Allahpundit notes a Supreme Court brief signed by a lot of Republicans urging the Court to affirm a right to same sex marriage – from the New York Times article, we get this quote:
“We are trying to say to the court that we are judicial and political conservatives, and it is consistent with our values and philosophy for you to overturn Proposition 8,” said Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out as gay several years ago. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the California suit, and has spent months in quiet conversations with fellow Republicans to gather signatures for the brief.
There are two issues here for me:
1. Is there a right to marry?
2. Would legalizing same-sex marriage strengthen the institution of marriage?
If there is a right to marry, then the question is resolved: all conservatives are absolutely firm in defending the innate, God-given rights of all. But is there a right to marry? Remember, a human right is something endowed upon humans – individually – by God. That is the bedrock, conservative principal about human rights – they are not open to debate because the assignment of rights is not an act of human design, but an act of God’s will. It is in the act of observing humanity that we determine what is a right. All persons – at least in theory – can speak without any assistance of another. So, we have a right to speak. All persons can – also in theory – defend themselves. So, we have a right to self-defense. All persons can hold property. So, we have a right to own property. All persons can live. So, we have a right to life.
Given that marriage requires at least two persons, it cannot be a right. I don’t have a right to marry because to marry I must gain the voluntary consent of at least one other person. It is a privilege, and as a privilege it is right and proper that all the persons affected – which means all of society – have the proper power to regulate whom I may marry and under what circumstances. As it turns out, under American usage we have long determined that the only people who may marry are one man and one woman who are not closely related to one another. Those who are advancing the cause of gay marriage are not working to secure a right – because there is no right to secure – but to alter whom we shall allow to marry. They are adding to existing usage a new thing: that in addition to one man marrying one woman, we shall also have one man and one man, one woman and one women being given the privilege of getting married.
This disposes of the argument that the basic, conservative principal of securing the individual rights of the people is involved in the gay marriage debate. But what of gay marriage, itself? We have long extended the privilege of marriage to all men and women over the age of consent provided they are not closely related or otherwise encumbered by a previous marriage commitment, what of the prospect of allowing them to select among their mates people of the same sex? Conservatism is, at bottom, about preserving what is best and bringing it in to the future in as good a shape as possible. This does not preclude change – indeed, it requires constant change. As Chesterton pointed out, it isn’t true that conservatism is about leaving things alone – leave a white post alone and you will eventually have a black post. To keep a white post, you have to be regularly painting it. Conservatism, noting the value – indeed the absolutely crucial aspect – of marriage, seeks to maintain it and bring it refurbished and strong in to the future. Would gay marriage refurbish and strengthen marriage and help us to bring it with confidence in to the future?
There is no empirical data which would indicate that in those jurisdictions which have allowed gay marriage that there has been a subsequent increase in traditional marriage, nor a reduction in the rate of divorce. We have no evidence that gay marriage helps the institution of marriage, as a thing. And marriage is a good thing – indeed, it is a vital thing because it opens up the most important thing any human being can ever do: start a family which will raise up the next generation of children. Conservatives know that if people don’t marry, don’t stay married and don’t have children to be raised in a two-parent household, societal disaster will result. We know this for certain these days because our warnings against easy divorce and birth control were ignored (laughed off, actually), and the distressing decay of family and social cohesion we see all around us is the result. Our job, as conservatives, is to attempt to refurbish and reform marriage and thus present to the future this crucial institution in as strong a condition as we can. There is no data showing that gay marriage would help us in this effort – and there are reasons to believe that it might even harm the tattered remains of marriage and family we are currently dealing with.
If we are to allow gay marriage it will not be on the point of human rights but upon the Libertarian idea that even if it isn’t a right, per se, then it is at least something that adults can decide for themselves. This is a reasonable position to hold, but it is not conservative – and it is also, in my view, dangerous. The reason why Libertarianism has such limited appeal is because of the common sense of the people – it is all well and good to say that adults should be able to do whatever they please as long as it harms no others, but in practical terms the functioning of a society does require a great deal of restriction upon human action. This is especially true because even an act which does no apparent, immediate harm to others may yet have a larger, detrimental effect on society – especially if more and more people do it. A good case in point is in drug use: really, what concern is it of anyone’s if someone shoots up heroin? Immediately, none – but once you get millions of people shooting up heroin, then you start to get an increasingly bad effect on society as a whole. Whether or not you’ll decide to ban heroin or take different steps to combat the use of the drug is an empirical question. That you’ll have to do something to curb the acts of individuals who are theoretically harming no one else by shooting heroin – but are actually harming millions in the aggregate - is certain.
As marriage is not a human right and given that we have no data showing that gay marriage improves marriage, itself, then the only case for gay marriage is the concept that each adult should be able to do as he wishes. That is a Libertarian principal, not a conservative one. Once allow the principal that any adult may marry any other consenting adult and you do open up a can of worms best left closed – and even as each, individual choice of marriage does no immediate harm, the aggregate effect of everyone deciding on their own hook who they shall marry, and when, you will generate social chaos and perhaps lead to the final breakdown of the marriage that matters: the marriage that does what marriage is supposed to do – induce one man and one woman to issue a life-long commitment to each other so that the children of the next generation can be raised up in the best possible circumstances. Marriage is already sorely beset and ever more of our children are born out of wedlock – and the lack of rational, stable family life is fueling the social pathologies we see among our young. Is it seriously to be thought that it is a conservative principal that the boat of marriage shall be rocked ever more strenuously?
Allow gay marriage and as sure as night follows day there will be demands for an ever expanding definition of whom can marry. It will not stop with one man marrying one man. If you make an exception to the rule, the exception will shortly become the rule. The survival of our civilization requires that strong, stable families for the natural generation and upbringing of children be the goal – and the entry act in to this process is marriage, which thus must be hedged about with as many privileges and protections as society can reasonably afford. Gay marriage appears to me to detrimental to this proper, conservative goal. I can see no argument in favor of gay marriage which convinces me that gay couples will improve marriage; strengthen marriage; ensure that the institution of marriage better carries out its primary function in to the future – the creation of families for the creation and upbringing of the next generation. And, so, as a conservative I remain in opposition to gay marriage.
Mark,
I think your emphasis on the question of whether marriage is a natural right or not is missing the point of the debate. By my lights, the question is one of DISCRIMINATION. Our society has established that certain distinguishable groups cannot be discriminated against in common transactions. An obvious and often used analogy is the civil rights act. Certainly it’s not a “natural right” for a man to expect service at a greasy-spoon, yet our society has rightly concluded that to deny this service on the basis of race is odious and illegal. Laws prohibiting marriage between races were similarly struck down. As with race, sexual preference should not be a barrier to receiving the full benefits of our society and it’s institutions.
Rusty,
We discriminate all the time – because we have to. Without discrimination, civilization is impossible. You’ve bought in to a modern misuse of the word and claim that discrimination is wrong – but its not. It depends on why you are discriminating.
The purpose of not allowing a black man to marry a white woman was to discriminate based upon race. The purpose of not allowing a black man to dine at a certain public eatery was to discriminate based upon race. The intent of such laws was to be wicked towards others. It is unjust to prevent someone from doing what any other person can do simply on grounds of skin color, and thus we ban it. But why does the law only provide for marriage between unmarried, adult men and women who are not closely related to each other? Because this suits best the purpose of marriage – the production and rearing of children. There was, is and never will be any intent to do something wicked in a provision which prevents two men or two women from marrying – any more than there is something wicked in preventing a man from marrying two women, a woman from marrying two men; siblings from marrying, parents from marrying their children; adults from marrying minors; married person from marrying unmarried persons. We heavily discriminate between who can marry – and rightly so. Unless you want to state here and now that you believe that anyone should be able marry any combination, you are forced to surrender your claim that we must allow gay marriage because discrimination is wrong.
Furthermore, the reason we apply all sorts of tax benefits and other props for a man and a woman getting married is because of the purpose of marriage: doing the absolutely most important thing any human being can ever do: raise the next generation. It is not unfair to say to a same-sex couple that they cannot obtain the same benefits of a married couple because the same sex couple cannot of nature do what the married couple can do.
