The Hot Blog

Right on Dave. There is no good reason for this "Protection of Marriage" bullshit and it is completely ridiculous that this issue is being debated right now rather than the 5,000 other issues that are far more important. A travesty.

It's meant as an obfuscation, a distraction. War? What war?

There was a fairly lenghty discussion about the matter on this blog, back in March. It was under the post "The First Gay Superhero Movie," and there are a total of 158 comments.

My opinion remains what I said then: The problem could be solved if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, and instead offered civil unions for all. And if you want a marriage, you go to church.

I'm going to try not to get too deep into the discussion this time, though, because the last one was really exhausting.

P.S. Dave, way to re-up your liberal creds. Love ya, homey.

Very cynical, Eric.

Funnyish, but very cynical.

Just a joke. Funnyish was about what I was aiming for.

Nice post, DP. I agree completely -- as well as with Eric's suggested solution.

Eric beat me to the punch, but I was going to say something along the same lines of Dave feeling his own liberal guilt about criticizing the Gore movie, hence this posting.

It is really sad and pathetic. It makes me embarrassed to be an American, seriously. Who you choose to love and marry should be between the 2 people wanting to get married and no one else.

Maybe it'll all go away when the truth about Condaleeza Rice and G.W. Bush's affair gets leaked...which should be soon.

I do not want to speak for Dave or put words in his mouth, but I think it is much more likely that he is truly disgusted by the crock of shit that is the "Protection of Marriage" Act, rather than being worried about proving his liberal credentials or feeling guilty about not liking Al Gore's movie.

1: Dave seems to be sincere, although I don't know why he felt it necessary to call more attention to Eric's post. If he's tired of people talking about him instead of the topic at hand, he should exercise the same restraint.

2: Where's Nicol?

Call me cynical, but I can't help thinking that the two sides in the "marriage" "debate" deserve each other.

In this very specific instance, I think silence is perhaps the appropriate action. This issue has been brought up (again) at this time to try to rally a political base that is starting to turn on or at least lose fervor for the current administration.

The powers that be know that there's no chance for this to pass, and I don't even think for sure that they want it to pass, but they want to raise a commotion. If everyone would just ignore the current shenanigans, the current amendment won't make it out of the Senate, and that will be that (for now). Don't give them the publicity or controversy they're going for.

My wish.., and this is more personal than the entry... is that this becomes a rallying cry for the left and that a serious attempt at national civil union legislation emerges.

Still "separate but equal," but a foot in the door and a step towards long-running Supreme Court acceptance, no matter how conservative.

^ Well said.

What do you mean, Blackcloud?

It's true, the emergence of this issue a few months before the midterm elections is cheap political posturing. I take some comfort in the fact that even the president's base now recognizes it as such, and doesn't seem to be taking the bait. They're too angry about immigration, and they recognize that he doesn't really care about either. I wish they had seen that sooner.

If my libertarian fantasy of universal civil unions doesn't happen, the next best choice would be universal marriage rights. And when that doesn't happen, the next best choice is civil unions for gays.

There remains the federalism question-- that is, do we allow the people of each state to write their own laws, or is the matter one of civil rights that must be protected at the federal level? I can see both sides of that argument.

Finally, I do believe that Dave is sincere in what he's written above, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. I give him more credit than that.

I'm paying $3.70 a gallon for fucking gas here and this guy is telling us that a ban on gay marriage is going to make my life better. Lovely.

My comment "Well said" was for djk813's post, not the one after that by DP.

The fact that the proponents of the amendment use "protecting democracy from liberal activist judges" as the reason why it's needed is nothing short of hilarious. So, okay, to protect democracy you're going to pass a constitutional amendment that takes a supermajority to change anytime in the future?

If they really were concerned about "protecting" democratic (small d) wishes on this issue all their amendment needs to say is that "The states shall have the right to define marriage." That protects state laws from equal protection challenges under the federal constititution -- add something about a full faith and credit exception if you want to take it further, but there you go -- democracy is protected and marriage remains, as it always has been, a state issue, not a federal one. Without all the damned hypocrisy.

Aside from lame-brained, pandering politicians, who are the Americans who actually support this amendment?

I can't think of a more stupid, bigoted cause.

I hope this backfires big time, and the majority of conservatives see this for what it is -- an attempt to stir up the brain-dead religious fundamentalists and get them to the polls.

Clearly this administration, and Republicans in general by association, have failed in every imaginable way and they're about to pay the price for it. This is a Hail Mary pass (excuse the pun) and I'm praying for it to be intercepted.

I think the president's resurgence on this issue puts on full display the power of one James Dobson. The guy's radio audience is bigger than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson in their peak years. He's probably the second or third most powerful person in this country. If he calls Bush on the phone and says, "sign a bill of law that is just about ONE woman on life support" Bush says, "yes sir Boss".

I've heard many rumors that there are a couple of high ranking GOPers (one Rep. out in CA) that are as gay as anything on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. I honestly don't think Bush's heart is in this, I've never seen the man as an outright bigot...some of his supporters on the other hand.

By the way, here's what will happen: the proposed amendment will come up for a vote in the Senate. It will not receive 67 votes. Therefore, it will not be approved and sent to the House. That will be the end of it, at least for the time being, on a federal legislative level.

That's how our system of government works. I'm not there's any point in saying that's a sad day. It's a sad day when the system doesn't work, not when it does.

