Ive grown to crave foods I once hated. I've acquired tastes.

I've got an even BETTER idea. Separate "marriage" from a legal relationship, call it a "civil union".

Let Civil Unions be allowed to be formed between two or more consenting adults, by registering the Union with a civil authority. You can even put time limits on the union, specify rights to property when unions dissolve, etc.

And let "marriage" be a purely religious ceremony.

Want the "rights and privileges": register a union.

Want to be right with the God of your choice ? Get married.

Want both ? Do both. . .

It's not a "choice" - that is, it doesn't develop from a conscious decision - but it's not a hard-wired behavior, either. And it can be changed.

Repeating a lie does not make it so.

We mapped the human genome in the 90s - despite repeated attempts, no genes were found that correlate to homosexuality. And studies of identical twins reveal an abysmally LOW correlation for homosexuality.

Professional organization of both neurologists and geneticists resisted the pro-gay drumbeat - because they know that complex, emotion-linked behaviors like human sexuality are not hard-wired.

Slowly the truth is coming out.

I've known women who were gay and went heterosexual.
I've known women who were heterosexual and went gay.
Is it a choice? I don't think so, but sometimes it seems that way.

I've said before, what Keith Glass said above.

The church messed up, when they gave up ownership of marriage to the government.

In other countries, they are two separate institutions, and often couples follow one ceremony with another (civil / religious). But they can do either one, separately. The civil one gives them an entire set of rights and responsibilities (health care, inheritance, medical decisions, all that important earthly stuff). And the religious one gives them a holy blessing in the eyes of God, whatever that means in their belief system.

One is not "better" than the other. They're just two different, distinct things.

Mixing them up together is what's causing the big kerfuffle.

Sorry, my provincialism is showing. "When they gave up ownership of marriage to the government, in the US."

I also know women who changed from gay to straight to bi and back again. I know this, because I dated one, and we broke up when she decided she only wanted women.

Which was fine, but I was hoping for a bi phase and a threesome. . . . (evil grin)

I'm married. I'm a woman married to a man just to make that clear. I was not married in a religious ceremony.

Historically (looking at ancient Greece and Rome, here), marriage has been a civil institution. Why is it civil rather than religious is so that property can be passed on to legal issue, and a civil contract lets that happen.

The church got involved much later in the marriage business. In the US, a religious wedding also checks the box for the civil requirement. In other countries such as Germany and Mexico, the civil ceremony is the valid marriage and then one can get married in a church as well.

The state needs to be involved in marriage if only to clarify inheritance rights. Oh, and not facted checked, but my understanding is that the reason that marriage rather than civil unions were pursued by those interested in same sex unions is because it normalizes all the rights that come with marriage. People in civil unions have been denied hospital visitation of their partners, denied inheritance, denied pensions, denied tax benefits, etc.

"Which was fine, but I was hoping for a bi phase and a threesome. . . . "

Been there, done that, not as wonderful as you'd think.

It's not a "choice" - that is, it doesn't develop from a conscious decision - but it's not a hard-wired behavior, either. And it can be changed.

How?

Why only two consenting adults Amy?

As with others I think the civil and religious ceremonies need to be separated. We also need to clarify what marriage laws are intended to do. Many of the assumptions built into our laws are fatally flawed.

You're not attracted to women, Amy? That's surprising, you must be the only one. You're probably just reacting to this
story w/ over-zealous pushback.

I would suspect that you do have an attraction to women.
You said as much in a blog post a while ago ( have to find it later).

I remember reading an interview w/ Christopher Hitchens in the NY Times after his memoir was published, and he was asked about his homosexual experiences when he was young. You won't believe what he said next: he thought every women and man has some homosexual feelings or experiences. To which the Times correspondent reacted w/ a "that's ludicrous". But, really, what's more ludicrous: that there are people who are 110% straight or 110% gay?

And if I remember correctly, Hitchens almost didn't publish that part of his young life because he thought it would be too humiliating. For someone so outspoken as Hitchens to think that, tells us, maybe, how sadly toxic sexual identity politics are? The whole "there is no choice" argument doesn't help that much it seems.

Or maybe not. Hell if I know.

It's not a "choice" - that is, it doesn't develop from a conscious decision - but it's not a hard-wired behavior, either. And it can be changed.

OK then, what step do we need to follow to make you love the cock Ben?