To me, the more I think on it the more weak the argument for gay marriage becomes…it really comes down to nothing more than a fad which fashionable people have bought in to. Certainly, there isn’t enough argument in favor of it for me to agree to a major revision of whom is allowed to marry.
Mark,
I certainly agree with your premise that we rightly discriminate all the time.
I think we’ll save a lot of time here by acknowledging our opinions on whether homosexuality is natural or not. I state that it is. If this is so, to discriminate against a natural human condition is wrong or, using your term, wicked. It seems evident on this blog (see neo’s posts above) that homosexuality is not only wrong but evil as well. In context of this discussion, it would seem to me that our opinions on this question, leaving aside rights and discrimination, are the true heart of the matter.
Mark said:
“Furthermore, the reason we apply all sorts of tax benefits and other props for a man and a woman getting married is because of the purpose of marriage: doing the absolutely most important thing any human being can ever do: raise the next generation. It is not unfair to say to a same-sex couple that they cannot obtain the same benefits of a married couple because the same sex couple cannot of nature do what the married couple can do.”
…I’m a bit surprised you raise this easily refuted gambit. Same-sex couples are obviously and increasingly raising the next generation through a variety of means; perhaps the most heartwarming being adoption. Giving otherwise unwanted children the love and stability of a nurturing household. What could be better than that?
Rusty,
Of nature, no gay couple will ever produce children. Period. End of story. Only by means of adoption or artificial insemination – unless a gay person brings in the result of a previous, heterosexual relationship – will there be children…and almost no gay couples will ever extend themselves to the practice of adoption or insemination. There will never be a place in the natural course of events for gay families to produce and raise up the next generation – not even a tenth of a percent of our next generation will ever come from such a thing, and so the basic fact is that gay couples DO NOT PERFORM the primary function of family; cannot in almost all case, will not in almost all other cases. It is a red herring to bring in raising children as a reason in favor of gay marriage. Marriage – not being a right – is then a privilege and the exercise of it is based entirely upon its utility in the essential purpose – there is in this no reason for gay marriage.
Not a right; there is no reason for it. It won’t do any good for society and by allowing it we may – be the extension of the concept – do grave and perhaps even irreparable harm. Gay marriage must not be allowed to happen. And this is outside of the morality of homosexuality. Neocon has brought up the fact that in most Western religious practice, homosexuality is condemned. The homosexual act is clearly disordered as it is a sexual act not ordered towards the purpose of sex. Such acts do not have genuine affective and sexual complementarity. This, though, is not what I’m discussing today.
Mark,
You wrote:
“Of nature, no gay couple will ever produce children. Period. End of story. Only by means of adoption or artificial insemination – unless a gay person brings in the result of a previous, heterosexual relationship – will there be children”
…so what? Should we disqualify infertile couples from the institution of marriage? How about elderly couples and those who have no intention of having children?
Mark:
“and almost no gay couples will ever extend themselves to the practice of adoption or insemination.”
…wrong, and getting more wrong by the day:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/figures-reveal-massive-increase-in-gay-couples-adopting-51190/
Gays are adopting at accelerating rates, and there are no indications of a trend reversal. They are an increasing force in “raising the next generation”, even though they are relegated, by hard statistics, a minority. If you can’t see this, you’re simply blind to the current tide.
Mark:
“The homosexual act is clearly disordered as it is a sexual act not ordered towards the purpose of sex.”
…tell that to the wide variety of animals that routinely engage in homosexual behavior. They do so freely, without censure, and to my knowledge with no ill-effect to their species.
Rusty,
I see that you are swiftly going of subject – and I believe this is because you have no argument to make on the subject at hand, which is not whether gay sex is licit or whether or not gay people can adopt (I highly doubt you’re linked story, too – its thin on data; well, “thin” doesn’t really cover it..there is no data provided at all which backs up the claim, but no matter – it isn’t what we’re talking about). My contention is that reason shows that the act of getting married is not an individual, human right and that extending the privilege of marriage to same sex couples is not in keeping with the actual purpose of marriage. If you want to have anything worthwhile to say on the subject, prove me wrong on those contentions.
Mark, your argument that marriage is only for the purpose of reproduction, and thus we can only allow those who can reproduce to marry is highly flawed.
If you truly believe that, then start advocating that those who do not produce children within x years of marrying and those too old to have children should have their marriages dissolved. Otherwise you’re simply applying your logic to one small group that you don’t want to see getting married. Of course you won’t do that because the real reason you’re against it is for religious reasons.
Its also not a fad thats attracting supporters, its the simple fact that people don’t see how it hurts anyone and thus couldn’t care less if 2 gay people get married.
I see another reason for allowing gay marriage. Acceptance. Its highly important that we start accepting gay people, and rejecting those who think they’re abnormal. The same way we shun racists nowadays. So long as we prevent them from marrying, they will continue to be different to the rest of us.
Pel,
Oh, we must accept them. Says who? We must not view them as abnormal? Why not? Though you have in your position come across – intentionally or not – the actual reason gay marriage was first advocated: part of the broader campaign to enforce the notion that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. Trouble is, you are trying to dictate to me – to push me around and insist that I call something right when I believe it is wrong. Not exactly the way one is supposed to treat his legal and moral equal, now is it?
As an aside, a more correct stating of my opinion is that the most crucial thing people do is raise children – and all facts show that the best possible means of doing this is in a stable, two-parent family of one man and one woman. Almost all men and women – getting married – will do precisely that. Almost no gay men or women – getting married – will do it; and none of them will do it of nature.
Recently there was a story of a stunning advance of women’s rights – a transgendered man was allowed to play on the women’s college basketball team. There are a bunch of levels of absurdity in this – but I’ll concentrate on the absurdity of thinking that a man who is surgically altered to look like a woman can advance women’s rights…all he’s really done is take away a woman’s opportunity. If allowed to go forward, then eventually all “women’s” basketball teams will be made up of men surgically altered to look like women. This is essentially what gay marriage is – making a mockery and calling it the real thing.
Yes we must in my opinion, in exactly the same way we dealt with racism (and continue to). We tend to shun those who hold such views, and the same should be done to homosexuality. Its natural (there have been many studies showing a lot of animals do it), it doesn’t hurt anyone, and most importantly it makes those who engage in it happy.
Also you haven’t addressed my first issue. If the purpose of marriage is merely to have children, why not dissolve all childless marriages?
Pel,
Well, thanks for at least sort of admitting that you are in favor of tyranny. Good to know.
As for why we don’t dissolve childless marriages – because of nature that some times happens. As for your claim that homosexuality is natural – there is no scientific evidence that human beings are born gay. Testimony from gay people that the have “always” felt gay is useless because no one can actually say how they “always” felt. Examples of animals doing it are inconclusive – not least because you cannot determine why such an event happened, even if it did; we do know that animals in a mating season do become rather frenzied, and that goes a gigantic way towards explaining the bizarre, absolutely-an-exception-to-the-rule event such as a homosexual mating act in the wild. As such, all evidence derived from animal actions are irrelevant to the debate – especially as human beings are not animals (no matter how much liberals wish to treat us as such).
Mark,
It’s curious that you accuse me of going off subject when I’ve been responding directly to your posts, even quoting you before commenting. Weird. Maybe you’re referring to my suggestion that the conversation be distilled to how we all feel about gay people – which I still maintain is the honest meat of the topic.
Nevertheless, to respond yet again to your immediate concerns, you needn’t doubt the growing trends in gay adoption. Here is another link from the NY Times based on census data that supports my assertion. If your uncertainty persists, I’m sure you’re capable of your own research and can provide links with your rebuttal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14adoption.html?pagewanted=all
As to your claim:
“My contention is that reason shows that the act of getting married is not an individual, human right”
…I’m not getting your obsession with rights only applied to the individual. I had hoped my analogy of interracial marriage would have pointed you to “rights” (ie: lack of discrimination) which can pertain to COUPLES as well as individuals, which would seem germane to this topic of marriage rights.
