actually ever do.

Life isn't fair, get over it.

A living will & power of attorney take care of almost all that, and costs less than a wedding does.

Well, colour me blue and smear me with a jam knife. And don't ask what that means; I haven't a clue.

But! This is an entirely new line of argument. Very exciting. I can't wait to see a response - as eager as I am to give one, I'm going to let someone else get into this. I did it. I got too involved. Things went ugly. Best I just observe.

But, come on, you pro-gay-marriage types! Here's a new challenge for you!

It's not a new argument, Donald, and it's true. You want the rights, be bothered to get them the way you already can, THEN maybe we'll talk. People too lazy to do so are just agitators and not truly concerned with inheritance, etc. People who demand the word marriage instead of civil unions are just agitators. Pretty much like the feminists that demand "equal" rights, but not equal responsibilities, like registering for the draft. Both groups self-important and self-indulgent asshats.

It's not a new argument, Donald, and it's true. You want the rights, be bothered to get them the way you already can, THEN maybe we'll talk. People too lazy to do so are just agitators and not truly concerned with inheritance, etc. People who demand the word marriage instead of civil unions are just agitators. Pretty much like the feminists that demand "equal" rights, but not equal responsibilities, like registering for the draft. Both groups self-important and self-indulgent asshats.

It's new so far as arguments I've seen on this site go. I'm not discussing it, however. I was just interested in a new "but you can already do other stuff that costs less" line of arguing. I'm a little less curious as to how people will counter it as to why Robert thought it was a good line of argument; but, either way, I'm sure this thread will be as much a doozy as the last one.

:)

There's a big gay marriage case in the news, a guy with Abdul in his name tried to Panty Bomb a plane, and a guy named Obama is president and is fucking us for generations and maybe tanking us with health care. But, I'll try to squeeze in some blog items on flower arranging.

Flower arranging? I'd appreciate it. :)

To be honest, I don't know what I'd rather we were discussing - there doesn't seem to be so much else in the news or in any kind of political forum that I'm aware of at the moment. Hang on... *checks BBC front page*... nope, genuinely nothing that massively interests me.

Sorry, Amy. I didn't mean to bitch. I'm just in a slightly funny mood at the moment. Happens quite a lot!

Ooh, actually, there is something that I'm curious about: what's the story on Sarah Palin? Last I heard she was long-balling for the 2016 presidentials. Do you think that's true? What do Americans think about her? Does she scare the shit out of you as much as she does the rest of the world?

Gay Marriage Proponents: You support this assertion: If 2 people, regardless of gender, love each other and want to marry they should be legally allowed to do so.

Do you support this: If 3 people, regardless of gender, really love each other and want to marry they should be legally allowed to do so.

If you want to open the door a little wider to let in gay marriage, shouldn't you open the door wider still so as to let in 3 person marriage? If not, are you being discriminatory against those who seek 3 person marriage?

For Constitutional scholars: If "Equal Protection" allows gay marriage, shouldn't it also allow 3 person marriage?

It's not a new argument, Donald, and it's true. You want the rights, be bothered to get them the way you already can, THEN maybe we'll talk. People too lazy to do so are just agitators and not truly concerned with inheritance, etc. People who demand the word marriage instead of civil unions are just agitators. Pretty much like the feminists that demand "equal" rights, but not equal responsibilities, like registering for the draft. Both groups self-important and self-indulgent asshats.

Posted by: momof4 at January 12, 2010 5:59 AM
=============================
Mom of 4 I really have been enjoying your completly truthful comments. Keep up the spot on posts.

Do you support this: If 3 people, regardless of gender, really love each other and want to marry they should be legally allowed to do so.

Sure. As long as they take care of the mess themselves if/when they break up, I've got no problem with it. Three way relationships are rarely stable, but then again neither are traditional marriages. If they want a ceremony to declare 50% of their undying love for each of their partners (add it up - they all get 100%!) then fine.

I'm with the judge who suggested the government could just get out of the marriage business, then people can enter whatever marriage contract suits them. If they just lived together as if they were married would that be ok with you? I'm guessing not.

Then again, I've read a lot of Robert Heinlein, and he was an unconventional but surprisingly persuasive man...

"Sure. As long as they take care of the mess themselves if/when they break up, I've got no problem with it."

But they don't. Ever. How would one work custody of the kids? The gov't has a vested interest in making sure kids grow up ok, so the gov't will never be out of the marriage business. Or the marriage-dissolving business, unfortunately.

Robert writes: "The bottom line is that the government has NO interest in seeing gays get married".

But it doesn't have any interest in seeing that they don't, either. Looking at solely from government's perspective, it's a wash. So a small-government advocate should favor gay marriage.

Having said that: The Law of Unintended Consequences is still in effect. A particular concern of mine is the raising of children by gay couples. We know from the data we have that single parenting is disadvantageous to children. Is being raised by a gay couple also disadvantageous? We don't know; the matter hasn't been studied very much. If it turns out to be so, should gay couples be permitted to adopt? If they are not permitted, does that violate their civil rights? If they are permitted, does that violate the civil rights of the children they raise?

Nick asks: "If you want to open the door a little wider to let in gay marriage, shouldn't you open the door wider still so as to let in 3 person marriage?"

It's a question worth asking, but I think it's a bad analogy. We know for a fact that there are detrimental effects to society from polygamous / polyandrous(?) marriages; it's been observed throughout history in many societies that have tried it. There does not appear to be anything detrimental to society in gay marriage per se. Now, if you're thinking about Lawrence v. Texas, it's quite possible that it opened that door (being tested in court now), but that didn't need to happen; the judges in that case screwed up. The Supreme Court will probably wind up fixing that botch by putting another botch on top of it and saying "Those judges didn't really mean what they said", and that will be that. Just because we allow certain things doesn't mean we have to allow absolutely everything. It is a lesson worth remembering, though. I've seen it pointed out that an overly broad Canadian law permits a person, at least on paper, to marry a corporation.

In short, I don't see any harm in gay marriage (with the caveat of a couple of concerns). I don't plan on using this right myself, but that's no excuse for me to not support it; otherwise we risk falling into the "first they came for the Jews" trap. I am concerned about the tendencies of certain gay activists, who see this as some kind of crusade to punish society and seem determined to ram it through in as repugnant a style as they can muster. That's not the way to get things done, as they keep finding out every time a referendum gets voted down.

I am hopeless on this issue because the gay parents I know also happen to be the best parents I know. It's hopeless!

But they don't. Ever. How would one work custody of the kids? The gov't has a vested interest in making sure kids grow up ok

Momof4, I would say that the government has a responsibility to protect the kids rather than a vested interest.

But I don't see what this has to do with marriage. Three people can live together and have kids without being married, and we still have to deal with that. How does allowing them to marry change that? Why can't parents' responsibility to their children be separated from a ceremony that isn't much more than a public declaration?

"Is being raised by a gay couple also disadvantageous?"

A gay couple that has a child has to use artificial insemination or adoption. There are no "oops" babies; they are all wanted. Just from that fact, I would say thay have a better chance of being good parents.

OK - shooting from the hip, top to bottom - and Donald, it's an old topic, but until resolved, will always be a lively one:

Thanks for keeping the debate lively, Cridster. You said: "Does that leave family members and the insane into the party?" Insane people lack the capacity to enter into a contract. The argument against family member marriage is a compelling state interest in preventing inbred children with likely genetic horrors.

Anticipating the trip to hyperbole-land, pets and barnyard animals also lack the capacity to consent legally. Polygamy? Another debate whether its should be "2 or MORE consenting adults." [hey, Nick - see you started that train! Good question; another debate for another day?]

Robert - so it's OK to discriminate against a group because there's no benefit in not discriminating?

Donald [and momof4] - We have tread [trod?] over the arguments that other legal documents are not equal [and separate but equal is inherenbtly unequal]. Flip side - why no just eliminate marriage and let straight couples shack up with wills, trusts, & advance care directives? Same thing, right? If we hetero couples are too lazy / poor to hire a lawyer and do the paperwork, why should Uncle Same give us 1-stop shopping with bundled legal rights? Lower my taxes insetad and get out of the marriage biz!

- Caffeined, feistily, but respectfully yours, Senor Teflon

Olson went on to argue that as long as marriage remains available only to opposite-sex couples, the state will be "relegating gay men and lesbians to badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their relationships as inferior."

Marriage is a contract that both parties agree to, just as a domestic partnership is a contract that both parties agree to...