And if it isnt a choice why do we observe homosexual pair bonding in nearly every organism that uses orgasmic triggered sexual reproduction

I've known women who were gay and went heterosexual.
I've known women who were heterosexual and went gay.
Is it a choice? I don't think so, but sometimes it seems that way.

Were they 100% staight/gay or were they bisexual?

The church messed up, when they gave up ownership of marriage to the government.

Thats because at one point they assumed the mantle of government

As others have pointed out those with civil unions have still been denied the 'rights' associated with marriage.

Separate but equal never works out for the group being kept separate.

Even if the US gov were to declare all marriage invalid under the law and redefine it as a religious sacrament outside the purview of the state, requiring everyone to have civil union contract to be legally wed under the law that wouldnt solve anything.

Those seeking to "defend"marriage dont give a shit about it, its just a stop gap measure to control immorality.

There are already churches across the nation on record as willing to and having preformed "god sanctioned" religious marriages for gay couples.

Personally I think we should give the religious exactly what they ask for and refuse to recognize any marriage that does not fit the one and only, and first, marriage in the bible, approved of and preformed by god.

That between one man, and his artificially grown identical twin brother clone who was given a sex change on the cellular level.

Nothing less should be acknowledged by the state.

I think from the studies I have read, human sexuality is extremely malable,

What I don't understand is why so many people think that the legal system of any country needs to tune their marriage laws to cater to those often temporary and fickle sexual preferences.

No one needs a ceremony, a ring, and a slip from the governments to validate their sexuality.

The purpose of marriage is one of a social framework to build durable financial, and social structures to raise children, and provide care and support to other family members.

It is not for adding a government imprimatur to your hedonistic sexual practices.

But since government wants to assume those traditional family support systems themselves, and tax you a butt load to pay some non related stranger to care for grandma and your kids, expanding the marriage franchise until it loses all meaning is in their best interest.

Luj is right.

I would just call it "immorality" (with quotes around it).

And you're right, luj. Why aren't the religious calling for the stoning of adulterers?

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at March 5, 2015 11:11 AM

Because they are not interpreting the Koran correctly?

"We mapped the human genome in the 90s - despite repeated attempts, no genes were found that correlate to homosexuality."

Ben David, that's not how genes work. it's a bit more complex than a one-to-one correlation. that's true for most inherited traits.

"The church got involved much later in the marriage business."

Indeed, Janet. Weddings were not celebrated inside churches for the first thousand years, and even then the practice didn't become common for another five hundred years. Married secular life was seen as spiritually inferior to monastic celibacy.

"Because they are not interpreting the Koran correctly?"

Because they are overlooking Deuteronomy - but only when it's convenient.

"We mapped the human genome in the 90s - despite repeated attempts, no genes were found that correlate to homosexuality."

Time for you to put up the discovery that specific genes correlate to heterosexuality.

That, AFTER you define "mapped". The function of a tremendous amount of DNA code has not yet been discovered.

This offering of yours would be expected of a creationist - one who has not noticed that the principle of "survival of the fittest" has endowed you with the tendency to form allegiances you will kill or be killed to maintain.

This isn't new. People are not gay because of the Internet or any recent fad.

-----

I personally wonder - loudly! - why it is that some Americans are so eager to point at other Americans and clamor for them to be deprived of something because they identify as "gay".

There is a benefit to publicly registering a partner for the purpose of survivorship and inheritance.

If you think otherwise - if you have not noticed the reason any notary public, ship's captain, minister, pastor, rabbi, imam and dogcatcher can set you up with a marriage license - then perhaps you have never attended a civics class in school, have no idea how courts work, and cannot wait to be reduced to membership in a propertyless society. You damned sure haven't been to a single session of probate court.

I have a problem when people dismiss the gender role and influence of a mother/father dynamic in homosexual unions with children while criticizing single mothers. That in my opinion is a legitimate criticism and one or two studies that are brought up by pro gay marriage advocates prove nothing.

My personal opinion is that I don't care. It's going to happen and society isn't going to crumble. Let homos get married but let's not forget that many of us pro-homo marriage are also for the abolition of marriage benefits. It's a bit being full of shit by us.

"But, really, what's more ludicrous: that there are people who are 110% straight or 110% gay? "

I'm 110% straight. And it's not for lack of opportunities. If I wanted a gay experience, I could have had some. The idea just doesn't turn me on the least little bit, no matter who the other guy is.