As far as the “purpose of marriage” goes, well, that has been a changing definition for some time. But I think that if a loving, stable environment for children to grow up an prosper in is one of the principle “purposes” of marriage, there are many gay couples willing and able to step to the front.
I fail to see how I made any such admission. Is it tyranny when we dont speak to someone for being racist? or for being sexist? its human nature to put pressure on people to follow basic morality (being gay is becoming morally acceptable). And I do recall you once claiming you would like to ban certain kinds of speech (i think the examples you gave were communism and nazism) and you have also recently said you would like to bring back blue laws, for the sake of social engineering.
And no, the whole definition of infertile is someone who cannot have children. Thus they, by your definition, do not use marriage for its intended purpose.
I will consider the argument against gay marriage due to their inability to rear children under the condition that people who argue it also argue that before getting married couples must pass a fertility test, and must have children within 2 years of getting married. failing one of these the marriage is dissolved. Once the woman is no longer capable of having children, the marriage will be dissolved. And there must always be, with a possible 1 year gap when the oldest child hits 18, a child in the house.
If people who argue as you do can’t agree to that, then I’m sorry but your argument is flawed and simply an excuse.
being gay is becoming morally acceptable
That’s certainly at the crux of the gay agenda, Pel, but, (and I don’t know any way to sugar-coat this, so apologies in advance to anyone who is offended) I don’t believe a man sticking his penis up another man’s rectum will ever become morally acceptable.
Pel,
So, you’ll agree to do something only if the rights of others can be violated. Gotcha.
Rusty,
I’m not discussing the issue of gay adoption or the issue of the morality of homosexuality. The issue I’m discussing is whether or not gay marriage can be a conservative issue – and in that, I’m discussing whether marriage is a right? and would gay marriage improve marriage? Get on to those subjects.
J.R, Personally I find that disgusting, but men do it to women all the time. In this case its simply 2 men instead of 1 man and 1 woman.
Mark,
Can gay marriage be a conservative issue? Plainly, no. Conservatives harbor to much prejudice against gays, as exhibited on this blog.
Is marriage a right? Yes, in that to be free from discrimination is a right.
Would gay marriage improve marriage? Who cares? Irrelevant. Allowing interracial couples to marry didn’t “improve” or hinder
marriage, it was simply the right thing to.
Mark,
You state that human beings are not animals? Really? Then what are we? Human beings ARE animals, primates to be exact. 100% of scientists will affirm this. Science isn’t your strong suite, is it?
I meant “strong suit”.
JR,
Gay anal sex is no more immoral than straight anal sex or straight sex of any sort for that matter. As an activity between two consenting adults each act is morally neutral.
Rusty,
You may be an animal and, I suppose, wish that people would treat you as such, but I am not an animal and don’t wish to be so treated. As for a right to not be discriminated against – you’ll find that your theory falls flat if you were to, say, try out for quarterback of the Baltimore Ravens…you’ll find that they heavily discriminate in favor of those who can play the position. You’ve picked up the absurd idea that discrimination – in and of itself – is a bad thing. Discrimination is necessary for survival and for civilization. What you want is to be against injustice. Now, if your argument then turns to a claim that is unjust to discriminate against same-sex marriage, then make your case on that…tell us why it is unjust; tell us why the action of simple justice in our society requires us to recognize same-sex marriage…of course, be prepared for the riposte, because if its unjust for gay people to not get married, then it is unjust for a lot of other sorts of people to be prohibited marriage.
Mark,
You seem to have a serious problem with your memory, reading comprehension, ability to track a conversation, or perhaps all three. On my very first post I said:
“Our society has established that certain distinguishable groups cannot be discriminated against in common transactions. An obvious and often used analogy is the civil rights act. Certainly it’s not a “natural right” for a man to expect service at a greasy-spoon, yet our society has rightly concluded that to deny this service on the basis of race is odious and illegal. Laws prohibiting marriage between races were similarly struck down.”
This clearly is nowhere near the realm of your asinine “quarterback” analogy of discrimination. I’ve also previously aggreed with you that we rightly discriminate against all kinds of things, but that’s not what we’re talking about. To recap, discrimination IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION refers to the legal and moral wrong done to an individual or group; injustice is implied. But of course any bright, honest reader would already know this. As to why this discrimination is unjust, go back and read my posts; I’m not going to repeat everything for you. Is it your tactic to simply become obtuse when failing in your argument?
Lastly, your appeal to the slippery slope argument is childish, and exactly the argument commonly used by racists decades ago.
Rusty,
Perhaps I do have a reading comprehension problem but so, it appears, do you – you are the one who keeps harping on the concept that “discrimination” is unjust – I’m pointing out that discrimination, in and of itself, is neither just nor unjust…it is how discrimination is applied which makes it either just or unjust. All I’ve essentially been able to determine from you views is that not allowing gay marriage is unjust discrimination because you say so – you’ve offered zero arguments to support the idea that preventing same-sex marriage is unjust. Saying it is the same as the unjust discrimination as that visited upon black people in the past is not the same as proving your case – show us, by argument, that it is the same.
I don’t understand why the institution of marriage has not been adversely affected in those countries that have already legalized same sex marriage. Why haven’t we seen a dramatic change in opposite sex marriages? Seems the legal act of uniting two men or two women in the bonds of matrimony does not diminish traditional marriage one iota.
I don’t understand why the institution of marriage has not been adversely affected in those countries that have already legalized same sex marriage.
CO, I don’t believe there’s enough long-term data to determine whether or not that’s true. The jury is still out in Spain.
CO,
There isn’t sufficient data to say one way or the other – though there is some evidence that the enactment of gay marriage has resulted in fewer traditional marriages per 100,000 in subsequent years. But no one can say it has no effect, negative effect, or positive effect with certainty
Canadian,
It’s not about adversely impacting traditional marriage. It’s about expanding the definition of a word. There would be no argument in instilling same sex couples with all the legal rights of marriage via civil unions. 99% of the voting public would support that all day long, including myself. So the question then is, do we expand the definition of the word marriage? If we do, and “love” is the only requirement for entering into marriage, then what is to prevent marriage between brother/sister? What is to prevent polygamy?
And why is it ok to offend the millions of Americans who want to keep the traditional definition of marriage in tact, in favor of not offending another group?
rbp
By my lights, the question is one of DISCRIMINATION.
a LIE is still a LIE no matter how many times it is told and no matter who repeats it.
I think your emphasis on the question of whether marriage is a natural right or not is missing the point of the debate.
It’s actually at the core of the debate. What exactly is a right? I think our culture is losing sight of that, and our government is inferring as many rights as possible in order to regulate, legislate and control. Is housing a right? I would argue that people need housing more so than being married, so why isn’t housing a right? How about food? Certainly food is more important than marriage.
The fact is that every gay person in this country has the same marriage rights as anyone else – they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not an immediate family member. That right is universal. The question then is – do they have the right to marry someone from the same sex? If the federal government legislates that, than we effectively expand the parameters of the currently defined institution, and must then reconsider immediate family members, polygamists, etc. If the federal government allows same sex marriage, then not polygamy? There would effectively be no valid argument against polygamy if same sex marriage is allowed in my opinion.
The rights granted to us by our Creator are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which is not guaranteed). I think it’s time we scale back our “rights” to those three. That being said, as a federalist, I would prefer the states handle this issue, and I see a day when gay marriage will probably be widely accepted. As for me, I certainly support civil unions, and granting every legal right possible to same sex couples, I am just not so sure that redefining a word is the right way to go.
Cluster,
You said:
“It’s actually at the core of the debate. What exactly is a right?”
…you seem to have missed my point above. Rights are not at the core of the debate, discrimination is. By your argument based solely on “rights”, we should be able to discriminate against interracial couples getting married. Are you for discrimination based on race as well as sexual preference?
Your slippery slope argument is deflated by the same logic. It was used as an argument against interracial marriage.
SODOMY is NOT “marriage” PERIOD.
there are NO “rights” for perversion!!
Mark
This is what we as Christians should follow…if the GOP wants to Boo God and embrace islam and sodomy as the donks, they should do it with out us.
pretty clear.
1 Corinthians 6:9
New International Version (©1984)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders will inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
AIDS?