"Inferiority" is in the eyes of the beholder, in my opinion, if you feel stigmatized because your contract reads 'domestic' vs. 'marriage', then there's more here than meets the eye?

All arguments in favor of gay marriage apply to polygamy as well--actually, probably even more so. Polygamy is natural, and helps sustain the species, while gay marriage does not.
Why do we outlaw polygamy? It seems like such a terrible state intrusion into private lives.

"If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?" the judge asked.

Olson answered that such a move would resolve the constitutional issues but likely wouldn't be politically feasible."

What horseshit. The whole point of the constitution was to limit the powers of government, regardless of what was politically feasible. Yes, get California - and all other states - out of the marriage business. The federal government, too. Let people make their own legal arrangements, regardless of whether they are gay or straight - I am sick and tired of this namby-pamby jackassery regarding what is "politically feasible." Do the right thing.

from the original art.:
"Regrettably, government has interceded"
Stop.
THIS IS WHERE TO FIX IT.
Not by expanding the role of govt. but diminishing it.

"[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." TJ

But those rights are only Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness... they aren't enumerated. Everything that ISN'T covered is something you already have.

I understand the argument about extending contractural understandings to gay unions. No problem. The easiest way to do that is to simply stop calling unions marriages, put them as straight civil contracts regardless, and get the govt. out of the private life.

Unless, of course, the argument is actually about legitimacy. Then, you are just barking up the wrong tree. No law is going to make everyone accept this as a lifestyle choice. Some will accept, some wont. I personally don't care. BUT. No law the govt has ever mandated has forced people to actually accept what they refuse to accept. That is not the nature of law. It can force people to not act in a certain negative way outwardly. But those descrimination laws are already on the books. Physical laws are out there, and they revolve around individuals anyway. They don't concern classes.

There are ways to fight these battles, but forcing 90% of the population to accept a different lifestyle isn't it.

What you do is make relationships contractural ONLY, get religions and traditions and all that baggage out of what govt. cares about... and gee whiz, the arguments against it fall away.
Every union is a civil union, and nobody cares beyond that what you wish to call it. Anybody who is religious gets to take back what they think makes marriage "Holy"... and everyone else gets to celebrate any way they see fit. Because The Government doesn't CARE about that.

SwissArmyD - great proposal! Strictly contractual. Keep the gubbamint out, end of political discussion, let the churches do as they wish, free exercise and all. Elegant solution!

Do I personally know any gay parents? Do I know gay people, yes. Do I know gay couples, yes.

Know any gay parents who made the kid with their gay partner? Betcha you don't.
Love your work Miss Alkon, I truly do, usually you're spot on like hammer to iron. But on this issue you are dead wrong. We do not have a "child test" for marriage because it isn't needed. The entire evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, sure its fun, but if it weren't we wouldn't do it. As sentient beings we may choose for the sake of pleasure to engage in nonprocreative sex, and lets face it human psychology is a good deal more complex than that of a wildabeast, so of course we have a small segment of the population that deliberately delights solely in nonprocreative sex with a member of the same sex. Not my thing by any measure, but I'm all for live and let live. The fact as it stands is that no two men will produce a child by any act of their own, and while a small number of heterosexual partners never will either, due to choice or inability, those eternally barren couples are not statistically relevant to the law of the land, because legislating in detail erodes the very principles of law. You as a libertarian, know all to well how pin point legislation can become a dictatorial tool. We have laws based upon a set of generic assumptions, and its worked pretty well for the last 30,000 years. 1 man + 1 man = 0 new children. 1 woman + 1 woman = 0 new children, 1 man + 1 woman = any number of children.

Adoption isn't the point, those adopted children weren't created by adam & steve or eve & evita either. The interest here is in seeing new generations brought up, the child test as you put it, was conducted about the time when two cave men realized they needed cave women to have sons & daughters. Our society's future does not rest on gays getting married, it DOES rest on men & women having and raising children.

-----------------------------

Actually it does have an interest in avoiding it, I'll leave out cultural arguments for now, and focus on the legal nicities. The fact is that marriage is first and foremost, a contract, point blank end of story, it unites two people legally & financially, its purpose, like it or not, is basically rooted in child rearing, deliberate avoidance of that today notwisthanding. Administering this contract to ensure new taxpayers are created, costs money and it costs time. Judges have to be paid, legal documents seen to, a whole stream of tax law exists regarding married couples, what benefits they get, what benefits they don't get. Criminal court offers specific legal protections against spousal liability, and specific inheritance laws cover the rights of spouses, which now and again come into dispute from other relatives or are disputed even by spouses themselves who feel short changed. I could go on, but the fact is that marital laws are massive & many, even outside the obvious and common concerns for the tax code, and supporting all of that are armies of lawyers & officials at all levels of the government. Opening up marriage to gays offers no benefit to the government, or to society as a whole, but DOES do lawyers alot of good who now get to file divorce, alimony, and an array of other papers to further clog our overburdened court systems. It might offer some small number of legal benefits to the gay community in the form of tax relief, but not much else that was not already available simply by having a single lawyer draw up a private contract for them.

So yes, there is a government & social interest in its continued prohibition.

-------------------------------------------

I seriously doubt there is any harm in two gays raising a child, stability & character are what count.

-------------------------------------------

And Mr. Teflon, the fact of the matter is that it just calling something discriminatory does not make it so. Its a nice little label, surprised actually that it wasn't brought out earlier.

But it doesn't hold water. Making a black woman get up out of her seat so a white woman could have it, THAT is discriminatory.

The legal contract of marriage exists only for ONE purpose, and no gay couple can ever fulfill that purpose no matter what they do. Its not discrimination, its reality. Why should we expend the BENEFITS of that contract, to people who will NEVER meet its implied outcome?

--------------------------------------------------

First off, the tradition of marrige bigoted religious people are defending is less then 50 yrs old. Not really much of a tradition.

As to what benifit would gay marrige bring? Right off the top of my head the governmnet would save hundereds of millions of dollars in law suits.

And as I have pointed out on dozens of occasions get all the legal benifts of marrige thru legal documanet takes dozens of hours, costs thousands of dollars, requires keeping a copy on you at all times, and is still routinly ignored.

As for polygamy, if it is between consenting adults who gives a fuck - quite frankly it is the oldest and most 'tradtional' form of marrige, both in a historical sense and in the religious.

If religous people really wanted to defend traditional marrige they'd push to reinstate polygamy, not use it as an argument agaisnt gay marriage

Robert -

Procreation is not the sole legal / societal purpose behind legally sancitoned marriage - and I say not that just because I am haf of a statiustically insignificant childless couple. A huge purpose is inheritance. You may argue that iof necessity implies children as heirs; but it also looks to who inherits property from those like myself. her family? My family?

One of the recent blog topics (something like "Why are you afraid of gay amrriage - really?) exhaustively delved into the discrimination argument. Giving one group a right and denying it another is, no matter how you clise it, discriminatory. Regardless of why the privilege / right was created in the first place - perhaps rendering your child-rearing argument irrelevant.

Telling a black women she cannot marry a white man but a white woman can, THAT is discriminatory. History provides many arguments of why that set-up benefitedd society; and as the Californiansd now debating the issue would say, "the majority voited for it." Gotta go!

"Why should we expend the BENEFITS of that contract, to people who will NEVER meet its implied outcome?"

You suggest that heterosexual married couples who never have children are statistically irrelevant, and therefore you don't have to answer the above question with regard to them. However, I disagree. Gay couples who want to marry must be even fewer in number than childfree couples, or those who wait until they are too old to have children before they marry. I think you need to be consistent here. Don't just dismiss this "failure to meet the implied outcome of a contract" with a breezy wave of your hand regarding childfree people while rigidly adhering to this principle for gays.

Just to shed some light on this for you, approximately 20% of women in the USA who are now forty years old or older have never had children. Soon that will increase to 25%. Aren't gays something like 10% of the population? The USA would look just like Europe demographically if it wasn't for immigrants from south of the border. Heterosexual couples getting married for the benefits and then not having children are getting to be a larger and larger minority.

"First off, the tradition of marrige bigoted religious people are defending is less then 50 yrs old. Not really much of a tradition"

Heh? Source...please?!?!? And just because they defend this for religious purposes (or otherwise) doesn't make them automatically bigots.