I've seen a few things that suggest, if you break up people into the six Kinsey groups numbered 0-5 where 0 is completely straight and 5 is completely gay, then the population breaks into:

* The largest cohort, about 50% of the population, are the 1's and 4's.
* The next largest, about 40%, are the 0's and 5's.
* The small remaining group is the 2's and 3's.

As for Ben Carson: WTF? Sometimes the guy will say something that makes eminent sense, and then he'll follow it up with something completely off the wall.

It's not a "choice" - that is, it doesn't develop from a conscious decision - but it's not a hard-wired behavior, either. And it can be changed.

We mapped the human genome in the 90s - despite repeated attempts, no genes were found that correlate to homosexuality. And studies of identical twins reveal an abysmally LOW correlation for homosexuality.

~ Posted by: Ben David at March 5, 2015 8:01 AM

From the standpoint of limited government, who cares?

Whatever the cause of someone being gay, the government has no more right to tell you that you can or cannot be gay than it has to force you to be gay.

Society, on the other hand, can accept or reject you based on the most superficial of reasons if it so chooses.

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

As for Ben Carson: WTF? Sometimes the guy will say something that makes eminent sense, and then he'll follow it up with something completely off the wall. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 5, 2015 12:18 PM

Like many committed religionists who spend the majority of their time among like-minded folks, Carson seems to have little practice in stating or defending his positions in front of an agnostic audience.

Overzealous populists, environmentalists, and socialists often have the same problem.

Keith Glass: I've got an even BETTER idea. Separate "marriage" from a legal relationship, call it a "civil union".

Yeah, the whole separate but equal thing sure worked under Plessey v. Ferguson.

Ben David, "Innate" does not necessarily mean genetic. You're conflating the two.

For instance, a theory that has predicted the number of homosexual males with uncanny accuracy is the "older brother theory," which simply states the more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to be gay.

The theory behind it is that a woman's female body regards the male fetus she's carrying as a foreign object, and her own body works to "feminize" the fetus. The more male children she has, the more adept her body becomes at this. Consequently, the more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to become homosexual. Hence homosexuality is innate without being genetic.

Kindly refrain from discussing issues you know nothing about. If you can't grasp the difference between innate and genetic, you have no business discussing either.

"Were they 100% staight/gay or were they bisexual?"

One had a bi-sexual phase - guys only then guy and girls then girls only.

The other was like flipping a switch. Girls only then guys only.

I've got an even BETTER idea. Separate "marriage" from a legal relationship, call it a "civil union". ~ Posted by: Keith Glass at March 5, 2015 7:53 AM

Nah.

Society actually has a vested interest in people forming long-term relationships. It has a vested interest in supporting those relationships.

The debate is whether society can accept and/or should support those long-term relationships if they're not a traditional one man - one woman thing.

People in long-term relationships generally (don't start posting specific counter-examples) have stronger ties to their communities, vested interests in seeing their communities improve, and a tendency to take the long view in decision-making.

"Marriage" involves society in the relationship. "Civil union" is a relationship between two people and the government only.

Introducing legalisms that Weaken the solemnity and social bond of marriage won't work to society's advantage.

For instance, a theory that has predicted the number of homosexual males with uncanny accuracy is the "older brother theory," which simply states the more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to be gay. ~ Posted by: Patrick at March 5, 2015 12:59 PM

Hadn't heard that one. Interesting.

Jason S: But, really, what's more ludicrous: that there are people who are 110% straight or 110% gay?

Okay, there's no such thing as 110% gay or straight. 100% is the maximum. I'm very annoyed by this whole ludicrous, "I give 110%," or "I expect 110% from all of you." It's not possible. Okay?

And Kinsey seems to believe that human sexuality is not defined in absolute terms. Most people fall somewhere along the middle. 60%/40%, 80%/20%. Obviously, only the individual can determine for himself where his attractions lie, and how much toward each gender.

But extremes do exist. People can be 100% gay or 100% straight. (No, Cousin Dave, you cannot be 110% straight. I accept -- with some disappointment, because I think you're a great guy -- that you're 100% straight, as straight as a guy can be.

I'm the opposite extreme myself. I've never had any attraction to women, and doubt I ever will. And no, I don't believe human sexuality is "malable" to borrow Isab's word for it, though it's actually "malleable." At least not in males. I could never act out sexually with a female. It's just not in me.

Hello, Conan: Wikipedia has a decent article on fraternal birth order and sexuality, if you care to check it out. Good starting point, like a good wikipedia entry should be.