Cluster,
You said:
“Is housing a right? I would argue that people need housing more so than being married, so why isn’t housing a right? How about food? Certainly food is more important than marriage.”
…I would argue that housing is not a right, but denying housing to a certain group is illegal. Food is not a right, but denying food to a certain group is illegal. Likewise, marriage is not a right, but denying marriage to a certain group should be illegal.
rustybrownshorts
but denying marriage to a certain group should be illegal.
EVERY “group” has the right to get “married” just not to their neighbors goat, or a tree frog or same sex person.
next BS strawman?
neo,
“EVERY “group” has the right to get “married” just not to their neighbors goat, or a tree frog or same sex person.”
So you are comparing gays to goats and tree frogs. Talk about a strawman.
Regardless of the arguments on this blog, gay marriage rights are going to happen. I predict that it will federal law within the next 10 years. For one thing, I’m seeing increasing acceptance of gays by the younger generation every year.
Casper,
And I see increasing acceptance of gays by everyone. I doubt one in a thousand Americans bears any actual hostility to homosexuals. And I agree that gay marriage is likely coming in some form – but only liberal fascists wish to see a federal enactment on the matter.
Outside of that, however, I’m not too concerned about it – the “gay moment” in our civilization’s history is passing. It is a sterile and ultimately self-centered way to live and it cannot sustain itself. It will fade away over the next fifty years, eventually to return to a peculiarity of the rich as it was before.
“but only liberal fascists wish to see a federal enactment on the matter.”
So fascists want to extend rights to other groups? That doesn’t make sense.
do you serve God or Man?
U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional
Amendment to Protect Marriage
The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages.
who came out as gay several years ago. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights,
which brought the California suit, and has spent months in quiet conversations with fellow Republicans to gather signatures for the brief.
TROJAN HORSE.
WHY divulge your sexual preference in public??
Why bring it into politics?
WHY even discuss it to anyone but your partner?
BECAUSE it IS an AGENDA!!!!
“The fact is that every gay person in this country has the same marriage rights as anyone else – they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not an immediate family member.”
Forty years ago the The argument was that Blacks had the same marriage rights as anyone else- They had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who was not an immediate family member as long as they were of the same race. Gays don’t have the same marriage rights as anyone else, they don’t have the right to marry the person they love.
Casper,
Here, here. As I stated above, it really comes down to how you view homosexuality. An increasing number of us are seeing homosexuality as a natural, unobtrusive occurrence. Loved-ones, friends, relatives and neighbors – it exists with absolutely no threat to the “common fabric”.
Casper,
Suppose I fell in love with my neighbor’s wife – are my rights denied because I cannot marry her?
Honestly, the arguments you liberals make in favor of gay marriage are incredibly silly.
Someone go drag casper into this century.
Yes, yes, we know how you love to hang onto those tired old talking points and drag them out to gnaw on them, over and over. I figure it is because there are so few simple-minded enough for you to grasp that you can’t afford to turn loose of any of them.
But the whine about what was wrong with race-based laws being in any way relevant to protecting the very definition of a term with centuries of cultural and religious meaning is just plain dumb.
One was hateful discrimination, one isn’t.
What you shrill hysterics refuse to acknowledge is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal rights of people because of sexual orientation. Nothing. It is all about a WORD . It’s not about equal rights, because there is very little pushback on equality under the law for same-sex unions.
No, it is about a WORD .
And this telegraphs an ugly secret of homosexuality—that even gay people feel there is something not quite right about it, and hope that if they can just slap a WORD on it that is about different relationships that are accepted, that WORD will start to convey normality.
As for neo’s constant harping on the topic of homosexuality, I refuse to be associated with that. I find it hateful and bigoted and it has nothing at all to do with my own feelings toward the condition. I’ve known and respected and cared for many gay people, and I have never felt so arrogant in my own specialness that I felt I could look the God who created them in the eye and say “YOU MADE A MISTAKE”.
My opinion of the Bible is that it may reflect the word of God, but it has gone through many a biased human mind to get to the stage it is now, and it is simply unreasonable to believe that none of that bias has influence the translation of a word or even the transposing of a sentence to reflect the personal opinion of the guy with the pen.
M. Noonan February 26, 2013 at 8:11 pm #
Casper,
Suppose I fell in love with my neighbor’s wife – are my rights denied because I cannot marry her?”
Actually, you could marry her, assuming that both you were divorced and wanted to get married. I would suggest that you might want to move though.
Casper,
No, I want to marry her and remain married to my wife…and heck, she can even remain married to her husband. Given your views, how can you deny me?
There’s no way they could Mark. Liberal views on marriage are completely compatible with polygamy.
“M. Noonan February 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm #
Casper,
No, I want to marry her and remain married to my wife…and heck, she can even remain married to her husband. Given your views, how can you deny me?”
Why would I want to? It’s your life.
“Cluster February 26, 2013 at 10:22 pm #
There’s no way they could Mark. Liberal views on marriage are completely compatible with polygamy.”
I’m ok with polygamy, I could keep up with my wife’s other husbands.
So Casper is ok with polygamy. Good to know.
What about sibling marriage? Father/daughter? Mother/son? Keep in mind, they love each other and that seems to be the only liberal requirement.
So what about it Cap?
Casper,
I guess that makes you feel you’re off the hook…but now I’ve died; how many of my wives get the social security survivor’s benefits?
You really need to think this whole matter through. I know – there is a risk involved that you’ll wind up conservative as most liberals who start to think wind up that way…but there’s always risks in life.
Cluster February 26, 2013 at 11:15 pm #
So Casper is ok with polygamy. Good to know.
What about sibling marriage? Father/daughter? Mother/son? Keep in mind, they love each other and that seems to be the only liberal requirement.
So what about it Cap?”
Didn’t say I was for any of those. Are you? What are you going to ask next? Am I in love with a goat? Are you? I’m not.
M. Noonan February 26, 2013 at 11:19 pm #
Casper,
I guess that makes you feel you’re off the hook…but now I’ve died; how many of my wives get the social security survivor’s benefits? ”
Let’s say your wife dies. Do you and the other husbands get social security survivor’s benefits?
It’s a logical extension Cap. No need to get angry. So why do you draw the line at a brother/sister marriage?
Let’s say your wife dies. Do you and the other husbands get social security survivor’s benefits? – Cap
Well see that’s a question for you Cap. You’re the one that supports polygamy – we don’t. So how about it?
Casper,
All you did was reword my question – why not take a stab at it?
And Cluster is right – if marriage is a right or if we simply must allow people to marry whom they love, then there is no argument to be made against any form of marriage. Once again, think the matter through – it is no answer for you to say you don’t want to marry a goat…what do you say to the person who does? You’ve boxed yourself in – you’ve made the exception and now, as I said, the exception must become the rule. I hold to the rule, so I don’t have to make any exceptions.
By all means make homosexual marriage a republican issue. Throw Illegal immigration, into the mix, support some “common sense gun laws” and you might as well allow abortion up to 3 months after the child is born. Hey lets double down on some euthanasia and kill off our unwanted elderly.
The distinction between the parties continue to blur in the name of buying off a couple of votes. A couple of votes that make a difference in the end.
At this rate Plugs will win over 400 electoral votes in 16.
Anyone know where the nearest office for the Whigs are?
“A couple of votes that won’t make a difference in the end.” is how that should have read.
I agree, GMB.
If you allow one injustice, you might as well allow them all.
But never fear, God is going to right all the wrongs that the nations have committed one more time, and it will be the last.
I might be in the grave 200 or 300 or even a 1,000 years before it happens, but it is certain that Jesus is to return for which there will be a big judgment of the wicked, and the righteous. I don’t think it will be that long because the signs are all in place for His return.
Right. Mark is the first, and only person to bring up gay marriage??
The issue is a democratic plank and has been for years. And Obama use to be against it, until he “evolved”. You should grant Mark the same latitude.
I don’t think that any of this has a place in the presidential election, as each of these issues is and should be a state issue, except for the efforts to erode a Constitutional amendment. My own strong feelings don’t change the facts.