Pirate Jo, gays are roughly 6% of the pop. THose who want to marry (personally, themselves) or raise kids are a small percentage of that. We're talking maybe 2% of the US population that we're discussing redefining a societal institution for. Insane. Like arguing for abortion rights for that 1% of abortions that are rape victims.

"Three people can live together and have kids without being married, and we still have to deal with that."

Yes, they can. And only the 2 people biologically related to them (or on the legal adoption paperwork, if any polygamous family has ever been allowed to adopt, which I doubt) have rights to that kid. A 3rd person can not "adopt" in. Someone in that triad has no rights. Let them marry, and that 3rd person will have rights to that child that they neither fathered nor birthed. Sure, you could argue they helped raise it, but so did the real parents. Why should someone else have rights to it? Bring on the courtroom work!

The gov't does have a vested interest in kids being raised well, not just a responsibility. Kids raised poorly cost the gov't money. Kids raised well generate money in tax revenue when grown.

1/5 of middle aged women have never had kids? Where'd you find that stat? I find it hard to believe, but maybe true, and still irrelevant.

And what's with the "50 year history", Luj? My parents are in their mid-60's, and they, their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents, etc picked their own spouses, married, stayed married. Just like today, except for the likelihood of staying married. And some of them were married to native americans, so the whole interracial-marriage thing kind of washes there.

momof4, are you gay? If not, why are do you feel you are qualified to comment on this subject?

What qualifies you to have an opinion on it? How does it affect you one way or the other?

> Thanks for keeping the debate lively

There's no point. So long as our deeply beloved president is against it, why get all cranky?

Picking out a few quotes here:

Amy writes: "Actually, I've read these studies and the answer is no, it's not disadvantageous. What matters is that children are raised in intact families."

Interesting. I would have assumed that at least part of the detrimental effect of single parenthood stemmed from not having role models of both sexes in the household. Obviously this is contradicted by these studies, and it leaves one to wonder what the advantage of a two-parent household is. The two other possible factors that jump out are: (1) increased income of a couple vs. a single, and (2) sharing of child rearing and household labor between two parents. I think #1 has been contradicted by the studies that show detrimental effects to single-parent-raised children even after income is controlled for. That leaves #2, which is quite plausible, but I haven't seen any data on it. (I'm not sure how you would study such a thing -- maybe try looking for families where one parent is absent, say for business, most of the time.)

Steamer writes: "A gay couple that has a child has to use artificial insemination or adoption. There are no 'oops' babies; they are all wanted."

I thought of that too. But consider: in a lesbian relationship, it's quite possible for one to go out and get impregnated without telling her partner. What happens then? I'm not sure. I've never heard of a case of it happening. But it has to have happened, sometime, somewhere. Especially given that there's a certain number of people in the world who can swing either way.

Teflon writes: "Flip side - why no just eliminate marriage and let straight couples shack up with wills, trusts, & advance care directives? Same thing, right? If we hetero couples are too lazy / poor to hire a lawyer and do the paperwork, why should Uncle Same give us 1-stop shopping with bundled legal rights?"

Y'know, I'd be fine with that, *if* we can get rid of the third party to the marriage contract -- the state. Especially since that, under the current system, that third party has the unabridged right to unilaterally alter the terms of the contract. But as soon as you point that out, a lot of people with vested interest in that state power will start saying "oops, that's not what we meant", and that will be the end of that. In short, it'll never happen. Just trying to keep it real here.

Swiss writes: "Unless, of course, the argument is actually about legitimacy. Then, you are just barking up the wrong tree. No law is going to make everyone accept this as a lifestyle choice."

This is the third rail of the whole deal. Nobody wants to talk about it in public, but some of the leading gay advocates have admitted semi-privately that this isn't really about getting the right to marry for gays, it's about destroying marriage for straights. These were the same people who were whining on and on abuot the Mormans in the California referendum -- c'mon, how much influence does anything really think the Mormans have in SoCal? Get real. The The gay community absolutely, without reservation, must disown these people. The CA referendum died because blacks overwhelmingly voted against it. Instead of addressing the concerns of that group, the gay community is ignoring that fact like all get-out. They can blame it on straight white guys until they're blue in the face, but the fact still remains that if it had been up solely to whites, gay marriage would be legal in California today.

luj writes: "First off, the tradition of marrige bigoted religious people are defending is less then 50 yrs old. Not really much of a tradition."

and...

"And as I have pointed out on dozens of occasions get all the legal benifts of marrige thru legal documanet takes dozens of hours, costs thousands of dollars, requires keeping a copy on you at all times, and is still routinly ignored."

Not sure where you're going with the first comment. Marriage as an institution of course goes back centuries, and arranged marriage, at least among the low/middle classes in the U.S., has not been the standard since the early 1800s. As for the second comment, it's a bit of a false economy, because it may eliminate the family courts, but it doesn't eliminate the underlying disputes. It just makes them matters of contract law rather than family law. Same shit, different courtroom.

Here, momof4:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility.html

Look at supplemental Table 2. This shows, for the years 2006 and going back, the distribution of women aged 40-44 based on how many children they have. 20.4% of women in this age range had no children in 2006, and the numbers show how this has increased. (Those with four children number only 6.4%, but you would have had a lot more company in 1977, when it was 15.2%.)

In my post I was *only* addressing the idea that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they won't have kids and therefore shouldn't receive the legal benefits of marriage. To be consistent with this logic, you shouldn't allow ANYONE to receive the benefits of marriage without having kids. Why single out gays? Why should heteros be able to receive those benefits (from the government/society) and not do their part to pay it back by having kids, either? Robert feels these childfree couples are statistically insignificant, but they are not.

Personally, I take the tack of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. SwissArmyD is right on.

> I take the tack of getting the
> government out of the marriage
> business altogether.

Everybody says that, nobody means it. The bennies and social booty are a big reason people want to get married. If at dawn tomorrow government gave no respect to marital bonds, the nation would be in flames by 8am.

If tommorrow the government said they would no longer recognize marriage, or recognize gay marriage, my response would be "Hmmm. How 'bout that." In either case, it wouldn't effect my 21 years plus marriage.

Crid, it strikes me that you are the person always saying that the government really doesn't matter much in our day to day lives. (Don't rely on police, the TSA, etc etc.)

"Everybody says that, nobody means it."

Crid, I hope you don't mean ME. *I* mean it.

"The bennies and social booty are a big reason people want to get married."

No it isn't. They do it to support the bridal-industrial complex. And because their parents nag them.

"If at dawn tomorrow government gave no respect to marital bonds, the nation would be in flames by 8am."

And yet,

"For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families."

How would the government suddenly decide to give no respect to marital bonds? The end of the tax status for filing as a married couple? (That would actually benefit some people.) There shouldn't be any such thing as an income tax anyway - we have already gotten way too accustomed to that horrible idea. Let the Fairtax replace it.

Sometimes it depresses me, to see how far I am from living in the world I wish I lived in. I'm like those people with Avatar blues.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html?iref=allsearch

"The movie was so beautiful and it showed something we don't have here on Earth. I think people saw we could be living in a completely different world and that caused them to be depressed."

> How would the government suddenly decide
> to give no respect to marital bonds?

Right! See? You don't mean it.

No, I mean it. I want to see you list all the government programs/benefits that would be affected, that shouldn't exist in the first place. Which is why I mean it.

Besides, I didn't sign off on the "private contract" silliness.... That's just a goofy thing to say.

Whenever the topic comes up, the anti-gay marriage people assert two things that could be considered good-faith arguments (i.e., not simply because they find gays repugnant*)

1. The only valid reason we have civil marriage is because the state is interested in people making new taxpayers. Unions that cannot biologically produce new taxpayers on their own should not be given this right.

2. Children raised in gay households are disadvantaged by their upbringing. Therefore, we should not have a vehicle that facilitates gays having families.

However, I don't recall any of these people ever producing a shred of evidence to support either of these assertions. They're simply stated as fact that others are asked to accept as a given. Of course, that's not how debate works. Gay marriage opponents, support your assertions.

*Which is probably the real reason, but I'll take good faith as a given in this case.

> I want to see you list all the government
> programs/benefits that would be affected

I don't care that much... Thousands of times, we fill out forms that ask us to check one:

__Married
__Single
__Divorced

Marriage is ones of the one of the foundations of civilization. To complain that at some point in history it was between two people is ridiculous. If it was only about two people, they wouldn't have bothered. It was always about what it would mean to the larger community, whether that was twenty in a village or three hundred million in a superpower.