Again, while this is just a theory that the mother's body works to feminize her male fetus, resulting in a greater chance of homosexual orientation, it has predicted the number of gays with surprising accuracy.

(And for the record, I have five older brothers, plus my mother miscarried another male child. And I also have five older sisters. I'm the youngest.)

Here's a YouTube video I watched, where I first heard about the "older brother effect." And I confirmed this with my Psychology professor.

It's less than five minutes long and it's pretty entertaining, if you care to watch.

I know a few bipolars that turn full blown homosexual when manic and then go back to straight when brought back into a normal mood. The brain is weird.

Conan,

You say society has a vested interest in long term relationships but does our society actually act that out? There are many pro-marriage benefits the government offers but there are many anti-marriage penalties at the same time. Not that long ago a single marriage was the norm (over 90% if I recall correctly). Growing up with your birth parents happens to lest than 50% of children today. Single parent and serial marriage is more common.

I'm ready to end most government recognition of marriage. They aren't helping and it would be nice if they stopped hurting.

Patrick,

I thought there was good evidence of maternal hormones causing homosexuality during gestation. That supposedly also explained tomboy/sissy trends as well as some other things I can't remember anymore. The mother's age increased the risks as well as a whole host of other things. But obviously it has been too long and I could be way off base.

Well, admittedly, I haven't looked into the older brother effect as deeply as I could have. My psych instructor, a clinical psychologist herself, confirmed what was said on the video, and that was enough for me.

"I'm ready to end most government recognition of marriage. They aren't helping and it would be nice if they stopped hurting."

Again: obviously, you haven't been to a single session of probate court.

You're begging for the abolishment of inheritance in the absence of specific legal papers.

That's stupid.

Ppen,

I agree with you that mixed gender parents offer something that same gender parents cannot. But two parents of any gender is far better than only one. Raising kids, especially at the beginning, is very time consuming. And in the case of adoption, a parent that wants you is better than a foster. And all of the above are trumped by good/bad parents. So to me the differences in gay/straight parenting are negligible.

And while I am pro traditional marriage I am with you on ending government marriage benefits and penalties.

"You're begging for the abolishment of inheritance in the absence of specific legal papers."

No Radwaste, I saying we need a different system.

Also, a marriage license is a specific legal paper. In that context is is little different from a trust in avoiding probate court. Although a trust is more flexible, allowing parent-child situations instead of just spousal ones.

Would you have a problem with a standardized government beneficiary form? Everyone gets to pick one person, $35, fill it out at the courthouse. No need to have sex with that person. Incidentally that is why Microsoft was considered gay friendly for so many years. Their insurance forms just had a single additional beneficiary instead of spouse. They didn't care who it was, aunt, child, or hobo on the street.

You say society has a vested interest in long term relationships but does our society actually act that out? ... Not that long ago a single marriage was the norm (over 90% if I recall correctly). Growing up with your birth parents happens to [less] than 50% of children today. Single parent and serial marriage is more common.

Ben,

The 50% divorce rate is no longer the norm.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/divorce-rate-declining-_n_6256956.html

• About 70 percent of marriages that began in the 1990s reached their 15th anniversary, up from roughly 65 percent of those that began in the 1970s and 1980s. And couples who wed in the 2000s are divorcing at even lower rates.
  
• The feminist movement of the 1970s played a considerable role in where the divorce rate is now, according to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer. As women entered the work force and gained reproductive rights, marriage began to evolve into its "modern-day form, based on love and shared passions, and often two incomes and shared housekeeping duties."
  
• The fact that people are marrying later in life, resulting in more mature marriages, has helped matters, too. The median age for marriage in the 1950s was 23 for men and 20 for women. In 2004, it rose to 27 for men and 26 for women.
  
• If numbers continue to go down, roughly two-thirds of marriages will never involve divorce, according to data from Wolfers.
  

There are still some issues. From the Huffington-linked article in the The New York Times:

“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”

The marriage trends aren’t entirely happy ones. They also happen to be a force behind rising economic and social inequality, because the decline in divorce is concentrated among people with college degrees. For the less educated, divorce rates are closer to those of the peak divorce years.

because the decline in divorce is concentrated among people with college degrees.

So what has the MARRIAGE rate done among adults with college degrees at this same time?