And I believe that if we would get over the determination to shove our morality down people’s throats, and ask people to vote for our political system instead of what we think is morally correct, we would own the White House.
The Left makes elections about issues, because issues form the battleground where they can manipulate emotion and control the debate. And we foolishly let them, being suckered into sloping off into one argument after another about this moral issue and that social issue, blissfully oblivious to the fact that if we get the country running the way it should be run, every one of these will be where every one belongs—–in the ballot boxes of the states, counties, and cities.
And then, when Libs manage to gain control, it will be control of a state or a county or a city, and the people there can vote with their feet and leave, a vote which will over time have its own effect. We see it in states that have swung radically to the Left. It will take a little longer, but the corrections will begin, as the economic base disappears.
Agreed 100%. As I was reading back through the posts here, I kept thinking to myself – with all the current economic turmoil stemming from an out of control, bloated federal government as a result of career politicians, and a growing threat over seas – is gay marriage really worth spending much time over? The answer is an emphatic NO!
“Amazona February 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm #
I don’t think that any of this has a place in the presidential election, as each of these issues is and should be a state issue, except for the efforts to erode a Constitutional amendment. My own strong feelings don’t change the facts.”
I agree. However, it was Mark that brought the issue up and all of you had to chip in.
“The Left makes elections about issues, because issues form the battleground where they can manipulate emotion and control the debate.”
And yet it was Mark that brought the issue up and continues to bring it up.
“Cluster February 26, 2013 at 9:59 pm #
Right. Mark is the first, and only person to bring up gay marriage??”
Didn’t say that. He brought it up this time.
Oh so it’s this time now. Right. So it’s Mark’s fault that we are having this discussion. Strange.
I just thought it was of some interest that a group of GOPers are asserting it is conservative to be in favor of gay marriage. They, in their view, are clearly angling for a change and they believe that if the GOP gets on board, it will help the GOP with younger voters, who do have a much more favorable view of gay marriage than older voters. I’m not too impressed by that argument because younger voters eventually become older voters and people – unless they are fools – tend to grow more conservative as they age…I also believe that younger people are actually yearning for marriage, that the collapse of marriage caused by their parents and grandparents has left them strongly desiring an ideal…they are just confused from lack of education about how gay unions actually work in to the mix. Our youngsters are odd – increasingly pro-life and pro-gay marriage.
“. Noonan February 26, 2013 at 10:22 pm #
I just thought it was of some interest that a group of GOPers are asserting it is conservative to be in favor of gay marriage.”
It’s a losing issue for you. Please keep bringing it up.
“I also believe that younger people are actually yearning for marriage”
I agree. They are also more open to all kinds of marriage.
Tell it brother!. Time to join the resistance not time to be a collaborator.
Resisting is hard. Collaborating is easy. Just stay in front of that big screen tv and in your heated or air conditioned office.
Count that money baby!
Can gay marriage be a Conservative position?
It can be, yes. But wholly incompatible with Christianity, and the Church (God’s people).
We are barking up the wrong tree here Jeremiah. The repubs are bound and determined to be just another version of the rats.There is no compromise they are unwilling to make to keep the three stooges in power.
Soon they will be pandering to nambla for their votes.
Francois Darlan 2016!!!!
GMB,
Amazing isn’t it, how the Republicans used to have some morals about their bones. They actually represented what our Founding Fathers envisioned for America. Now they only represent self-interest in order to keep their lavish lifestyles going … anything they can do to keep their pockets full of money, and get free taxpayer funded meals, even if it means selling out everything that American stands for they are going to do it.
Shameful! Shameful!
I always said we need to clean everybody out in Congress, and start from scratch, putting in blue-collar workers, men and women who stand for something, who cherish family and hard work.
I don’t know if we’ll ever get them or not. One can only hope.
GMB
AMEN brother AMEN…..sell your soul for a few
pieces of silverVOTES!! and power.I’ve been married for almost 38 years. Longer than most of the posters on this blog. My parents have been married for 60 years. My son and daughter-in-law for 14 years. I like marriage and would like everyone to have the same right to marry who they want as I have. My wife’s cousin has been in a relationship with another woman for 15 years. They are raising two wonderful children together. I hope they someday are able to have the same rights and responsibilities in marriage that I have enjoyed.
So you want them to have the same rights?
No argument.
Or is it the word you want them to have?
“Cluster February 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm #
So you want them to have the same rights?
No argument.
Or is it the word you want them to have?”
It’s a word. Words change meaning all the time.
So it is about a word and not all about the rights. Good to know.
Now, don’t you think that’s a little insensitive towards others?
Cluster February 26, 2013 at 10:13 pm #
So it is about a word and not all about the rights. Good to know.
Now, don’t you think that’s a little insensitive towards others?”
Insensitive towards who?
The millions of people who want to keep the traditional definition. Did you forget about them?
Cluster February 26, 2013 at 11:04 pm #
“The millions of people who want to keep the traditional definition. Did you forget about them?”
So how would this going to hurt them? It sure wouldn’t hurt my marriage.
It would offend them. Just like gays would be offended by not being able to call their union a marriage – which also doesn’t affect your marriage.
So is it ok to offend one group but not another?
“Cluster February 26, 2013 at 11:16 pm #
It would offend them. Just like gays would be offended by not being able to call their union a marriage – which also doesn’t affect your marriage.
So is it ok to offend one group but not another?”
There is a difference between offending a group and not allowing another group the same rights as everyone else has.
No, no. Stay focused Cap. Remember they can have the same rights – no problem there. We’re talking about a word as you previously mentioned. So now how about it?
Ok to offend to one group? But not another?
Cluster,
You have lost the argument. But feel free to keep bringing it up. You will convince another generation that the conservative movement hates gays.
Casper,
You remind me of Bodie. Just stop the argument and declare victory. LOL
Fact is son, you can’t defend your position. You want to hijack a word, not just instill rights, and that’s where your cause goes off the rails.
catspuke
you already clarified you were OK with some OTHER man bedding your wife and that you could “keep up” with him……so we already know what you think of her and the “marriage” 38 years of eating a shiite sandwich does not change it into steak.
My wife’s cousin has been in a relationship with another woman for 15 years. They are raising two wonderful children together.
BFD, there are mass murderers who are married raising “wonderful” children so because some sickos with a same sex pathologies are “raising” a kid does not change the dynamics of their perversion.
As an amussing sidenote:
perryjello
there is nothing like sodomy to bring the pervs, bottom feeders of society, and trolls scurrying out from under their rocks, bridges and closets.
The word must go out by the watchers for all the flying monkeys to swoop in and unload their garbage in unison on a blog they usually ignore.
Homosexuals are the new minority with the majority voice.
How strange is that?!?!?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
What a creep this Adams fellow must have been to believe something like that.
GMB
the fall of our financial institutions and subsequent financial collapse was at the hands of fwank, raines, klintoon all sexual perverts.
99% of all mass murderers in this country were homosexuals and sexual deviants.
our country and constitution is being destroyed before our very eyes and we are being led down the path of division, hatred, and threats of civil war by a man who is very well vetted a being a homosexual.
OOH YES by all means lets adopt and welcome these typhoid marys into our inner sanctuaries, of churches, politics and “leadership”
NOT on MY WATCH!!
At this moment in time, in my opinion, it is not “not on my watch” Appropriately it is “not in my house” It will take millions upon millions to practice this and to preach it. The time of an organized opposition, again in my opinion, is over.
The republican party is on it’s death knell. They have shown that they will not oppose the progressives on any issue. The repub party is full of typhoid marys.
I hear the Whigs are trying to make a comeback. Hope it is true.
GMB
alas you are probably right , in the end when the financial collapse comes this could be the final nail in the homosexual coffin…..
HIV patients will spend $600K for lifetime care
Those diagnosed with AIDS expected to live average of 24 years,
dirty little secret?
Far too many Americans remain at risk for HIV, especially African Americans, Latinos, and gay and bisexual men of all races.
common thread?