This is the lefty fantasy of a perpetual motion machine. You'll just decide that someone should receive a benefit, and the rest of the world will somehow compose that value out of thin air without objection. It's all about entitlements: Just ask Schwarzenegger.

> (i.e., not simply because they find
> gays repugnant*)

You can blow guys if you want to, mister. Munch that carpet, lady. Go to town. Do wutcha want.

We've covered this many times: Naive, provincial people pretend to be sexually sophisticated and erotically daring by supporting gay marriage. They figure that no matter what happens, other people will bear the costs.... Meanwhile they get the thrill of being condescending in that Junior High-kinda way.

> Gay marriage opponents, support
> your assertions.

Your tone is inappropriate. We're the status quo; you're the petitioner.

"Thousands of times, we fill out forms that ask us to check one:"

Right - I'm saying I'd like to respond with, "None of your business." Hence, I want the government out of the marriage business. Yes, human coupling has been a cornerstone of what it means to be human for a long time. The government's recent meddling doesn't accomplish a darned thing to change that, except to make us fill out more paperwork.

"You'll just decide that someone should receive a benefit, and the rest of the world will somehow compose that value out of thin air without objection."

Right! Please elaborate on these benefits, and why ANYONE should receive them from "society," regardless of the gender of their partner.

I find it hard to believe this is still an issue. I know that people say that we aren't discrimated against, but that just isn't true. I find it hilarous that people think that children raised in a "gay household" are at a disadvantage. I raise my niece. She has been livig with us for a little over 2 years. And since moving in, EVERYONE including her own piece of crap parents have seen a noticeable difference, from her grades being higher to her apperence (she doesn't slouch and doesn't look terrified all the time). She lives with both my partner and I, she's is in no way disadvantaged. I will never understand how a decision, such as letting my partner and I have the same rights can be such an issue. You can say that a power of attorney or living will should cover that. Yes, it does. BUT I don't see why I, a red blooded American, who pays my taxes, and cares for my community (not just my "gay" community) should have to do that when every other hetrosexual couple doesn't have to. I am amazed that I am looked at as a second class citizen. But I have become used to the bigotry.

> The government's recent meddling doesn't
> accomplish a darned thing

There's nothing new under the sun. The reason people in distant lands can meddle in your life today is that you want stuff from them. In olden days, the Village Big Man probably had a say in the sex positions you were permitted to enjoy... And since he divvied up the Sunday night fruit-harvestings, you probably decided to put up with it.

> Please elaborate on these benefits,
> and why ANYONE should receive them
> from "society,"

Are you ready to do away with family court? Are you ready to turn inheritance and taxation in a free-for-all?

It's just silly. Yeah, sure, go ahead, Amy & PJ & Paglia and all the rest of you... Tell us about how the government should get out of the marriage business. It's a popular fantasy, but a misty and inane one. It's not even overreach. It's like a schoolboy who dreams of being Superman: It goes nowhere. (Is there a society, so much as a webpage to collect [bogus] email addresses for this endeavor? Or is it only a posture for blog commenters and cocktail party poseurs?)

This gay marriage thing is the perfect example. Government will never get out of the marriage business because people like to fuck with each others lives...

"when every other hetrosexual couple doesn't have to." Sam K.

actually, they do. there is a special case of the contract with power of att. and living will and such.
The special case of that contract is called marriage.

If they made it NOT a special case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem lies in the longstanding tradition and religious aspects of marriage being for Het only. Instead of trying to unravel 4000+ years [See code of Hammurabi] of marriage understandings... Government stops calling their practice of contractural law, marriage.

For Whatever: Read This for your proof...
Then read all the annotations. You will begin to figure out that all society cares about is the goods tranfer between the people involved, AND lately, how can that be monetized, or not. Right now the transfer of goods between spouces if one dies or divroces isn't taxed the same if they weren't married. Implicitly this is because of the stability of the marriage, and the future taxpayers it provides. On the margin the VAST majority of people pay into this system.

If you make Civil contracts only, that doesn't change, although society loses it's ability to recover some monies in estate, and doesn't get paid back for that with a future taxpayer, except in rare cases.

That is only for Case#1 which I would subscribe to... when you ask for proof of something so basic, you are going to have to do some lifting Whatever... Because this underlies every understanding of family and kinship. Wolves mate for life, but they don't own anything, so there doesn't need to be a government to decide how this works. It is kinship and ownership of property on which all this is based.

To SwissArmyD:

I understand there are some that have to get those legal documents. But in 99% of the cases a marrige license will suffice. I don't understand the issue. For all I care, keep the word Marrige. Give me a Civil Union and the same rights and I will be fine. I just want to be at my partners bed side or vice versa if something were to happen. And WHEN we have children of our own I would want her to have them or vice versa if something were to happen. I want the givens. What all hetrosexual couples get that we want. We don't want the word. The word means nothing. We want the rights.

"In olden days, the Village Big Man probably had a say in the sex positions you were permitted to enjoy... And since he divvied up the Sunday night fruit-harvestings, you probably decided to put up with it."

The point I am trying to make is that the purpose of government is to prevent the Village Big Man from dictating these things. The fact that today's government IS the Village Big Man just means that things aren't working the way they are supposed to.

Point well made about the ownership of property - but Wal-Mart could print a rubber-stamp contract and you could buy it, sign it along with your designee, and file it at the courthouse. Not much different than a cheap do-it-yourself will, really.

Your tone is inappropriate. We're the status quo; you're the petitioner.

Because you oppose gay marriage you just get to assert as fact anything you want, with no other evidence to back it up. That's a pretty convenient way of arguing. Of course, to anyone reasonably fair-minded, it means you have no evidence for your claims.

Implicitly this is because of the stability of the marriage, and the future taxpayers it provides.

Implicitly? The law is about making things explicit. You should be able to point to something in civil marriage laws that makes it clear.

Facts:

* many gay people want to destroy straight marriage out of a feeling of vengeance

* many straight people are homophobes

* most people are in the middle and don't care

Live and let live...

"momof4, are you gay? If not, why are do you feel you are qualified to comment on this subject?

What qualifies you to have an opinion on it? How does it affect you one way or the other?"

No Jim. We've been through this before here. YOU don't have to be gay, or a parent, or a crack addict, or a welfare mom, or Obama in order to comment on any of the above, or anything else Amy brings up.

Are you gay? Do you intend to marry? Why do you care if others can marry, anyway?

"First off, the tradition of marrige bigoted religious people are defending is less then 50 yrs old. Not really much of a tradition" - me (lujlp)

Heh? Source...please?!?!? And just because they defend this for religious purposes (or otherwise) doesn't make them automatically bigots. - Feebie

Yes it does when had they been born to a difeerent religion, or no religion their objections would cease to exist.

And what's with the "50 year history", Luj? - momof4

Feebie, momof4 2010 - 1964 = 46yrs. Before the civil rights act of 1964 it was illegal for nonwhites to marry whites.

That some of your familly may have gotten away with breaking the law, momof4, simply means that the people in their communities were more open minded then you are

er, lujlp... wasn't that state based, and 64 over-rode that? All marriage law is currently state based, with the Fed only getting involved rarely... or could I be misremembering.

Crusader, whenyou state it like that, you better linkin to the facts.

Whatever, do you really need me to go into the idea of kinship and property? It's implicit because it's so basic.

"Why single out gays?"

Because, in this particular argument, they are a group who have never and will never be physically able to procreate. One doesn't have to test each one of them for fertility, it's a blanket statement that always applies.

"No it isn't. They do it to support the bridal-industrial complex. And because their parents nag them."

Well that's just bitter and silly. My parents didn't give a rat's patoot if I ever married. I did so and I paid for the $2k vegas wedding (well, DH and I did). Why? Because I loved him and he loved me, and we wanted kids.

Sam, HOW exactly are you and your partner going to have kids? Since it's physically impossible for it to be both of yours child, and you flat-out can't do it at all without a man involved (yes, even just his sperm is still male involvement). So why have kids, which requires a man, if you don't like men?? If you're planning to adopt a foster kid, then great. Go you. They need homes. Statistically though, you're planning to go the turkey baster route, which I find all sorts of absurd.

"Yes it does when had they been born to a difeerent religion, or no religion their objections would cease to exist."