Because while 1 marriage out of 100 failing is down from 2 out of 100

It still doesnt tell us how many total marriages are being entered into

It's declining.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/09/26/351736134/marriage-rates-are-falling-and-for-some-faster-than-ohters

You didn't refute me Conan.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

I was wrong about 90%. In 1960 73% of children were in a traditional two person first marriage home. In 2013 that had dropped to 46%. You are right that the divorce rate has dropped. Instead you have the never married.

I will admit what I wrote was ambiguous. And thanks for the typo correction.

Also, that 2/3 statistic is a bit odd. From what I recall that number is fairly stable across both time and nation. The number of divorces goes up and down but two out of three of them are still initiated by the woman, assuming that is legally possible. I haven't looked into this for about a decade, but last I did I remember the number was constant going back over 100 years.

What you bring up Conan is the heart of my difference with Radwaste. Roughly 50% of the people in the US are married. Roughly 40% of children are born out of wedlock. Clearly the advantages of marriage are not apparent to a large percentage of US citizens. If you sort by income you find the poorer someone is the less likely they are to value marriage. And with current US laws I can't blame them.

In my view legal marriage in the US is not working and we need to change those laws. Gay marriage is an insignificant sideshow compared to what is already happening to straight marriage.

Heck, if current trend lines continue (and I doubt they will) marriage will be a gay only thing.

In study after study, biologists have found that homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait.

I believe that. I suppose there might be some people who are equally attracted to men and women but I think that most people are born with a fundamental orientation/attraction -- whether it's 70%, 90% or 100% -- toward either men or women. A guy who is fundamentally straight could choose to have sex with another guy but that choice doesn't alter his fundamental attraction to women.

One argument I've seen conservative (and typically religious) people make is, "OK, maybe gays and lesbians are born that way but it's still their choice to act on that." While that's perfectly true, I also think that's a mean-spirited view, feeling that people are supposed to deny themselves physical intimacy with those they're attracted to (and I'm talking about consenting adults here) just because some passages in a "holy book" say it's wrong.

Keith: And let "marriage" be a purely religious ceremony.

I agree with that view but I bet most religious conservatives would oppose this because then liberal churches/ministers would be free to "marry" same-sex couples and religious conservatives get all bent out of shape over the idea of same-sex couples being married.

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Carson on many issues; but, on this issue he is a complete idiot.

He clearly doesn't know what "gay" is. But, I think most folks don't either.

One argument I've seen conservative (and typically religious) people make is, "OK, maybe gays and lesbians are born that way but it's still their choice to act on that." While that's perfectly true, I also think that's a mean-spirited view, feeling that people are supposed to deny themselves physical intimacy with those they're attracted to (and I'm talking about consenting adults here) just because some passages in a "holy book" say it's wrong.

Posted by: JD at March 5, 2015 7:43 PM

Let's extend your logic to a sexual attraction to children and animals, and see how it goes over.

I dunno I find my pug pretty attractive.....

>> I've acquired tastes.

> Did you WORK to crave them or
> did your feelings just change
> over time?

What difference does it make? Fascination with this has always had a Gladys Kravitz vibe to it... As if we're supposed to trust that you know what people are feeling, why they're feeling it, and whether it's appropriate or not.

But there are people who are obsessed with inappropriate targets for their love, and neither you or I would care whether such feelings came to people naturally or "changed over time."

Men can readily understand this: We know we're not supposed to feel strong things for other men's wives, and it doesn't matter those feelings come naturally, are nourished or suppressed: They don't count.

People who wanna pretend the "WORK" is a big deal are busybodies... And there's no reason to presume the busybodies have special principles or insights... Not this guy Carson or anybody else.

Ben has just described an actual marriage license by calling it something else. Wow.

Now try to get 50 states to do that.

My partner and I were together for 20 years.

We celebrated our four year anniversary with a commitment ceremony - a wedding supported by our community of family and friends. It changed things, to picture storming out the door and confronting that we gave our vows in front of the 80+ people who agreed to support us in keeping them. Those people were our support, sounding boards, and trusted advisors throughout the years.

In May we were finally able to have a legal marriage, recognized in our home state.

In June she was diagnosed with cancer. The doctor thought she had at least a year, likely two. He asked, "what does your marriage get you?" and my partner answered, "Everything yours gets you."

In September we celebrated our 20th anniversary.

In October things went horribly wrong.

In January I lost my partner of 20 years.

Half of my life. I have been shredded. Half of me is a ghost.