INTRAVENOUS drugs and HOMOSEXUALITY
Estimates of New Infections, 2006, By Race/Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender, for the Most Affected U.S. Subpopulations*
This bar chart shows the estimates of new infections in 2006 by Race/ Ethnicity, Risk Group, and Gender for the most affected United States subpopulations.
Gay and bisexual men of all races and black heterosexuals account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
The number of new HIV infections on the chart include: 13,230 infections of White MSM, 10,130 infections of Black MSM, 7,340 infections of Black heterosexual women, 5,360 infections of Hispanic MSM, 3,290 infections of Black heterosexual men, 2, 310 infections of White heterosexual women, 2,010 infections of Black male IDUs, 1,910 infections of Hispanic heterosexual women, and 1,470 infections of Black female IDUs.
Note: subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart.
The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems because it indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection, rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/hiv_prev_us.htm
GMB
ahhh but WE are the “BIGOTS”, the “HATE mongers”, the “homophobes” while the world whistles past the grave yard and the bank.
goes with above post ^^
Bringing those tools to the people needing them — 90 percent of whom are in developing countries — requires lots of money.
Last year, the world spent $16 billion on the task, half of which was donated by rich countries and charities.
A recent projection estimated that, by 2031, global AIDS costs could reach the equivalent of $35 billion a year.
A recent United Nations report declared frankly: “The trajectory of costs is wholly unsustainable.”
However, there is one “innovative financing” scheme that could raise as much as $50 billion a year.
It’s called a “financial transaction tax.” It would collect a fixed amount — perhaps .05 or .005 percent — on stock purchases, currency trades or other specified activities.
A group of 1,001 economists this spring signed a letter to the finance ministers of the G20 countries saying the tax “is an idea that has come of age . . . and is morally
right.”WRONG!!!!http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20110602/NEWS0107/106020403/
I am comfortable with all those labels. I see where they come from and realize the label is applied to shut me up. Which it never will.
Money! Money!! Money!!!
GMB, nobody cares if you shut up. NOBODY CARES.
You want a political structure which would impose your values on others, yet you rail, incessantly, against a political structure which imposes its values on others. When someone proposes a political structure which imposes no values but provides an umbrella of protections of individual rights, you beat your chest and posture as more moral, when in fact you are nothing more or less than the opposite side of the coin you disdain.
The price of a truly free society is that one is forced to live among people who have different ideas, values and yes, even moralities. Some people are OK with this because their goal is freedom, while others only want freedom for themselves, to rule others.
GMB,
You gotta admit, Amazona is right. While I agree with you on conservative fiscal issues, you have to admit that socially – you want to be just as totalitarian as the other side.
Freedom requires tolerance
If you want to get blind sheep behind something, always call it a “right”. I just learned that abortion is now referred to as “reproductive rights” (when it should be referred to as the ability to murder your fetus).
It annoys me when people try to paint an ugly thing in a pure light. Homosexuality is just the latest example. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural reproductive process, and therefore it is against life. Abortion is against life. I suppose people should have the choice to do either — who am I to judge and control them? — but the idea that such things would be upheld as good and righteous is what makes me a little sick. This world is so corrupt.
I’m an atheist, but I do like some Christian symbolism. I’ve heard that the devil, for instance, is called the “father of lies” because he misrepresents darkness as light:
“Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
(John 8:43-46)
Our whole society is shot through with lies – and you’re correct that one of them is to call everything a “right” and then demand that everyone bend to it. This thread has lead me, however, to the genesis of the book after the next I shall write: Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities.
Marriage is a societal construct that is the foundation of our civilization and that which standardizes civil behavior toward interpersonal relationships. It is a construct governed by a legal definition that homogenizes the nature and relationship for the benefit of the society in which the legal definition has been directed.
Marriage creates the nucleus from which subsequent generations acquire social awareness and intra-actional norms. Because this construct is fundamental to society the legal definitions far exceed any single generation or familial/clan unit. Marriage without progeny is a selfish institution which can coexist because there is no lasting change to the nature of the relationship; thus dying off with each generation involved in the egotistical institution.
Words may change meanings over time but so long as legal concepts are related to those words they do not. Just as the Constitution is a legal document with one specific meaning, marriage is a legal context that only changes by statute, code or legal authority.
For the legal definition to change it must fulfill some greater societal purpose than the previous definition held.
To change a legal definition because a minority of persons during a specific historical period demand a selfish institution by which their atypical relationship may be viewed as typical is insufficient in my opinion.
Thus far, no person has explained how changing the definition to placate a tiny minority is of any value or benefit to our culture. Since I have no issue with homosexual unions as a legal concept, I would like to hear how changing the cultural norm, political paradigm, or legal entity by changing the definition of Marriage will be of any benefit to our civilization. Anything short of that is an egocentric argument.
Count,
Change for the sake of change is, of course, asinine. But that is what our liberals want, everywhere and all the time. To me, change can only be right and proper if it makes things better…so, I’m with you. Leaving aside all moral argument – keeping Christianity completely out of the debate – would gay marriage improve marriage? If a solid argument cannot be made in favor of that position, then I’ll never even agree to it in theory.
Mark,
Exactly. Couples may marry with no intention of raising children. That does not improve Marriage nor does it harm marriage since the legal, moral, societal & ethical definition ~ on man joins with one woman ~ does not change.
Changing the dynamic of Marriage to include me and my cousin Brucie or me and the Sullivan sisters or all four for that matter improves neither marriage nor society.
“would gay marriage improve marriage?”
It would for gays. It would give them the same rights as the rest of us as far as being next-of-kin in hospital visits, tax benefits, etc. My question is who would it hurt? Other than upsetting a lot of conservatives, I don’t see how allowing gay marriage hurts anyone.
Count d’Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) February 27, 2013 at 9:25 pm #
Mark,
Exactly. Couples may marry with no intention of raising children.”
There are straight couples already who marry with no intention of raising children and there are gay couples that are raising children.
Casper,
I don’t believe it would – because if it does have a detrimental effect on marriage, overall, then the marriages gay people contract would have vanishing value. You need to demonstrate, by argument (because there is no data) that gay marriage would make marriage better for everyone, or there is no reason to change.
“M. Noonan February 27, 2013 at 9:44 pm #
Casper,
I don’t believe it would – because if it does have a detrimental effect on marriage, overall, then the marriages gay people contract would have vanishing value.
How does it have a detrimental effect on marriage? It certainly doesn’t hurt mine, or anyone else i can think of
“You need to demonstrate, by argument (because there is no data) that gay marriage would make marriage better for everyone, or there is no reason to change.”
No I don’t. Did allowing interracial marriage make marriage better for everyone? Gay marriage doesn’t have to make marriage better for everyone. Only for gays.
“To change a legal definition because a minority of persons during a specific historical period demand a selfish institution by which their atypical relationship may be viewed as typical is insufficient in my opinion.”
What is selfish is not allowing a minority the same right that you and I have.
Casper,
Yes, allowing inter-racial marriage did improve marriage because it allowed all people who can properly marry to fully and freely make their own choice in the matter – America is getting chock full of people who are the products of inter-racial marriage and they are doing wonderful things for our entire society.
Now, just what would allowing two gay men to marry do for everyone? Remember, marriage is not just a thing between two people – it belongs not just to the individuals making the vows, but to the whole community, because the whole community has a vital stake in the success of the effort. What will gay marriage do along those lines?
Casper,
You have a terrible time staying focused. It’s not about RIGHTS. I, and nearly every other conservative will gladly recognize and grant all legal rights to a same sex union.
It’s about a WORD. And it is selfish and offensive to demand redefining a word to appease a minority.
“It’s not about RIGHTS. I, and nearly every other conservative will gladly recognize and grant all legal rights to a same sex union.”
And this is only about the fiftieth time or so that one of us has said this. Yet casper continues to pretend that this is not true, that he doesn’t know that we feel this way, is unaware that this is the prevailing attitude on the right.
And this is the crux of the change in my attitude toward casper. I used to think of him as a basically honest, though muddle-headed and confused guy, not the brightest bulb in the teaching chandelier but well-meaning. But over the years, he has shown himself to be sneaky and dishonest, and my opinion of him has plummeted from distaste to outright contempt.