"2: Where's Nicol?"

Right here. And for you Jeff, I'll do a request.

We debated this issue at length a while back and there is really no need for me to keep it going here.

As I recall, virtually none of my questions got answered and nobody took the basic time to look up all of the complex arguments regarding children and the fact that marriage as an institution pre-existed our modern notions of governments.

Hence, I will ask again...

1) If marriage is only "a legal and economic pact, ahead of any moral significance",
than what business is it of any government to endorse it? If any of you really believe this, than you should really be arguing for the abolition of legal recognition of marriage entirely.

2) Marriage is a very complex notion, but the notion that children can be 100 % removed from it quite frankly nauseates me. Again, if children have nothing to do with marriage then why should a sovereign state give 'benefits' to any two people who just happen to live together? Why not more than two?

3) What is a human 'right' and who gets to determine what that 'right' is? Why?

4)Can you define 'equality' and explain your philosophy for that definition?

Modern day social liberalism is increaingly about destroying any semblance of security for children and sexualizing them in every way possible. Don't believe me...look at Hollywood and the fashion industry, the stronghold of modern 'progressives'.

I have yet to have a debate with someone regarding SSM where the proponent could actually defend their view philosophocally and not devolve into name calling and/or rhetoric. Shouting 'it's about equality' is emotion...not a well thought out argument.

I will say this, this issue will not be settled in our life time. This will be like abortion and be debated for generations and perhaps even centuries to come.

That social liberals expect that they can erase children from marriage overnight and not have to answer any tough questions is astonishing and reeks of an arrogance I have not seen in any other subject in my lifetime.

I'm not going to keep coming back to this thread because as I said before, we debated this not too long ago.

But I am more concerned with the welfare of children than I am about the right of two men to be 'husband and husband'.

I am quite confident history will show me on the right side of this issue.

When you can't even get secular, permissive France on your side for this issue and progressive Canada is now going to have a re-vote on the issue in the fall...perhaps you should reconsider your argument.

Everyone knows that the amendment will fail. The purpose of it is not to pass, but rather in the fall to be able to run commercials saying "Senator Burns voted for the Marriage Defense Amendment" or "Senator Nelson voted against it". It's all about this purely political angle.

Liberals want to erase children from marriage? Are you serious? That is one of the biggest crocks of shit I have ever heard. What are you basing that on? Is that what Falwell and Dobson say? I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage, and Nicol, your ludicrous rant did nothing to change that.

That's the side-stepping and empty rhetoric that I was looking for!

For one thing, I notice that Nicol is primarily interested in preventing men from marrying, belying the fact that his homophobia (and that's what it is) is anything other than gender-related. He doesn't like his traditional notions of masculinity damaged.

Second, using children as your primary argument, as I've stated before, is hypocrisy. Children are better taken care of in stable families. Families are made more stable when the rights of marriage are allowed to all, when health insurance is granted on an equitable basic, when adoption can be granted to same-sex couples rather than allowing children to languish in group homes.

The reason nobody ever answered Nicol's questions before was because it was largely agreed that they were an intellectual smokescreen to hide the true issues at stake.

As far as history goes...we'll all be long dead by the time this issue is decided, I predict.

Best wishes.

(I was referencing Nicol in my first line, not Stella...obviously)

This thread is getting more attention than some of the movie ones have lately. See, it is all Hollywood's fault.

As far as children, I think it's far better to be raised in a loving and understanding family than it is a bickering, broken one. If the loving one is gay and the broken one is hetero, guess which one I think is better for the child? If anything, adding children to the equation makes gay marriage a more viable option.

I've always found this to be a generational thing. Roe v. Wade kinda, but definitely the "Gay Threat" some people have.

I find it absurd that lawmakers are seriously telling roughly 6 - 8% of the population: YOU ARE NOT EQUAL, YOU ARE A THREAT TO US.

Anyone else listen to the Randi Rhodes show on Air America today? Evidently there's a female liberal candidate for Governor of Nevada (Leola McConnell) that has first hand knowledge of seceral "homo-erotic affairs" George W. Bush had. She said she saw him "eagerly and expertly" perform a homo-erotic act on another man and that she herself performed one on him.

http://bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com/

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/

Weee-hawww!!

I also agree this is a non-issue that's bring brought up as an a-typical wedge issue but it's just bigoted enough to get the conservatives all fired up.

That was "several," not "seceral.' Der.

I'm gay so gay marriage is important to me but I never quite understand why straight people care so much about gay marriage. Shouldn't you worry about your health benefits, retirement plan, job security, etc. before caring about whether I refer to my significant other as husband or partner? Talking about mixing up your priorities in life.

You're gay Waterbucket? Day it ain't so. I never would've thought...

David Poland doesn't care about straight liberal people.

BC - I do think it is a sad day. The day that the system allowed this kind of thing to become a legitimate threat would be a black, black day... the manifestation of what many of my more extreme friends said they needed to leave the country after each Bush election to avoid.

I have great faith that a lot of so called liberal issues are not as endangered as some would argue. Too many people are unwiling. Even in this case, the "renegade judges" spin is terribly disingenuous. I would almost rather Bush come out and say that he feels gay marriage is deeply immoral and he believes that anything to stop gay unions of any kind makes him dance like a little girl in a field on a spring day... or something like that.

"Even in this case, the 'renegade judges' spin is terribly disingenuous."