The legal marriage freed me to focus on working with medical care providers without concern for my legal standing. It means I don't have to pay the state a 15% inheritance tax on our home, as if we were legal strangers. And so on.

But we threw all in for the better part of 20 years, without that safety net. Tenaciously. Every moment of that intimacy came to bear on my ability to give her the best care possible even as she slipped through my fingers.

The community support of our marriage allowed us to contribute to and be contributed to by our community. Our friends and family hold the space while I fall apart and sift through the pieces. Her memorial was on Valentine's day. We used to give each other the same gift every year. This was the first year I would not be getting that gift - if it were not for the neighbor who remembered and gave it to me at her memorial. These people are putting me back together again, lovingly.

What people do in prison to survive horrendous circumstances and meet basic human needs has no bearing on the complex considerations of intimacy and interdependence that can be a bedrock of modern marriage.

There some one goes again; comparing gays and lesbians - consenting adults - to child rapists!

Let's just end all debate by throwing all homosexuals off tall buildings!

Michelle,

That was a beautiful tribute to a loving marriage. I'm sorry for your loss.

But JD isn't extending his logic to children and animals. These are consenting adults.

And he made that point.

When people have to grasp for animals, well, it's a sign they lack an adequate argument.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at March 5, 2015 8:41 PM

The biggest flaw in the argument is always going to be the definition of consenting adult. The whole gay rights community has been riding this like a being a consenting adult should be a ticket to do what ever you want.

But as we have seen with the campus rape hysteria, the "consent" thing, and even the whole "adult" thing is on pretty shaky grounds.

What is it: 13 as in Japan, 16 as in some American states, or 18 as in others or perhaps 21 (which you need to be to be considered responsible enough to own a handgun)?

Now let's talk about degrees of impairment on your ability to consent. Alchohol? Yes, Drugs? Yes, any degree or retardation or most mental illness? Yes.

Incest, and being a person who has some sort of caretaker relationship also invalidates consent.

Then how do you determine if you have consent? Which we have been discussing at length, as it applies to college women?

I am just amazed that people think being a *consenting adult* is some sort of magic ticket that makes everything ok, when our entire legal system says otherwise.

It is a Byzantine nest of contradictory laws.

I personally think that gay marriage is fine. I just find it as meaningless as kindergarten graduations.

Thank you Astra.

And as far as your *legal* rights go to marriage, as I, and others have said on this board before, there is no way legally to separate a right to be married to a single person of your choice from a right to be married to more than one person of your choice.

Which is why an argument for civil unions replacing marriage is a pretty good one.

Serial polygamy is already legal in the country, and legal concurrent polygamy is coming.

And large Muslim communities in the US *will* be allowed to practice Sharia. There is already Supreme Court precedence for it.

The only thing at issue here is government benefits, which we are fast running out of money to pay for.

Those will either end or be inflated away, so no big gains in any rights there.

There some one goes again; comparing gays and lesbians - consenting adults - to child rapists!

Let's just end all debate by throwing all homosexuals off tall buildings!

~ Posted by: charles at March 6, 2015 5:22 AM

We could join ISIS and throw them off the Leaning Tower of Pizza.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.804664,-122.249621,3a,75y,130.09h,81.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sgP0RmyHqHuu7hkAst1KpOw!2e0

Always late to comment, but what Keith & others advocate isn't "separate but equal" for gay marriages. *Everybody* gets Civil Union-ed. (I'd even go further and have a "here is what you are committing to" plain-language contract to sign.) Religious people can do a separate, additional god-ceremony if they want.

It'll never happen, though. My gay friends place lots of importance on the symbolism of the "marriage" word. I understand, so I have gotten off of the "Unionist" bandwagon.

"Ben has just described an actual marriage license by calling it something else. Wow."

No Rad I haven't. There are far more restrictions on a marriage license than what I described.

Aside from the same sex issue, marriage licenses are reciprocal. Both parties marry each other. Ben can't marry Beth without Beth marrying Ben. Similarly there are restrictions for relationship and age. I also don't think you can marry an organization. But you can name one as a beneficiary.

Isab at March 6, 2015 7:03 AM ☑ ☑ ☑

Isab knows what Cosh knows:

Polygamy -- to understate the matter considerably -- has a much firmer track record than same-sex marriage. It is a genuinely tenable "alternative lifestyle" that extends real benefits to its practitioners. The most notable victims, actually, are probably the men ultimately denied wives by someone else's collector instinct, since males and females are born in roughly equal numbers. Feminist opponents of polygamy are, thus, probably serving the interests of those men more than anyone else's.