For him to continue making the argument of “rights” is so profoundly dishonest, it does nothing but make it clear he has no interest at all in the truth.
I understand the emotional yearning for the societal construct of marriage. Marriage is a cultural identity that conveys to the world “I have been chosen, I am loved, I am a part of a special union” and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting this public identity, this proclamation of having joined in and become part of centuries of meaning and tradition and acceptance. From infancy, marriage is out there as THE definition of loving, being loved, and commitment to a relationship, and yes, it’s got to be hard to realize and accept that a circumstance makes this exact, precise, defined-as-such thing impossible.
But this is not the only dream cherished as one grows up, to be denied. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of young boys have passionate dreams and aspirations of being professional athletes, who have to accept the harsh reality that they will never realize this dream? Life is like that. So every day dreams are crushed—there are rejection letters from Harvard or MIT, there is failure to make the team, there are auditions that don’t lead to roles in plays or movies. And every day someone has to face the reality that because his or her life partner is the same sex, the traditional status of traditional marriage is not possible.
The realistic and mature realize that this has no impact whatsoever on their love, on their commitment, on their determination to forge a lasting union equal to that of marriage. They are not ashamed of being gay, they are not driven by a need to legitimize and normalize their sexual orientation because they find it quite legitimate and normal. It is what it is, they are who they are, and they accept that there are certain permanent differences between them and heterosexual couples.
But there are those who are, at heart, ashamed of being gay, who desperately need to cloak their sexual orientation in a traditional word so it will not stand out. There are those who lack the courage to be different, so they demand a word they think will make them the same. And most of what I see is an absolute lack of consideration or respect for those who DO fit into the traditional roles and definitions.
This is what pisses me off. While whining and bitching and moaning and carrying on about how people who are different are expected to accept being different, they insist—-DEMAND—that the feelings and traditions and cultural and religious meanings of centuries be changed just for them.
I do not see it as a serious, respectful, attempt to establish a status that is equal, but as a wall-kicking, squalling temper tantrum that says the feelings of others don’t matter because a few people think that their personal differences will be resolved by hijacking a WORD .
And they have the sneaky and dishonest minions of the Left like casper supporting them by lying.
Most members of this blog have the issue backwards. The proof is not that gays have to demonstrate how gay marriage will benefit society, the proof is for gay marriage opponents to explain why the historic discrimination against gay marriage should continue.
For clarity, from this point onward the word discrimination shall be taken in context to the subject at hand, that is, denying an individual or group basic, fundamental privileges held dear by the majority. This inherently implies injustice and is nothing like “discriminating” between beef or chicken, or NFL scouts “discriminating” in the combine. My apologies to those for whom this is evident, but a certain member is having a hard time grasping the meaning of this word in context.
To continue, it has never been a litmus test for a minority to prove how ending their discrimination will improve society. It merely has to be shown that such discrimination is unjust, unwarranted and is putting this minority at a distinct disadvantage, among other things. Therefore, blacks and women did not have to prove their being allowed to vote would improve society. Blacks didn’t have to prove that their drinking from the same water fountain would improve society. If righting these wrongs DID end up improving society, that’s a bonus, but not required. There are many more examples I could list. The point was the discrimination against these groups was fundamentally wrong for a civilized, compassionate society and was putting them at a disadvantage. That’s it.
Although I’ve just shown the burden of proof should not be on the gays and their advocates, as a special bonus I’ll throw in why gay marriage WOULD benefit society:
1) census data shows the number of gay couples adopting and rearing children is on the rise. Keep in mind this is at a time when discrimination against legitimizing gay couples is rampant. If gay marriage was allowed throughout the country, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict gay adoption rates would increase dramatically. This would have the societal benefit of moving unwanted children into loving, stable homes.
2) the societal acceptance of legal gay marriage would reduce the stigma many gays feel about their homosexuality. It hardly needs mentioning that to be viewed as an aberrant, immoral freak can have grave consequences on ones psyche, sometimes leading to suicide. Gays would have a better chance of leading fulfilling, productive lives which would benefit all.
3) when we end unjust discrimination we elevate ourselves. The more we can show compassion and acceptance toward that which is unusual to us yet does us no harm the better we are ourselves.
…those are just a few. Since you asked…
And for those of you who are hung-up on it being just a WORD that’s at issue – that’s an easy claim to make if your the one doing the discriminating, not so palatable to those being discriminated against.
Ama actually makes an eloquent case for implications beyond the mere “word”, I quote her:
“I understand the emotional yearning for the societal construct of marriage. Marriage is a cultural identity that conveys to the world “I have been chosen, I am loved, I am a part of a special union” and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting this public identity, this proclamation of having joined in and become part of centuries of meaning and tradition and acceptance. From infancy, marriage is out there as THE definition of loving, being loved, and commitment to a relationship, and yes, it’s got to be hard to realize and accept that a circumstance makes this exact, precise, defined-as-such thing impossible.”
…unfortunately she then goes on to “oh well, too bad ya don’t belong. Sucks to be you” (I’m paraphrasing), and bizarre theories about how homosexuals view themselves.
Rusty,
It is always incumbent upon those who wish to change to demonstrate that the change is both necessary and net beneficial. Those who hold to things as they are have no obligation to even so much as explain why they do. The way things are generates out of literally billions of human inter-actions over many years…plus or minus, it is the considered wisdom of the people. If you say it must change, then you must show why.
There is no such thing, by the way, as a “basic” privilege – privileges, by definition, are not basic to humanity but are assigned based upon various criteria – at any given moment, the criteria for such assignment will exclude at least some – and some times nearly all; at some times, indeed, only one person may have certain privileges (such as, for instance, the privileges associated with the office of the President of the United States).
What you’re trying to do here is slip in an assertion (under disguised terminology) that marriage is a right, which we have already disposed of: there is no right to marry. Not for anyone. It is a privilege and how it will be assigned is to be decided by all. You wish to assign this privilege to same sex couples – and that is fine and dandy. As just as soon as you can offer a reason as to why we should do so, we’d be interested to hear it.
Of course, I know you can’t – and by this time you also know you can’t. But, by all means, give it a shot. After a long debate, we’re still waiting for you to justify gay marriage.
Mark, you state:
“You wish to assign this privilege to same sex couples – and that is fine and dandy. As just as soon as you can offer a reason as to why we should do so, we’d be interested to hear it.
Of course, I know you can’t – and by this time you also know you can’t. But, by all means, give it a shot. After a long debate, we’re still waiting for you to justify gay marriage.”
…yet two posts above I wrote:
“Although I’ve just shown the burden of proof should not be on the gays and their advocates, as a special bonus I’ll throw in why gay marriage WOULD benefit society:
1) census data shows the number of gay couples adopting and rearing children is on the rise. Keep in mind this is at a time when discrimination against legitimizing gay couples is rampant. If gay marriage was allowed throughout the country, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict gay adoption rates would increase dramatically. This would have the societal benefit of moving unwanted children into loving, stable homes.
2) the societal acceptance of legal gay marriage would reduce the stigma many gays feel about their homosexuality. It hardly needs mentioning that to be viewed as an aberrant, immoral freak can have grave consequences on ones psyche, sometimes leading to suicide. Gays would have a better chance of leading fulfilling, productive lives which would benefit all.
3) when we end unjust discrimination we elevate ourselves. The more we can show compassion and acceptance toward that which is unusual to us yet does us no harm the better we are ourselves.”
…you know what Mark? In a debate, when you ask a question and your opponent answers you and your only retort is to ask the same question again…you’ve lost the debate. Man up and move on. Better luck next time.
Rusty,
Once again, the comprehension problem – you have to prove that not assigning the privilege of marriage to same sex couples is unjust discrimination. That is what you must prove if you want to have a case in favor of gay marriage. Where is your argument that it is unjust to discriminate to the point of not allowing a man to marry a man? You have yet to make your argument – you just assert that it is so. That isn’t good enough – and I once again assert you don’t make the argument because you don’t have them. It is fashionable to be in favor of gay marriage and so you are in favor of it – you’ve clearly never thought the matter through.