I agree, but only because the idea of activist judges is being used as a pretext. I doubt very many people who oppose gay marriage would be willing to accept it if a state legalized it through the legislative process, or through a referendum. Neither is highly likely in the foreseeable future, though, so the courts it will be for now.

At any rate, judicial intervention in such issues often does nothing but exacerbate things, if it does anything. It rarely, perhaps never, settles such issues. So far only the courts have been willing to put gay marriage into effect. It has been outlawed by referendum or by legislatures over 30 times. When there is that great a chasm between the judicial process and the democratic process, this is what you get. The judiciary can never achieve anything. People who rely on it alone to accomplish their goals are asking for failure, and they deserve it.

Someone above said that this was a generational thing and compared it to Roe v. Wade. That's sure been settled, hasn't it? The judges decided, and everyone agreed once and for all.

One thing alone is certain: this promises to get a lot, lot uglier.

This is indeed typical of the right-wing mindset: fight a losing battle in the hope of long-term gain down the road. The House Managers who impeached Clinton were told point blank by Senate leaders that they would never muster the votes to remove him and not to proceed. They went ahead anyway, bringing the government to a virtual standstill and wasting tens of millions of our tax dollars in what was essentially a fixed fight. But they did succeed in tarring the Democrats as the party of sleaze, a smear that continues to stick to this day (witness the recent front-page NYT article on the state of the Clintons' marriage). These people shouldn't even be allowed to run a Burger King, much less an entire country.

"These people shouldn't even be allowed to run a Burger King, much less an entire country."

I'm sure that's exactly what the rabid anti-Clinton people were saying in 1998.

Tell, me, Cadavra, who gets to decide who should run the country, and who shouldn't?

That should read, "Tell me, Cadavra . . ."

At the end of the day djk813 was right, the less said about this political three card monte scam the better.

That's what the bigots want, to take the country's eyes off of the monumental problems the nation is facing and argue about "boys kissing" as Bill Maher put it so well.

And that's what you are, pure and simple, if you want to deny other human beings this right: a bigot. Your arguments fall right into the same dustbin of history that holds similar statements about blacks and Indians.

Funny thing, I don't want the left taking this up as a cause either, because it's exactly what the GOP is drooling over. They are specifically targeting blacks with this crap to drive a wedge in. Not to mention, there are plenty of those in the middle who either don't care or disagree with a ban.

"Think of the children!!!" Seriously, you did not make yourself into a caricature right out of The Simpsons, did you Nicol? The number of children tortured, raped and murdered each year by individuals with fucked up ideas about religion dwarfs anything that might befall them if they have two mommies or daddies, but I don't see anyone putting up a ban on that.

Let me flip one of your arguments around for you to answer ("If any of you really believe this, than you should really be arguing for the abolition of legal recognition of marriage entirely."): if the children are SUCH a concern in this, why aren't you and all the rest of the villagers out in the streets with torches and pitchforks demanding that all gay adoptions be reversed and the natural children of gay parents be snatched? A little too Romans killing newborns for you?

You also should look a little further back into history if you want to talk about the origins of marriage, as marriage itself grew out of the concept of women as vassals and property of men most notably within religious doctrine.

PS - please learn the difference between Paris and France, otherwise it undercuts your arguments when you are trying to look worldly. Paris is no more France than Manhattan is America yet both get confused by corporate media ad nauseum.

"You also should look a little further back into history if you want to talk about the origins of marriage, as marriage itself grew out of the concept of women as vassals and property of men most notably within religious doctrine."

Vassals? What?? You must mean something else, since women were rarely vassals of anyone. Also, the notion that women were property of men was a juridical doctrine, not a religious one, and long predates the advent of Christianity.

I'm still curious about Blackcloud's assertion that the "two sides in the 'marriage' 'debate' deserve each other"...as a very non-hypothetical person who would like some equality, what exactly are you intimating I deserve?

I love that the people most likely to get disgusted at two men marrying each other are the very people would never actually see it. It's not like conservative small towns are a secret breeding ground for homosexuals.

Legal or not, a lot of the people who are against it would never even see it.

As blackcloud said, marraige long predates christianity. Early christianity held its followers to be ascetic and be married only 'to Christ'. If believers were too weak to engage this lifestyle then they were encouraged into monogamous marraiges. Christianity initially offered an escape to women in the entire mediterranean region if they didn't want to be 'married off' (a property and status exchange for their father). That's part of the reason the religion was viewed as seditious, rather than just a passing fad, it was an economic as well as a social threat--so it was eventually coopted into the Roman government so they could better control it. Around that time Augustine began misinterpreting Genesis to make it read that sex was evil (he'd been a very naughty boy before he converted), and women in particular were transformed by his views into vile creatures of temptation and responsible for all the problems in the world (Pandora). Christianity still hasn't really recovered from Augustine's natterings.

Marraige throughout the western world has been tied to private property--and particularly patriarchy. Engels laid it out quite convincingly in his book "On the Origins of the Family" and he also conveniently excludes all of Asia (except Polynesia) because Confucianism shoots holes through all his theses.

But the basis is that all societies are naturally polyandrous and matriarchical. That is, any individual is married to any other individual in that society if the other is not related to his mother. He uses Polynesia and other 'primitive' societies as his examples of this, and carefully fails to mention that most of these societies were monogamous, they just had looser restrictions on whom you could marry, and worked with essentially small communities, rather than large populations. The theory is that in a primitive society without private property there's no need to worry about heirs, and therefore men have no interest in guaranteeing 100% that their children are their's and not someone else's. only the mother would matter in such a society, because you can't falsify who you popped out of.