Then explain the atheists that are against it. Few people here bring religion up as an argument against it. I agree the bible calls it a sin, but not nearly so often as other things are called sins. If I were to be against gay marriage because of the bible, I'd have to be damning all fat people too. I don't give a damn what people do in their bedrooms, I've probably done it too, I lived in dorms. I care when they want all of society to slap an official seal of approval on their current favored method of fucking, when it benefits society not at all.

And Luj I don't any religion ok with gays, marrying or not, so the first part of your sentence is silly.

To Momof4:

"So why have kids, which requires a man, if you don't like men?? "

That is also a great misconception. Though I am not sexually attracted to men doesn't mean I don't like men. Not all of us are bra burning, man hating lesbians. My partner and I have both discussed adoption. But we want to have our own children. I have a very close friend who has been with us through our coming out and us being together for the past 7 years (My partner and I are high school sweethearts). When we are ready he told us that he would like to be the donor. No turkey basters are coming near me. We are doing it with the assistance of medical professionals. Hopefully both of us are going to have 1 child, from the same donor. That way they will be related. And honestly we may still decide to adopt. I find nothing wrong with giving an unwanted child a safe, loving home. Though most adoption agencies won't allow a gay couple to adopt. It is ALWAYS an option...

Also... There are many single women that use speem donors to have children so I am not sure whyit would be absurd for a lesbian couple to do so.

Whatever, do you really need me to go into the idea of kinship and property? It's implicit because it's so basic.

No. I was intentionally being obtuse to make a point. These things - inheritance and the like - are not made explicit in our laws because there wasn't much in the way of intention with these things; they arose from custom, over time. One cannot point to a place where family was defined in some fixed and immutable fashion, with the best interests of society in mind.

These things have always been changing, as our society has changed. As has been noted many times, a couple of generations ago, miscegenation was illegal in many parts of the U.S. Three generations ago, and divorce was nearly impossible to get in most states absent adultery. In my generation (mid 30s), the number of hetero married couples I know who do not have children (my wife and I included) far outnumbers those I know who do. While our experience may be attributed to our social circle being urban professionals, it's still the case that for plenty of people of all ages, marriage is not about procreation and property.

I was just thinking earlier today that the government is going to destroy marriage if it keeps making it financially unaffordable. I have the impression that one of the "health care" bills has a nasty marriage penalty in it. Anyway, I can see the whole issue of this becoming moot because people who want to be married will be married religiously and everyone wanting state recognition will be a registered (or not) domestic partnership, i.e., a 2-step process - wedding and registration, or just one or just the other.

And as to same-sex couples raising kids, I don't approve of using children as guinea pigs and, with apologies to Sam who I am sure has the best of intentions, two women cannot effectively raise children. Mom is all about safety and security and Dad is all about dealing with the big bad outside world. Two men are lacking something of the safety of Mom, and two women are lacking the testosterone needed to keep young men in line. And if you doubt that, look at all the social pathology resulting from single-mom culture. I would bet on good chances for two men before two women, but the promiscuity that tends to prevail in male homosexual communities sets a horrible example for children.

I care when they want all of society to slap an official seal of approval on their current favored method of fucking, when it benefits society not at all.

Conveniently written by someone whose favored method of sexual congress does get a seal of approval.

However, there's an assumption in your statement (emphasized) that I think is quite inaccurate. Gay marriage, even if it does not result in more people, is very likely to bring benefits to society because of the general trend for married couples to be live more stable lives, be healthier, and earn more.

This comment,

"I care when they want all of society to slap an official seal of approval on their current favored method of fucking, when it benefits society not at all."

answers this question,

"Why do you care if others can marry, anyway?"

So you and your sweetheart loved each other and wanted kids, so what? If that's so great, you don't need society's seal of approval, those actions would benefit you based on their own merit.

And if you doubt that, look at all the social pathology resulting from single-mom culture.

Two women or two men raising a child != one woman raising a child. That one woman is poorer, has less time and less energy than two parents on average. The data are clear:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

so Whatever... you want to change the basic definition of marriage, that pre-existed writing, for 4000+ years...

Because w/in the last few generations not as many people are having kids? Seems bassackwards to me. Get married and decide not to have kids, is up to you. Not getting married and deciding to have kids, results in some difficult outcomes for the children.

I don't see what your argument means. I work in a very large engineering firm, and virtually everyone who is married has kids, or are planning them. I don't think the professional thing is a great measure. However, it can be seen in a lot of countries where their birthrate is falling like a rock, that things are going to get bad. As their population ages and shrinks. Who is going to pay for all the elders? Japan is a case study, but so is Europe. AND? In Europe they have all sorts of perks to have families. They are just chosing not to. It's a rational choice for an individual. Suicidal choice for a culture. How it's defined isn't going to change that much.

so Whatever... you want to change the basic definition of marriage, that pre-existed writing, for 4000+ years...

Two things:
1. I'm saying that there is no basic, static definition of marriage. It has changed over the years from polygamous, to arranged, to marriages based mostly upon mutual love, etc.

2. I'm also entirely OK with redefining things as society's needs and understanding changes. We used to define women and people from Africa as chattel. We eventually stopped defining them as such. Later, we even decided they could vote. We used define homosexuals as mentally ill or criminals. We no longer do that, either. There's nothing inherently wrong with definitions changing or expanding over time.

I don't see what your argument means.

My argument means that procreation should not considered central to the purpose of marriage. It's one aspect of it for some people.

Sam, not liking men meant sexually, not that you hate them. I could have been clearer. Still, it takes a man, and sex with a man (outside of a medical team taking his sperm and putting it in you), to make a child. There's a reason for this. I don't care how close you are to that donor, it's a not a father to your kids. Kids know it sucks to not have a dad-ask any of them-so you'd think adults could figure it out as well. They aren't science experiments, fashion statements, or cuddly little ego fulfillments. They're humans, and deserve to be started with the best.

I am against fertility treatments in general, and don't think sperm banks should be available to single moms at all. People who can't reproduce sans medical intervention probably shouldn't. There are unintended consequences to combining 2 sets of genes that would not do so naturally, but I digress.

Pirate, I would have gotten "married" and had kids anyway, whether society approved or not. But, society cares that people marry and have kids because most people-unlike you, Amy, and a few others here-recognize that society ending with you would suck ass. The last half of your life would be nothing but old people who could do nothing for you. No services, no firemen, nothing. So most of society likes encouraging stable childbearing and rearing families.

And Luj I don't any religion ok with gays, marrying or not, so the first part of your sentence is silly.

Posted by: momof4

Acctually momof4 many christian churches do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

as do many churhes of non christian faiths

And SwissarmyD are you seriously claiming that one man one woman marrige predates the written word by 4000 yrs?

What the hell are you smoking?

Momof4:

"Kids know it sucks to not have a dad-ask any of them-so you'd think adults could figure it out as well. They aren't science experiments, fashion statements, or cuddly little ego fulfillments. They're humans, and deserve to be started with the best. "

First off, I was raised by a single mother. She and my dead beat father were divorced when I was 8. And to tell you the truth my life is better because of it. I appricate your opinion. But I frankly don't care what you're against. I am sorry, there are so many rape victims and one night stands that produce children that aren't wanted and that are mistreated their whole life, it sickens me. My children will be, as you put it, started with the best. The will be planned, not unintended, and cherished. They will want for nothing. They will have 2 parents who love and adore them, adopted or not. You can have your beliefs. You can think what you want. But tell me something. You have children. Say you weren't able to. Say you had to have fetility treatments to concieve. I can almost bet your views would then change. You would think differently about that whole situation if it were you and not some hetro/homosexual couple that were wanting a child so badly they cried everynight. My body was made to produce children. To bring life onto this earth and raise those children to be good, respectful human beings. And that is what I will do. Yes it may take "men" to make it possible. But I can guarantee you that my children will know their father. When the time comes. I won't keep that from them. Thank you for the insight.

If people were truly in favor of two parent two sex homes "for the children" spermbanks would be illegal, birth control would be manatory and having your children repossesed by the state would be a condition of divorce.

Advocate that before denying people the right to marry

ah, lujlp... I see that my wording didn't make sense. I meant that the surviving codified laws are from Ur, and they are 4000 years or so [Code of Ur-Namm, Code of Hammurabi] 2100BC. Though I thought there were some transactions the were not law but mentioned wives inheriting something that were another 1000 years prior, but I haven't found that yet. Though there seems to be agreement that this was codified laws that already existed and were used previous.