Kudos for rusty for his latest example of the dependence of the RRL on lying.
Just a hint, rusty—”paraphrase” is not the same as just making something up that has nothing to do with what was said. What you call a “paraphrase” is what the world calls a lie.
But then so is the constant repetition of the word “discrimination”.
you know what rusty? In a debate, when the only way you can respond is to lie, you’ve lost the debate. Man up and move on. Better luck next time.
Mark,
It’s clear as crystal what the rub is here; it has nothing to do with our arguments and everything to do with who we are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my arguments but they are falling on the ears of homosexual bigots. Your arguments are what they are, but will not sway anyone who is not a homosexual bigot. This is why quite early in the conversation I proposed we cut to the chase and discuss our feelings about gay people. So there is simply no point in going on.
Thankfully, MY arguments are increasingly winning the day in the broader public debate, and will continue do so. While YOUR arguments are currently being swept into our nations corner of shame, while you further alienate yet another votiong demographic and marginalized your influence. Keep up the good work!
There, there ama, it’s not so bad. What you wrote a couple posts up there is in black and white for everyone to see: how you extolled the virtues and benefits of marriage as a desirable institution which should be coveted by any two people in love, then in the next paragraph blithely excludeing gays from participation while (hilariously) twisting the argument to characterize this whole account as unfair to YOU and those who wish to remain traditional bigots.
There are things you can do to improve your writing style: take a class, or have a non-bigoted friend proofread your tome for elements of dehuminizing concepts and debauched rhetoric.
I meant “excluding”
Rusty,
All you’ve done now is just run and hide from the debate…which does give me encouragement. I do believe that the argument can be made which will end this nonsense of so-called gay marriage. It just hasn’t been presented to the people. It will be, and that will be the end of it.
Mark says:
“All you’ve done now is just run and hide from the debate…which does give me encouragement. I do believe that the argument can be made which will end this nonsense of so-called gay marriage. It just hasn’t been presented to the people.”
…I’ve run from nothing, hide from nothing and stand by every word I’ve written, which has not been refuted on this blog.
I’m curious though, what is this holy grail of an argument which will make the scales fall from our eyes, and why hasn’t it been presented? Obviously, you’re incapable of making it or you would have. I look forward to hearing it so I can disprove it as I have with the others.
Rusty,
I’ll respond if you’ll provide your argument in favor of your contention that to prohibit gay marriage is an act of unjust discrimination.
Now the rabidly radical Left seems to have shifted the “code” discoveries to finding code for homosexual bigotry. Guess that rascist “code” for racism got worn out from overuse.
It’s become quite clear how you got your nickname. You are so full of it the only question is why does it look “rusty”. Probably because it’s been around for so long.
There is no way to talk to people like you. No matter what anyone says, by the time it fights its way through your various filters it can only look like the dreck that it wandered through, by that time totally unrelated to fact. In your case, the matter filtering what is said tints everything that murky rusty brown.
Mark says:
“I’ll respond if you’ll provide your argument in favor of your contention that to prohibit gay marriage is an act of unjust discrimination.”
…Nah, I think I was clear that the core of the problem is how we view gays. As long as you are so clearly prejudiced against them, there’s little need to debate what rights they should have based on human decency.
I must say, although I’m not accusing you of being a racist, the closest analogy I can think of is trying to convince a klan member back in the days that blacks should have equal rights. All of the arguments that you and others have put forth here in support of discrimination on this issue were championed by the racist opposition then applied to that issue. Tell me how these two battles are dissimilar, show me the difference, cause I’m not seeing it, and either does America. The problem comes down to two completely different world-views at loggerheads.
Whatever.
“M. Noonan February 27, 2013 at 9:02 pm #
Count,
Change for the sake of change is, of course, asinine.”
No one is suggesting change for the sake of change. What is being argued is change to allow a group the same opportunities that the rest of us enjoy.
What is being argued is change to allow a group the same opportunities that the rest of us enjoy.
Casper,
So you view marriage as nothing more than an “opportunity”? That’s odd to say the least. Since, as has also been pointed out numerous times, most Conservatives support civil unions guaranteeing homosexual couples all the legal rights of heterosexual married couples, what other opportunities are you referring to?
Spook,
You are right that most conservatives are ok with civil unions – I, on the other hand, am shifting in to opposition even to that. The tax and inheritance benefits of marriage are assigned because of the vital task that heterosexual, married couples carry out for the whole of society – having and rearing children. To assign even the smallest of such benefits to people who cannot, of nature, carry out the purpose of marriage is, to me, a denigration of marriage. To be sure, nothing under law will prevent a gay couple from executing legal documents assigning power over each other – and each others property – and I’m entirely uninterested in gay people doing that. I’m also not at all worried that some bizarre mockery of a religion will perform a ceremony for them that they will call a wedding. But I want nothing in law which holds that a marriage is anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
Spook,
“Casper,
So you view marriage as nothing more than an “opportunity”? That’s odd to say the least”
I don’t consider marriage as nothing more that an opportunity. It’s much more than that. I haven’t stayed married for as long as I have because of opportunities. I like being married. I think marriage is great. I would love to see everyone have the same relationship I’ve enjoyed for almost 40 years.
As for conservatives supporting civil unions, read Mark’s last post along with neo’s and some of the other conservatives posts on this thread. I don’t see it.
Casper,
Of nature, though, a gay couple granted the same opportunity for marriage as straight people will not be encumbered by the primary responsibility resultant upon marriage: the birth and rearing of children. You want to assign the various privileges of marriage to people who of nature cannot carry out the primary responsibility of marriage.
Mark,
My wife’s cousin has given birth to two children and are doing a wonderful job of raising them.
Then there is this guy raised by two moms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/kenneth-faried-denver-nuggets-gay-marriage-two-moms_n_2552462.html
Casper,
I said “of nature” – your cousin may have given birth, but the means of conception was immoral and, also, not something that naturally happens. She had to short-circuit nature in order to get what she wanted – had she stayed true to what she considers her lesbian nature, she never would have borne a child. What you are essentially saying is that if nature doesn’t allow for what you want, break off a piece of nature and make it fit your desires.
“God” is life, purpose, and meaning. “Satan” is pleasure-seeking, pretentious, vain death.
“God” is the emptiness that fills you. “Satan” is the false salvation that eventually destroys you.
“Satan” wants to be “God”. “Satan” lies to make himself look like “God”. Pleasure is the ultimate tool employed by “Satan” to control the masses of fools. If it feels good, what’s wrong with that? Subdued by the drug of pleasure, people stop thinking, and they don’t realize what they’re doing might be a bad idea until it’s too late.
(symbolically speaking)
http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/vanity-vs-purpose/
This is just my personal opinion, and I could be completely wrong — wouldn’t be the first time; but the way I see homosexual marriage is akin to what happened with Prohibition. Many saw Prohibition as a noble experiment, but the unintended consequences outweighed any positive consequence, and eventually it was repealed. As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, the natural progression of consequences of changing a centuries-old definition for the sake of an aberrant minority that seeks normality through the re-definition of a word is a slippery slope indeed.
Spook,
Indeed – and, of course, they may get their way in the matter. But they are pushing and pushing and pushing and eventually they will find that they have either pushed people too far, or have entirely pushed over society in to destruction. A hundred years from now, this whole debate will seem bizarre to our descendents – they’ll wonder how on earth anyone ever considered that a man could marry a man.
When we stand before God on judgment day and He says to us – you stood on financial issues in order to receive monetary blessings, but you failed to stand for My Law. And He asks why? What are we going to say?
And this is for those who think being financially strong in America will save the day, and that marriage is a “Non-issue.”
Collapse of a nation can come in more than one way, but it’s usually always the moral decay that leads to its collapse first.
So let’s put our hopes in something more than in the sinking sand of financial issues; but on the Solid Rock that is Jesus. The little sparrows they do not fret about what to wear, yet our heavenly father clothes them, or a place to sleep, He gives them their rest, or something to eat, He feeds them. Consider the lilies of the field, do they worry about what to wear? I tell you, Solomon in all His glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and All these other things will be added unto you.