The argument goes that when private property is introduced, heirs become necessary to ensure a life's work passes to a new generation. If men are accumulating wealth (presuming women are raising children) then men want to be 100% sure thier possessions pass to children that are definitely his. so marraige, as we know it, arises as a way to bind a woman to a man to ensure he has heirs, and this 'enslaves' a woman and makes her the property of the man.

I disagree with many of Engels' points but he did a great deal of research on the history of marraige customs throughout most of the world and the book is worth a read. It should certainly clear up notions that religion somehow created marraige.

to answer Nicol
1) marraige isn't just a legal and economic pact, it has great social significance as it's tied to the production of hopefully stable children that will hopefully perpetuate a stable society. Our society and to an extent our genetics embed how we perceive the role of gender and parents, most societies seem to do pretty well with one parent of each sex, but we've seen lately that two nurturing parents of the same sex are better than abusive parents of opposite sex or in many cases overworked single parents, children of divorce with two families may well perceive their family to be broken; there are a lot of ways for marraige as it exists today to be detrimental to children. A monogamous homosexual couple has a lot more potential positive benefit to offer a community and society, and can be much better in the long run than a bunch of heterosexual businessmen with families who can't keep their dicks in their pants and out of their secretaries. heterosexual promiscuity can do a lot more damage to children and society than homosexuality ever will manage.
2) I don't see why children have to be removed from marraige if homosexual marraiges are allowed, I think children are an integral part of marraige in our culture, and see no reason to remove them if we're opening up marraige to all sexualities.
if you're talking about the ommission of traditional conception, well that's been on the way out for decades. there should be all sorts of possibilities open to every couple who desires children. Not just the 'ol in-out, know-what-I-mean, a nod's as good as a wink, say no more!'
3) a human right is the criteria we use to separate humans from beast and should guarantee a level plane of consideration for all humans. Unfortunately culture determines it, and has often skewed the definition of human as well. Why? because we respond to leadership, resist change, and form communities that are exclusive as a protective instinct. go sit in a middle school cafeteria for a week and observe how culture dictates human rights.
4) equality means all homo-sapiens have the same human rights. and gender, race, sexuality, religion, class, ideology, etc shouldn't limit the application of those rights in a culture. equality doesn't really exist, but we keep trying to support it because it's a great ideal.

I get really annoyed with christians who are anti gay, and seem to try to build a secure little niche free of anything troubling. Jesus loved the poor and he loved the broken, and this tirade by the christian right against homosexuality in culture is so completely in the wrong direction it's embarassing.

Adam, thank you for responding directly to Nicol. It prevents him from thinking that the liberals are unwilling to argue his points directly, no matter how off-base they be.

First of all, I'm amused by Nicol's condescending dismissal of name-calling in this thread. That's like somebody walking into a room and shouting "Niggers steal!" and then taking offense to being called a racist. Sometimes people deserve to be called names.

I'm with the camp that says government should be out of the marriage business altogether so long as marriage is considered more than a civil union. If various religions want to "marry" people as a sacrement, have at it. And refuse to marry those you disapprove of. Those bigoted morons deserve each other (oops, more name-calling).

But consenting adults should be allowed to enter into legal relationships with other consenting adults and receive those benefits. That's a no-brainer.

As for Nicol's "the kids!" argument... as others have said, what's best for children is a stable, loving family. Gay couples can provide that, and have for years.

"I'm still curious about Blackcloud's assertion that the 'two sides in the 'marriage' 'debate' deserve each other'...as a very non-hypothetical person who would like some equality, what exactly are you intimating I deserve?"

It's just that I think there are hypocrites on both sides of the issue, and that this means they have more in common than either would admit. That's all. I have no idea what kind of person you are, James, so I'm the last person on Earth who could or should say what you deserve.

For those of you who think Nicol is making up what he says, there are those whose goal is to destroy the family. Stanley Kurtz has written extensively about the possible consequenes of legalizing gay marriage in the Weekly Standard (and elsewhere). He tends to be alarmist, or at least overstate things. The question is whether or not these things will happen, not whether people are trying to bring them about. Because there are.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12266&R=ECBD396FA

Bring what things about? The destruction of marriage? Stanley Kurtz, as you say, is an alarmist and overstates things. Hardly someone to be taken seriously.

Dave-

How is being recognized by the state as married a "freedom"?

The fact is, gay marriage is about nothing more than a push for societal acceptance. Straight people are recognized as married, so homosexuals want that same recognition. It's not about love or rights. Is there a homosexual here who can tell me what they geniunely want out of this issue?

Getting a marriage license is just like getting any other license; it's not a right, and there are certain requirements to meet. Do you have to be in love to qualify? Nope. Does the license discriminate against homosexuals? Nope. In fact, gays can marry, to somone of the opposite sex. Likewise, as a straight man, I am unable under the law to marry another straight man. I could marry a lesbian, though. There is no sexual discrimination, only gender discrimation.

That said, I'm with those who think that government should just get out of the marriage business. And I'm fine with civil unions. And if a homosexual couple want to arrange a ceremony and walk down an aisle, I don't think the government should stop them. However, I don't think that because the government recognizes and supports a long-standing family arrangement, that it is obligated to recognize all non-tradional arrangements as well (including homosexual parterships, poligamy, etc.)