During the argument for gay marriage, we have been asked, incessantly, to simply "keep an open mind" and imagine the possibility that such an arrangement might be happy, permanent and beneficial. But open your mind that far, and you'll find that polygamists -- like it or not -- can make the same case, upon a good deal more data.

Earlier in the same piece:

If it were simply a question of snaggle-toothed proto-Mormons versus feminists concerned that polygamy is facilitated by (and perpetuates) an environment of psychically oppressive sexism, the [polygamist] Bountifullers would certainly be helpless against our laws and governments. But they will have on their side, if only implicitly, Canadian Muslims who regard polygamy as a sacralized cultural tradition. And by the time the matter comes to issue, if it ever does, they are likely to be able to cite the existence of legal same-sex marriage in their favour as well. The lesbigay cavalry, without doubt, will be pressed into the rescue effort whether it wishes to be or not.

Time and again I'm amazed by Amy's selection of rhetorical bedfellows.

Cosh link.

Also, Raddy, let's not worry too much about Ben's comments… Day-by-day, he's completely inconsistent!

It's like that time last week when he said it was OK to rape teenagers if they were mentally retarded. I forget his exact wording and don't have time to look it up, but am sure it's back there.

May have been last month.

May have been January, or sometime in '14.

🎶

   I don't care

   Who you are or
   Where you're from
   Or what you did as   
   Long as you love me… ♬

♫ 

Thank you for your story Michelle. I'm sorry for your loss.

Thank you Ppen.

and again I'm amazed by Amy's selection of rhetorical bedfellows.

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 6, 2015 9:54 AM

Yes, it is indeed curious how a supposed libertarian, who theoretically wants the government out of everyone's personal business seems willing to make an exception for the *marriage* business because *fairness*

> And if I remember correctly, Hitchens
> almost didn't publish that part of his
> young life because he thought it would
> be too humiliating. For someone so
> outspoken as Hitchens to think that,
> tells us, maybe, how sadly toxic sexual
> identity politics are?

That seems really, really unlikely. It's exactly the kind of matter he could be counted on to face with perfect resolve. And it's kind of personal detail that he'd enjoy sharing with people who'd think it was awkward... Whether they were twitchy hillbillies or pretentious sophisticates.

And he spoke about it far to many times to imagine there was any shame happening.

The memoir wasn't fantastic... Heck, it wasn't even great. (Ha-ha! I am a kidder!) But who knows what reasoning he used for including this-or-that anecdote. Humiliation was not a big part of that guy's life.

Also---

My little sister and I, who are consenting adults --even though only one of us actually exists-- "wish" to get married.

Okay with everyone? Because that's Amy's standard.

Also---

"Wish" is a word Americans use when they're about to be stoopit. We see this in software all the time.

And it's kind of personal detail that he'd enjoy sharing with people who'd think it was awkward..

That's what I thought. I'll have to find a copy of the book and re-read it to get the wording. It might've had something to do w/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255852/So-WERE-Tory-ministers-gay-flings-Christopher-Hitchens-Oxford.html "> this

Which brings us back to why Hitchens would throw into his memoirs the titbit that he had slept with two former ministers. Yes, it may have been to publicise the book.

But one old friend believes there is another explanation. 'It was more than likely a pre-emptive move. Christopher knew if he didn't mention it, someone else would.'

I'm very annoyed by this whole ludicrous, "I give 110%," or "I expect 110% from all of you." It's not possible. Okay?

Yeah, I see what you mean. But 125% works though, doesn't it? That's a joke (I think?)

And Kinsey seems to believe that human sexuality is not defined in absolute terms

I saw this Wash Post article after made the goofy prison comment and the experts were called in to ref

"Who you fall in love with is never a matter of choice," June Reinisch said when reached by phone. A former professor of psychology at Columbia and Rutgers, she ran the famous Kinsey Institute at Indiana at Indiana University for 11 years.

Who you fall in love w/ is never a choice. Alrighty then. That sounds about as goofy as what this Carson guy thinks.

I screwed up the blockquote. The last paragraph was my comment. Here's the link to the article

http://wapo.st/1F9xY8g

And it should say "after *Carson* made the goofy prison comment"...

Darn phone.