"My argument means that procreation should not considered central to the purpose of marriage." Whatever

Um, why not? Not only has it been for all recorded civilization for the purpose of clanship, kinship, and property transference, but also most people still seem to see it so. Otherwise, why marry? If you die, your wife keeps everything. When she dies? Who gets the stuff? This is what family lines and so forth are about.

But, that is really what marriage has been. For the government pupose it is a special case of a contract, that most often had the trapping of whatever religion was common in the country. Greeks and Chinese also had marriage, it isn't a western thing. Greek men didn't marry each other, they married women and fathered children. They also probably had male lovers, but the marriage was between them and a woman for the purpose of making children to pass their wealth to.

If you don't want to have children then the only reason to marry is to get the benfit of passing wealth freely to a partner. Way cheaper to have a contract in anycase. I can tell you from experience that disolving a contract is 1000x easier than getting divorced. Can't see how that will change.

Not only has it been for all recorded civilization for the purpose of clanship, kinship, and property transference, but also most people still seem to see it so.

In this age of adoption, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogates, how is sexual orientation of the people in question related whatsoever to these things? All we're talking about is sorting out the legal details. And clearly, marriage tidies everything up.

If you don't want to have children then the only reason to marry is to get the benfit of passing wealth freely to a partner.

Heh. And here I married my wife because of her character, that she's lovely, that she's the person who I trust the most, and the one who I think would get a decision right if I had to cede judgment to someone else. The tax consequences were really way down on the list. Maybe when I'm a multimillionaire, they'd weigh more heavily, but I'm not there yet.

And because I'm a guy and she's a woman, we got all of these legal rights just for the cost of signing a piece of paper in from of someone the state grants that power to (i.e., pretty much anyone - see the Universal Life Church for how you, too can be a minister and marry people. I have!). But apparently, these are things that you would argue should be denied gay couples and granted us, simply because they'd have to adopt a kid, or use a surrogate, but that we could potentially have a biological child of our own if we tried. That's the only difference, according to what you've been arguing.

Thing is, Whatever, the rates for the things you are talking about are remarkably small. If only less than 10% of the population is gay to start with, what percentage want to marry? What percentage want to have kids if they marry? And here is the rub. For that small group of people, we should change everything.

Had a long chat with a friend and her partner after the whole Prop8 thing, and discovered that they didn't want to get married as such, they just wanted the option. They were a little unclear on what that option provided them. They have since parted company, no muss, no fuss and no divorce.

Your wife is all those things, regardless if you marry her, and she always will be. Marriage didn't change how she is, nor did you. So what WAS the purpose of it? Our beloved blog mistress has had the company of her beau for 8 years with no govt. license... she doesn't seem to need one.

I am not arguing that marriage should be denied gay people. It IS, and always has been. You are arguing for a change to what is established, and understood.

My argument is pretty simple. There is a substantial part of the population that will never accept gay marriage, that is why you got prop8, and tons of other laws. So how do you solve that? How do you solve what only ~5% of the pop even wants, when most of the rest are against it?

It's simple. You take the idea of marriage out of it. This removes the argument against. This removes the special situation of marriage in terms of what the government imposes a law for. It makes everyone eligible for a civil contract between 2 single people above a certain age, to share property, and pass that property to designated heirs.

You wanna call it a marriage, talk to somebody who cares. The government WONT and that is what matters.

I'm not arguing against union, I'm arguing that the understanding of marriage as an idea, isn't something that a very small group of people get to change by fiat, just because they think it's unfair.

So you argue FOR civil unions, and all being unions, and contracts between 2 people, thus making the definition of marriage largely irrelevant, because it's then an individual matter, and not bound up in law. Sounds like both groups get to win out of that instead of being zero sum.

Isn't that the desired outcome?

The first problem you're assuming Mr. Teflon, is that it is a universal right. Few rights are universal. Children cannot vote, felons cannot vote, just to give one example. That right, to a legally binding marital contract, is commensurate with the probability of procreation. You won't find a record contrary to that in the entirety of western history. Even in our gay friendly periods, such as Ancient Greece when it was believed that real love could only exist between two men, even in that society from ultra liberal Athens to ultra conservative Sparta, marital unions only took place between a man & a woman, because only from that could come heirs & future citizens.

Pirate Jo makes arguably the best counterpoint to mine: To be consistent with this logic, you shouldn't allow ANYONE to receive the benefits of marriage without having kids.

However I was waiting for someone to make exactly that statement. People are predictable, when you understand that they'll go to any lengths to support their case, even to the point of absurdity, because we all know that the human capacity for absurdity is limitless.

Now, the fact is that while it is true that some couples will never have children, there is no legal constitutional means to force them to do so. And moreover, there is simply no need, the governmentally applied benefits for marriage are what we call an incentive. And the legal supporting appratus exists for the purposes of enforcing that contract. Some couples MIGHT never have children, but at least 80% of them WILL have at least one, and a fair number will have MORE. A gay couple will NEVER PRODUCE ANY.

Now, lets ask the question, who are those benefits for? Ostensibly the benefits are there for the couple...but because the purpose of that contract is expressly rooted, both culturally and legally in the production of new citizens, and the protection of the property rights of heirs, the ultimate beneficiary here isn't the couple, hell, it can cost upwards of $100,000 to raise a child to 18, even before they go to college. The ultimate beneficiary here is the state, and yes, society as a whole. Gay sexual activity gives us nothing. NOTHING. It gives nothing new to society, it gives nothing to the state in the form of new citizenry, and so asking for marital benefits without even the POSSIBILITY of the same outcome as a hetero couple, is just FUBAR. Its the same damned entitlement complex we see all the time in whiners who want something for nothing, but trussed up as a legal civil rights issue.

Why should we alter the entire legal definition of marriage, overturn centuries of culture & tradition, blind ourselves to the obvious shortcomings of such an arrangement, shoulder an entirely new burden of legal administration at every level of government, rewrite case law, and change the very basis of a contract with a very obvious purpose...for the benefit of a small percentage of the population, which is itself a small percentage OF that tiny percentage? The largest credible estimates of "full time" homosexuals, come from government surveys, which range from what, 1-3% of the population? What percentage of that actually WANTS to marry? We should screw around with the system over that?

I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, and this asks for a great deal from society, however you look at it, and offers anything in return, to only a very tiny tiny percentage of the same.

Pirate Jo's assertion that the only logical application of those benefits should be for people after they have children, is a specious argument at best. He's saying that unless we shoulder a whole new administrative burden of basically "child checking" a couple, we shouldn't offer those benefits at all, or offer them to everyone. The truth is the system works just fine as it has been, offer the benefits, and 80% of the fertile population will take it, that is more than enough. We don't need minutia in the law, because the laws have worked just FINE on this subject.

Bottom line is that marriage has a purpose other than selling disney paraphanelia whenever their next princess movie comes out.

Its PROBABLE outcome: Children
The future requires: Children
Supporting that requires: Administration
Which requires: Law
Which is written to support the only form of union which can produce items 1 & 2: Hetero sex.

Gay relationships produce: I'd just leave this blank, and let the empty space speak for itself...but some I suspect, well that would fly right over their heads, so I'll make it simple: NOTHING

So why modify any of the above? They can't and won't meet the social burden under any circumstances, so a small number of heteros failing or refusing to do so, is not reason to expand the definition and change the system. The right in question is commensurate with implied probabilities, not simply a matter of "I want I want I want".

Want is not a reason to call something a right, and it is not a necessary right protected by the constitution. They have the right to life, liberty, and pusuit of happiness, they do not have the right to make me pay for it.

Something else, I've served with a number of gay soldiers over the years, I've known some gay men & women of stirling character, and have been proud to call them friends, I've known some in long term relationships, and I've known some who define long term relationship as a call back the next weekend, I've never met any who actually wanted to settle down & get married. And more than one of those has said that the ones they know that DO, at least part of their motivation is rubbing it in the noses of straights who don't want it. Its not just straight people who can be nasty spoiled entitled little brats.

> The point I am trying to make is
> that the purpose of government is
> to prevent the Village Big Man
> from dictating these things.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're asking others for juice. You want things from other people... In modern life, you want things from total strangers. You want things from people thousands of miles away who've never heard your name.

It's profoundly silly to say it's a private matter. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it. Marriage has voltage.

> Because you oppose gay marriage you
> just get to assert as fact anything
> you want

Because I support the status quo, the burden of proof is yours. Your self-righteousness may be so exaggerated that you can't take the point.