Thanks for the article, Blackcloud.

The question is less about gay marriage than it is about the slippery slope that leads to the end of democratic freedoms. I'm not sure I buy it because, despite the leanings of certain radical people, gay marriage is about monogamy and love and all those things Kurtz cherishes.

After wrestling my computer for the last few days, I finally got a chance to read Nicol's take just now...

What disturbs me is a lot of unspoken subtext and a number of words put in my mouth.

ND writes: “1) If marriage is only "a legal and economic pact, ahead of any moral significance",
than what business is it of any government to endorse it? If any of you really believe this, than you should really be arguing for the abolition of legal recognition of marriage entirely.” (end)

The word “only” is a hot button. On the flip side, it is reasonable to expect a more complete explanation from me, which is to say that governmental involvement with marriage is an issue of law and law is not a moral construct. It may be created in a moral atmosphere. But the idea of law is flat and not meant to be terribly flexible.

An abolition is extreme, but yes, I would prefer that the state control only civil unions and that they be available to all… even including such extremes as polygamy… as a legal construct. They can start a corporation together and get benefits. And as you might argue, polygamists love having lots of children.

Also, the laws around marriage/civil unions do not have to remain the same as the concept evolves. Just because we have painted layer after layer of laws on top of an old idea of marriage does not mean that we have to just keep adding. Personally, I have no problem with a business adjusting benefits to distinguish benefits to single parents, married parents, gay parents, singles, etc, so long as a rational reasons for the distinctions can be argued and survive the judicial system.

It is not the government’s job to protect the moral institution of marriage. If it were, the failure to date would have to be marked as no less than breathtaking. And the idea that it was once a priority may be true, but has become, like the laws of Kosher eating, an antiquity. The government’s only real involvement with the dissolution of marriage is economic and legal, leaving the moral issues to religious organizations. Why not in the creation of marriage?

If you want a lovely example of how government involvement in personal choices works, take a look at China where there is a still-growing gender imbalance and girls are literally thrown away on a regular basis. And in that case, the state has a real and important investment in the initial conceit of population control.

If you really believe what you say, you seem to be calling for more governmental involvement in all marriages. (Which I find hard to believe.)

Do you believe that marriages that have no intention of bearing children should be annulled by the state? Do you believe that the government should test people physically to make sure that the union has a high percentage chance of producing healthy children?

Where you seem to get all subtext-y is:

ND writes: “Modern day social liberalism is increasingly about destroying any semblance of security for children and sexualizing them in every way possible. Don't believe me...look at Hollywood and the fashion industry, the stronghold of modern 'progressives'.

I have yet to have a debate with someone regarding SSM where the proponent could actually defend their view philosophically and not devolve into name calling and/or rhetoric. Shouting 'it's about equality' is emotion...not a well thought out argument.” (end)

Wow. Sexualizing children. Where did that come from? What does it mean in this context?

And you believe that Hollywood leads, doesn’t follow? Oy.

“It’s about equality” can be both emotional and rational. Ending slavery was all about equality. And the process still has not worked itself out. It’s not easy. Well intended people can created havoc and destroy the spirit of those they intend to help or support.

My point, overall, is that out government regulates and oversees so many things that are inappropriate. But given the structure that exists, legal equality seems to speak to the core of our constitution, even though that spirit is violated every day on every political side.

We are a hundred years away, at least, from the government having had a nation-building interest in marriage… any kind of marriage.

The current status of this issue, having anti-hay marriage laws knocked out by the courts, is a reflection that the American Constitution can still work. There is a real problem in that a marriage from one state must be acknowledged in others for the national system to work. This is why I believe that civil union law should be the next step. But the truth is, in my opinion, the right isn’t interested in protecting marriage. They are interested in keeping gay Americans disengaged from the mainstream.

I really have no problem with you, Nicol, or anyone arguing about what marriage is or should be. And you may be more intellectually honorable than most. As in the discussion about An Inconvenient Truth, not everyone on “the other side” is a walking stereotype.

But given the structure of our society, you have to ask…

Should gay significant others be given the rights of access and an assumption of a legal relationship if both parties agree to it?

Should gay significant others be free to get spousal insurance benefits, which are an economic conceit, not a moral one?

Should gay significant others be able to invest in one another’s lives with the benefit of the rules of marriage that protect spouses in this country?

Should gay couples have the right to raise adoptive children or children who are biologically connected to one parent in a nation with a high percentage of single (and thus, single sex) parent run households already?

Should the US Government incentivize marriage by giving tax breaks to people simply for signing a paper, as opposed to – if you believe that the government should be at all involved in motivating relationships – targeting specific benefits, such as children or home ownership or savings?

P.S. I am very pleased by the generally civil tone of this debate in here. Good on you all.

That may be because the only right-winger was Nicol, who seems to have opted on only the one posting.

It's true that this issue brings out the emotion––do you notice that there is few, if any factual data being offered about the validity of either side of this debate?

Even if it exists (and it does), would we care?

In my opinion, the moment anyone starts thowing out the term "bigot" has lost their side of the argument. This snobby presumption that disagreement with same-sex marriage is based on hatred (or fear) of homosexuals heralds back to third-grade name-calling. It is as false and, ironically, as "bigoted" as those they deride.

We decide every day what bonuses and rewards we give certain groups of people. I can't get the Senior discount at the movies, and I don't get a free drink during "Ladies Hour." My neighbor with four kids will get a higher tax rebate than my family with only two kids. I'll never get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund.

But you know what? I can still go to the movies, I can drink all I want, I still get a tax rebate of some kind and I can still attend college and find a way to pay for it. Anyone and everyone can have a lifelong committed relationship and most, if not all, the legal benefits therein.

Gay marriage is the latest in decades of "tweaks" that have made the legal and social concept of a marriage into a joke––hand-slaps for deadbeat dads, no accountability for those who commit adultery, parent-centered (rather than child-centered) custody hearings, and divorces that are easier (and less costly) than leaving my cell phone contract.

Frankly I think making the focus on gay marriage is very short-sided. We need to make marriage a real contract again, and the people––not politicians, and certainly not judges––should be the ones to make the final decision.

What is your disagreement with same sex marriage based on then? Tweaking the concept of marriage? The moment someone against gay marriage says it's about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, they have lost their side of the argument. And seriously, what is more of a true threat to marriage, allowing same sex couples to marry, or your list of adulterers, deadbeat dads and easy divorces? I would think the answer is quite obvious.

"We decide every day what bonuses and rewards we give certain groups of people. I can't get the Senior discount at the movies, and I don't get a free drink during "Ladies Hour." My neighbor with four kids will get a higher tax rebate than my family with only two kids. I'll never get a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund."

Only one of those examples (the tax rebate) involves the government... and you are legally allowed to have four kids to get the same tax rebate as your neighbor. So your analogy falls flat on its face.

"Anyone and everyone can have a lifelong committed relationship and most, if not all, the legal benefits therein."

This is simply not true. David listed a number of the benefits gay couples can't get. Besides, what rationale is there for prohibiting gay marriage? Senior discounts are a measure of respect for elders, ladies' nights are a way to get more women (and therefore men) into a bar, the United Negro College Fund is designed to give underprivilieged black kids a chance at a quality education.

So what is the purpose of denying gays the right to marry? Is it a way to uplift heterosexuals? Or a way to penalize homosexuals? And how are either of those things anything but intolerant? Would it be equally OK in your eyes for the government to prohibit interracial marriage, because mixed race couples can still have longterm relationships?

Sometimes it IS about bigotry, and pointing that out doesn't lose the argument. BEING a bigot is how you lose the argument.

Nicol D. mentioned something in her post that needs clarification.

The Conservative (they no longer call themselves Progressive Conservative, thus the "Progressive" no longer applies) Canadian government is revisiting same sex legislation as a political tactic to shake-up the reforming Liberal party. The Liberals are going through the process of electing a new leader. The idea is to stir the issue in an attempt to further destabilize the Liberal party, not to react to an outcry of the public (there was none - the sun went down and came up and daily life has not changed here).

^Nicol's a guy.

The amendment was defeated 49-48 today. Technically, the motion to close debate lost by that count, not the amendment itself, which was never voted on. But the effect is the same. But you can argue it doesn't mean anything, since the PA house voted to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage yesterday. This is a state issue, and that's where the action is at, for good and ill.

"So what is the purpose of denying gays the right to marry?"

While the U.S. government is secular, it reflects the Judeo-Christian tradition it was founded on. That tradition has long held marriage as a religious institution between a man and woman. The overwhelming majority of citizens did not oppose the state's recognition of marriage when it began, for obvious reasons (i.e. benefits). Now that the state's involvement in marriage is being used to undermine the Judeo-Christian tradition many hold sacred, people are second-guessing the government's involvement.

I guess it's akin letting the government sponsoring a youth basketball program with brand new courts and new personalized jersies, but coming in later and saying "Instead of putting the ball in the hoop, you will now throw the ball through these goalposts we've installed." Everything else may remain the same, but dude, that game isn't basketball anymore. The basket is a fundamental element of the game. Likewise, the man/woman element is a fundamental of marriage, and most people don't want the government messing with it.

Still waiting for a good reason as to why the government needs to ban gay marriage. mysteryperfecta, your BS ain't cuttin' it.

Some clarification––let's say we remove religion and morality and personal opinion regarding this subject, and simply look at what "works" over the course of time, and what does not.

What social constructs have produced the healthiest children, the least amount of crime––values that are considered essential for a healthy society? I've read plenty of studies to show that a so-called "traditional" marriage is the best means to create stable, productive citizens and raise emotionally healthy children. But there would be a dozen opponents who disagree.

I wonder if ANY study, from any viewpoint, would ever be considered neutral enough for all sides to accept (especially if the results disagree with our own opinion). And there's the rub.

The very reasons we give some people benefits and deny those benefits to others is to uphold those values our society wants to maintain. We want to honor our elderly, give additional advantages to those we feel might not get a fair chance, and reward particular behavior.

Yet there are contradictions everywhere, because we want every opinion to be given every legal recognition. We reward a woman's right to choose by allowing abortions but deny her choice to drink alcohol when she is pregnant. We pay heavy fines (or go to jail) if we cheat on a legal contract, yet walk away untouched if we committ adultery. Our credit is destroyed if we default on our Student Loan but somehow deadbeat dads keep neglecting to pay their child support with minimal penalty.

And if history has shown that traditional male/female marriage is the best means toward a stable society and healthy children, why would we grant legal recognition and benefits to something else? Or does the long-term data show otherwise?