> Of course, to anyone reasonably
> fair-minded

Not an issue: After a few months of bickering, I've concluded that you can't tell humor from aggression or a mother's love from a father's, and these blindnesses may not be wholly unrelated.

1. I'm saying that there is no basic, static definition of marriage. It has changed over the years from polygamous, to arranged, to marriages based mostly upon mutual love, etc.
...
My argument means that procreation should not considered central to the purpose of marriage. It's one aspect of it for some people. -- whatever

Oddly the common element amoung all the times of marriage listed is that were/are for primarily the creation of children.

I love definational games. Ok, lets change "gay" back to being happy. I am unaware of any law in the US that says people who can otherwise marry cannot because they are happy. Therefore, clearly, we already have legal "gay marriage."

I asked this question to a homosexual friend years ago when he was ranting about gay marriage.
The question:

Who -- that person being willing -- can I as a straight man marry that you cannot marry as a gay man?

No one has been able to point out such a person. Near as I can tell the laws are sexual orientation neutral. If person A is not legally allowed to marry person B under the law, there are no cases where changing the sexual oreitnation of person A makes it allowed. That doesn't mean the desires of person A don't change.

Offtopic — Props to the Big G.

And people who want to complain about gay marriage in the States ought to consider how difficult marriage can be in other cultures as well.

Sorry, missed this earlier —

> you are the person always saying
> that the government really doesn't
> matter much in our day to day lives

I'm the one saying we shouldn't count on it to give us leadership and purpose and meaning and a pat on the head for being so lovable. I'm especially for not doing pretending to be independent as we count on it (meaning each other, or at least other people who create wealth) ever-more desperately.

Also, re: Google in China, follow the link here: http://tinyurl.com/yc2hv9u

I think this is big.

"And to tell you the truth my life is better because of it"

Really? Your life with a single parent is better than it would have been if your mother had chosen well, bred with a decent man, and raised you in a family? I won't go into the obvious point that you're daddyless, and now a lesbian.

You don't care about anyone's opinion, obviously, you're gonna have a kid damnit, because YOU WANT TO, and no other reason. Certainly not to give the kid the best. Not to raise a child that needs a home. Nope. Just to be pregnant and give birth. All about you.

"My body was made to produce children. "

Via sex with a man. Who you raise them with. Anything your body was made to do, you can do without medical assistant, by definition. When you and your partner manage that, let the science world know.

Were I infertile, I would have adopted. We're filing out paperwork now to become foster parents with the agency my SIL works for. We may end up adopting anyway.

My kids were planned too. Kids SHOULD be planned, and brought into a family that can afford and cherish them. Don't pat yourself on the back because you're fulfilling 2 of the basic requirements for having a kid. Life isn't graded on a curve, and good parenting isn't relative.

So you argue FOR civil unions, and all being unions, and contracts between 2 people, thus making the definition of marriage largely irrelevant, because it's then an individual matter, and not bound up in law.

This would be an outcome I would be happy to support. I think it's a harder sell than winning the gay marriage fight, because you'd have the anti-gay people arguing that marriage was somehow being devalued. But I guess they'd argue that either way.

Because I support the status quo, the burden of proof is yours. Your self-righteousness may be so exaggerated that you can't take the point.

I have supported my assertion that the children of gay couples are not deprived by the experience with results from relevant research. Repeatedly. Whereas you just seem to expect others to take as fact that these children are deprived of something essential. Just because you say so.

I've concluded that you can't tell... a mother's love from a father's

Another fact-free assertion from Crid. Nice work! How many times in these threads have I written that mothers and fathers are different? A dozen? Twenty? And yet you still come back to claims like this.

Oddly the common element amoung all the times of marriage listed is that were/are for primarily the creation of children.

As SwissArmyD has made clear, the bigger issue was kinship and transfer of property. Regardless, there's no reason to be hold to the way things were just because that's how things were done. Our conceptions of these things necessarily change over time; there's no need to adhere to tradition for its own sake. If that were the case, we'd never make any social progress.

> Another fact-free assertion

Nope, I've really concluded that. Ask anyone.

Nope, I've really concluded that. Ask anyone.

OK. You can go through life full of incorrect conclusions. Whatever works for you.

Momof4:

I find it insulting that you say I am daddyless. I have an amazing step father who I love more than anything. He has been there for me more than my biological father ever has been, though I still communicate with him. And I also find it funny that again you are going with another misconception that all lesbians are daddyless. My partner was raised with BOTH parents. And they WHOLE HEARTIDLY support us both. So you can take that misconception somewhere else. Yes I am going to have children because my partner and I want to have a family. But it isn't about ME. I wouild love to adopt if it were allowed, but as you know, 99% of adoption agencies don't allow gay/lesbian couples to adopt. So yes I do have to give birth to my own children. But if adoption were an option. AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED, we would love to adopt. But answer me this, why is it ok for me to raise an unwanted hertosexual's child, but not my own? Ya know we have to really want a child or want to start a family to pay the thousands of dollars to have that dream come true. And you critize us when there are thousands of unwanted children, that we can't adopt, in the world. That makes no sense. You might want to go on birth control rants, instead of telling me what kind of family my partener and I are allowed to have in your eyes. And no I don't really want nor do I need your opinion.

You find it insulting? Stick around. I'm sure to insult you more. And no where did I say all lesbians are daddyless, learn to read. I said you were. A stepdad isn't dad, and you grew up knowing your dad ditched you.

"why is it ok for me to raise an unwanted hertosexual's child, but not my own"

Because a less than ideal home is better than no home.

Don't want or need other's opinions? Don't broadcast your plans on a blog.

Hmmm, most places won't let gays adopt. Why, I wonder, could that be? Luj, I'm sure, will blame the church for running the whole country. It's a conspiracy, you know.

>>A stepdad isn't dad, and you grew up knowing your dad ditched you.

Momof4,
Sam K. explained earlier that her parents got divorced when she was eight. And that her stepdad has been amazing.

What on earth made you turn it into the cruel, playground taunt: "you grew up knowing your dad ditched you"?

I didn't say you did say that all lesbians are daddyless, I said it was a common misconception. LEARN TO READ. I wasn't posting my plans on a blog. This is a forum. The reason this country is because of closed minded people like you. If people continue donw this path all of the future generations are fucked so why even try. I know that I for sure don't want my children being around people like you. I am offended and insulted, but it just shows me that I can't expect everyone to be free thinking and intelligent like myself. Momof4. I hope you have a wonderful life. Though you are most likely some unemployed wife living on her computer and the only excitement you get is taking out your warped point of views on people who don't think like you. I am done with this site. Have a wonderful day.

Jody Tresidder:

>>A stepdad isn't dad, and you grew up knowing your dad ditched you.

Momof4,
Sam K. explained earlier that her parents got divorced when she was eight. And that her stepdad has been amazing.

What on earth made you turn it into the cruel, playground taunt: "you grew up knowing your dad ditched you"?

Thank you!

Without caring enough to read the whole thread, I have a natural and oft-rewarded suspicion of Tressider's fondness for happy-tale endings, stories of gumption and compassion and comeuppance. It often seems she'll pray for the darkest imaginable clouds, just because the occasional silver lining can be so shiny.

Metaphor City! Elevation 300', population: Me!

It's at least possible that rather than celebrate the boiling of the wolf in the pot under the chimney, M4 would prefer not have seen the integrity of the little pig homes tested at all .

(Or is that a simile? Silly-a-me not to know.)

It would be better if people married well the first time. If they did, we'd lose a few charming tales of redemption and delicate hearts beating anew. But the amount of warmth in the human project would nonetheless be much higher. It would be the better way to go.

('Course, I've scrapped with M4 plenty of times, too, so if you two wanna slap each other around for a few more days, that's cool. Just don't make us read the whole thread.)

You find it insulting? Stick around. I'm sure to insult you more

You are a sweetheart, m4. No doubt about it.

>>Without caring enough to read the whole thread, I have a natural and oft-rewarded suspicion of Tressider's fondness for happy-tale endings, stories of gumption and compassion and comeuppance...

Crid,
You are wasting your precious seed.

If anything, you're the (cynical) uber-sentimentalist in these parts.
I actually can't glimpse even a distorted glimpse of myself in this stuff about gumption & happy endings...

The rebuke of mine to M4 that's apparently gotcha flowin' is short, pretty much self explanatory thanks to the specific quotes I supplied, and there's no serial bitch slapping planned.