Personally, I think this issue can be solved by having a civil union that can apply to ANY two people. Two lesbians, two elderly sisters, a mother with her dying son, two heterosexual college buddies (etc.) could apply for a civil union that grants basic privacy and legal rights across the board. Couples of all persuasions can get basic legal allowances, and those who wish can thereafter get "married" in whatever format they see fit.

If the government wishes to grant additional benefits to reward those practicing a more "traditional" marriage, they have every right to do so, but no one has been "banned" from basic legal rights involving inhertiance, privacy, and the like.

Heck, this open-ended civil union could allow polygamists and close relatives to have these benefits. As long as they are consenting adults, they should be entitled to all legal benefits, correct?

Stella's Boy-

Is that what passes for a point-by-point rebuttal of my post?

Truth be told, I cut through the BS. Gay advocacy groups are doing what they do-- attempting to mainstream homosexuality. Those opposed prefer the status quo; although marriage in practice often underwhelms, they hold the ideal of marriage in high esteem.

We also cannot gloss over the fact that in Christianity, homosexuality is, you could say, not as God intended. That, and any talk of historical origins is worthless; marriage today is still considered a religious institution in the U.S. So it only makes sense that homosexuality and marriage do not mix in a predominently Christian society.

So the bottom line is, marriage is not a constitutional right, ours is a representative democracy, and the majority want to keep marriage as it is. Down the road, if societal mores change, perhaps there will be a vote to allow it. Personally, I believe it should be a state rather than a federal issue, and that civil unions should be allowed.

Estavares, there is no law saying that pregnant women aren't allowed to drink alcohol. This is merely common practice based on the many tests showing that it led to birth defects...you know, science.

mysteryperfecta, half of your argument was comparing gay marriage to a youth basketball program. Sorry if I neglected a rebuttal. I disagree that these so-called defenders of marriage hold it in high regard and are merely trying to protect it. If that were true, they would be working on the divorce and fidelity problems. However, I don't see them discussing those two threats to the "sanctity" of marriage. And it's hardly a majority that wants to keep marriage as it is. 51% last I heard, though I'm sure it depends on the poll.

"mysteryperfecta, half of your argument was comparing gay marriage to a youth basketball program. Sorry if I neglected a rebuttal."

Simpler still? Sorry, I can't dumb it down anymore than that. :p j/k

"If that were true, they would be working on the divorce and fidelity problems."

Working on them how? PSA's? While thinking about how to combat those millinea-old staples of society, here is what is seen as an immediate affront that can be decisively opposed.

"51% last I heard, though I'm sure it depends on the poll."

Actually, it depends on the question. 51% is in reference to the constitutional amendment, I believe. The general opposition to gay marriage is much higher.

MysteryP - Though I disagree with you, I have to honor your right to believe homosexuality is immoral based on your faith, just as I have to agree that some jews believe that keeping Kosher is important.

The future of this kind of discussion is very, very challenging, because big picture, it also speaks to international debate, as so much of the Muslim world mixes religion with their national politics. Forget homosexuality for a second. Can "they" ever accept "our" idea of women as equals?

I do object to buiz words like "mainstreaming" because they hide the subtext... that somehow gays should get back in the closet. Because of the nature of the world, there is very little middle ground. The same would be true in abortion state-by-state. Abortion will never be eliminated as a legal option in America. But if you are a teen in a state where it is illegal, what ar eyour real options.

"Mainstreaming" gay America is not encouraging a choice that will magically spread. We will all be in a better place when we talk about who is doing what with their sex organs less often.

Personally, mysteryperfecta, I believe that divorce and infidelity cheapen the sanctity of marriage. I don't think allowing same sex people to marry will cheapen it. I still want to get married someday, and allowing two gay people to get married does nothing to change that. However, the fact that divorce and infidelity are so common definitely gives me pause about getting married. I believe that it would be much more beneficial to society to focus on divorce and infidelity problems rather than fighting gay marriage.

The basketball analogy doesn't work, because no one is trying to change the game, ie. marriage. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, because gay marriage is conceived as traditional marriage for gays (love, monogamy, non-incest relationship).

Instead, they are trying to get more people involved. It's more akin to creating a league for female players...while it won't be exactly the same as men's play, it allows more people to be involved.

JeffMCM:

Some "Fetal Rights" Laws do indeed exist, hence the contradiction––a whole other topic for another day.

Here's an article with some info:

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/1108pregnant.html

"Tell, me, Cadavra, who gets to decide who should run the country, and who shouldn't?"

The voters, obviously. The impeachment of Clinton was a blatant attempt by the GOP to overturn the results of two elections that they did not win. Funny how the people who were so gung-ho to get rid of Bubba by any means necessary get their panties in a bunch whenever someone brings up the I-word for Bush--who, unlike Clinton, has broken countless laws and deserves to be removed from office.

You are all being led down a very harmful path by a very liberal Hollywood. Are you telling me that I have to accept something I know is immoral? Where is my freedom? How can society decide that a baby should not have a mother and a father? Gay marriage will ultimately lead to the restriction of freedoms of everyone who disagrees with homosexuals. We are lost.

You know it's immoral? Did God call you and Pat Robertson directly to tell you that? You have your freedom. You can get married. Society decides whether or not a baby has a mother and father? The mother and father don't decide? Is this a serious post? I hope not.