>>It would be better if people married well the first time.

Yes, though sententious, it's a platitude for the ages. Which - as we all know -you personally discovered too late.

But M4's ditched-by-your-dad jeer to Sam K. had nothing to do with promoting family warmth.

It was just a nasty gob of spit.

Yeah — People are mean! Damnedest thing.

It's not a playground taunt, or mean. It's a fact that has influenced her life and decisions, whether she's concious of it or not. She would do well to at least acknowledge that before reproducing. Maybe examine her motives a bit, who knows?

People don't need defending here, and if they do they probably shouldn't be commenting. So see ya Sam and thanks for being done here. Don't let the door hitcha on the way out.

And I am SAHM, which is what all kids deserve. (or, a SAHD).

Nor am I warped. The majority of the country thinks like me. People like you Sam (gays wanting to birth kids) are less than 1% of the US population. So maybe you need to rethink your views. You are no more intelligent (if as much) than the 99% who disagree with you.

>>It's not a playground taunt, or mean. It's a fact that has influenced her life and decisions, whether she's conscious of it or not. She would do well to at least acknowledge that before reproducing.

Amazing how the facts you know about people coincide perfectly with your most self-serving opinions, Momof4.

So see ya Sam and thanks for being done here. Don't let the door hitcha on the way out.

You are nasty, ignorant, bigoted woman. I feel sorry for your children. Have trouble breathing with your mouth closed?

Lefties love to call people "bigots"... Gives 'em the strength to lift their arms 'n dial up some NPR... They love being authorized to mock the children of others. These energies may be from their own childhoods, but they need to be released.

I'm not mocking anyone's children. That children grow up in a home of someone who delights in gratuitous ugliness is unfortunate. That this woman also calls herself a Christian is further evidence of the emptiness of that label.

>>They love being authorized to mock the children of others. These energies may be from their own childhoods, but they need to be released.

Crid,
Try reading before you comment generally on the energies of so-called lefties.

It was Momof4 who was creepily mocking the then eight-year-old commenter, Sam K., for being "ditched by her dad" when her parents divorced.

Try reading before you comment generally on the energies of so-called lefties.

Unpossible! Then he might feel obliged to respond to what people write instead of what he divines is in their souls.

>>Then he might feel obliged to respond to what people write instead of what he divines is in their souls.

Interesting comment, Whatever.

It actually struck me that by persisting in interpreting Sam K.'s adult choices ONLY though the sometimes lonely egotism of a child's POV, Momof4 was probably revealing something about her own loitering daddy issues.

(But that's just my dimestore theory - not a "fact". And Crid is not so complex.)

"Amazing how the facts you know about people coincide perfectly with your most self-serving opinions, Momof4."

You do it too. So does everyone, here and elsewhere. I did have daddy issues-he cheated on my mom constantly, and I had major jealousy and trust issues with men for a long time as a result. Anything else you'd like to know about my childhood or dad? The things we go through as kids influence and shape our adult selves, and the decisions we make. Fact.

>>I did have daddy issues-he cheated on my mom constantly, and I had major jealousy and trust issues with men for a long time as a result.

Momof4,
Right - so that's your experience and your reaction.

So why does it automatically apply to everyone with a somewhat shitty dad?

What made you totally disregard the influence of Sam's loving stepdad?

Why do siblings - even those close in age - react very differently to shared family experiences?

OK - spelling be damned, quick retorts to a quick scan after a day or two away:
Momof4 - no fertility treatments? guess the wife and I are forever relegated to statistical irrleveance - or adoption.
Swiss - "If you don't want to have children then the only reason to marry is to get the benfit of passing wealth freely to a partner."
I married my wife because I love her, wanted to commit to her and make that statement publicly, and we also wanted the societal and familial legtimacy that went with being marrried. Sorry, I'm old school. Those who oppose gay marriage want to deny all of that to gay couples.

ROBERT - at 2/13 1:10 AM: I disagree with your premise; your examples are based on valid distinctions of people who do not get rights. Kids can vote once they reach 18; they are not forever denied the right. Felons have waived the right. Gay are denied the right to marry solely because they are not like "us." What compelling governmental interest supports discrimninating against them? I won't recount all the arguments about procreation;; there is NO prereq for marriage in this country that a couple must commit to having kids and demonstrate the ability to produce, and no mandate that barren couples divorce. And tracking your logic, would it be OK to reinstate miscegenation laws if 'only a few blacks wanted to marry whites?" - you're arguing it's OK to discriminate aganst a group by denying them a right - oops, soory - a government-granted PRIVILEGE - if only a few in that group would use it. AAAUUGH! And your closing is so reminsicent of "heck, we have a black neighbor and he's a great guy; I don't mind him living here - but I sure don't want him belonging to my country club!"
Former Banker - "Who -- that person being willing -- can I as a straight man marry that you cannot marry as a gay man?" Really? Is that logic? how about this - You can marry your sweetheart, and your gay friend can't. C'mon ... As i mentioned long ago, comedian Louis CK has a great routine, questioniing people's fears of gay marriage - along the lines of 'if they legalize it, are you afraid you'll suddenly turn gay, or get cornholed while using the ATM?'

> creepily mocking the then eight-year-old
> commenter, Sam K., for being "ditched
> by her dad"

1. She's not eight years old in 2010, as all these words are composed.

2. Presumably the ("then") father –the guy who sane people would theretofore have charged with responsibility for the well-being and tender feelings of this ("then") little girl– did, in fact, cut out. (I haven't read the thread, and promised that I wouldn't. Let me know if I've got it wrong: I have my own issues with M4, but only two fists. Nonetheless...)

3. I'd bet ten bucks M4 didn't mock anyone that way (except, perhaps a grown man who forsook his responsibilities and a little girl's heart besides).

4. The "creepily mocked" part of this is where the action is.

Sometimes a person seems to be morally colorblind, and they're living in fear of getting caught. It's like they're standing on an Indiana hillside in middle October, and they're saying "Golly gee, these trees are a lovely and enchanting shade of green! This is truly emerald majesty!" And everyone else turns to look at them over a twisted neck, and maybe with a jaw hanging open, because the trees are flaming riot.

So our colorblind friend resolves never to go through THAT humilation again, doggone it... From now on, any mention of foliage hues is obscenity! Goddamit, the WHOLE WORLD has to pretend to be colorblind, or else! Only the person looking at the trees right now is allowed to comment on these seasonal patterns, and their perceptions must never be challenged...

...And no one but an adopted daughter can speak of the risk she faced in the interim.... Right?

I'd doubt M4 said anything –or cares much about– this new person's personal experiences, no more than any anonymous adult blog commenter cares about those of another. Most grownups don't make a hobby of collecting grievances, or nourishing edge cases. I've never met anyone, ever, who had anything bad to say about successful adoption, or about strong daddy-grafts to later husbands. (I've actually wept in the presence of two such families.)

Except to say that it's tragic they're so rare, as they happen infrequently yet are so often needed. Human nature can be pushed only so far: This understanding is the quintessence of conservatism. If you must push, push in the direction of asking people to do well, not of being mutely, weepingly touched when things DO happen to work out against the greater odds anyway.

...you grew up knowing your dad ditched you.

It's perky little snarls like these that reveal, time and again, what a vile old cuss you are, M4.

>>I haven't read the thread, and promised that I wouldn't. Let me know if I've got it wrong

Crid,
This habit you're developing of commenting without reading - twice in this thread alone - isn't great.

...Crid wept?

> This habit you're developing of
> commenting without reading

Saves time, though. You're not actually saying that I missed anything....

>>...Crid wept?

That's a good catch.

Since in the very same comment He Who Will Not Read first informs us, touchingly:
"I've actually wept in the presence of two such families."

Then He manfully chides his audience:

"If you must push, push in the direction of asking people to do well, not of being mutely, weepingly touched when things DO happen to work out against the greater odds anyway."

He Needs To At Least Read His OWN Comments, I think.

I'm terribly tricky!

>>You're not actually saying that I missed anything....

Not my job, Crid.
If you can't be bothered to read what people are bickering about before commenting, there's an awfully easy solution. You could sit on your hands?

Besides, I think you're conceding that for you, these issues are first and foremost an opportunity for pornographic feelings of poignance.

So we're all on the same page here... And the healing has begun!

>>Besides, I think you're conceding that for you, these issues are first and foremost an opportunity for pornographic feelings of poignance.

tl;dr