I did not say anything about God. I know that men having sex with men is immoral. I do not want to be forced to accept that. Why should I? It is a behavior, not a race. Tell me why I should be forced to accept it?

And by the way, any person is allowed to marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. Where is the discrimination?

Once again, no answers to the big questions.

Once again, no answers to the big questions.

The discrimination is gender-based. You are saying that a woman who wishes to be in a relationship with another woman is inferior to one who wishes to be in a relationship with a man. By definition, discriminatory.

You may not be aware that most homosexuals do not consider their identity to be based on behavior, but as a matter of pure internal identity.

There is no reason for you to personally accept what you consider to be immoral into your personal life. Meanwhile, how does a man wanting to share his life with another man damage your life? Your individual, personal life, Lucretia?

Estevares, I never heard of those regulations involving mothers and their drinking/drug habits. They aren't a bad idea in principle, but I have to say that I agree with the legal scholar in the article you linked to who says that it should be a treatment issue, and not a legal one. But thanks for the info.

Estevares, I never heard of those regulations involving mothers and their drinking/drug habits. They aren't a bad idea in principle, but I have to say that I agree with the legal scholar in the article you linked to who says that it should be a treatment issue, and not a legal one. But thanks for the info.

I'm guessing Lucretia's posts are a joke, because they're a little too over-the-top in their feeble-mindedness.

However, just in case, I'll bite.

Lucretia wrote: "I did not say anything about God. I know that men having sex with men is immoral. I do not want to be forced to accept that. Why should I?"

You aren't being forced to accept men having sex with men. You can deny your friendship, sympathy and understanding to gay couples. You can fly an anti-gay flag, wear an anti-gay shirt, put an anti-gay bumper sticker on your car. You can make their lives as miserable as you want so long as you don't physically harm anybody or cross the line to overt harassment.

Gay men will continue to have sex whether they can be legally married or not. The government can't stop that, anymore than they can stop straight couples from having anal or oral sex.

Your rights are not being infringed upon. You have the right to hate and disapprove of whomever you wish. Legal gay marriage doesn't take that right away from you. It gives rights to others.

And just as I support your right to do all the hateful, idiotic things I listed above... any reasonably intelligent American should support homosexuals' right to marry.

I didn't realize that I was obligated to respond within a certain time period. I will try to be quicker next time. So what about behavior I do not agree with? Do I have to accept it? Why should I be forced to accept it? I realize you did not say anything about God, but when you say things like, "I know it is immoral," I can't help but wonder how you know this without a doubt. I thought that God might have called and told you.

"I do object to buzz words like "mainstreaming" because they hide the subtext... that somehow gays should get back in the closet."

The buzz word refers specifically to the activities of gay advocacy groups which, like most of the more millitant groups (including those in black advocacy, animal advocacy, environmental advocacy, abortion advocacy, feminist advocacy) do as much or more to rally the opposition as they do to advance their agenda. The fact is, the gay population at large was not clamouring to get married. Moreover, they'd just as soon not be defined by their sexuality, which is why I think many (most?) are weary of the bayonet charge of the more millitant gay groups.

I do believe that these groups are looking to not only stick it to traditional values, but turn the knife. That behavior gets a free pass, but God forbid if traditional America takes a stand, much less has the gall to push back. There's a difference 'a spoonful of sugar' and "You'll take it and you'll LIKE IT!"-- people don't like to be bullied. So the attitude has become, "This far, no further."

"The fact is, the gay population at large was not clamouring to get married. Moreover, they'd just as soon not be defined by their sexuality, which is why I think many (most?) are weary of the bayonet charge of the more millitant gay groups. I do believe that these groups are looking to not only stick it to traditional values, but turn the knife."

Are you an expert on the gay population and what they want? What are you basing this on? And what "groups" are you speaking of and how do you know their motives? You are making very vague accusations.

"they'd just as soon not be defined by their sexuality"

No one wants to be defined by their sexuality, but when a government says people of a specific sexuality are barred from a common legal and religious practice, who is defining who's sexuality?

Stella's Boy-

"Are you an expert on the gay population and what they want?"

Yes. I have to be to comment, don't I?

I saw an interview with a gay radio talkshow host from San Franscisco who said exactly what I asserted about the level of clamouring in the gay community to get married.

It's just an observation, but believe that, apart from their sexuality, gay people are the same as straight people. Which is why I can only assume that they'd be mortified by the more confrontational activities of gay activists (the parades, the reinforcement of gay stereotypes by gays, etc.)

As for the more millitant gay activist groups, their modus operandi seems no different than any other group of this type. They start well-intentioned, but inevitably become reliant on the thing they're supposedly trying to eradicate. It becomes about self-preservation, about maintaining a purpose. If you initially asked these groups what they wanted, they'd invariably say "To protect the rights of and give voice to _______ ." After a while, if they were honest, the answer to the question of what they want would be simply, "More." Look at organizations like the Rainbow coalition and the NAACP. They're in the business of creating and maintaining riffs and racism where they arguably didn't exist. The same seems to hold true of labor unions. Groups like GLAAD may not be to that point, yet, but how many more press releases on Gene Shalit is it going to take?

I guess I'm just not familiar with any militant gay activist groups. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they have eluded me. Haven't seen them on the news or in the media in any capacity. So you believe gay people are the same as straight people? That makes me even more confused as to why you want to deny them marriage rights.

"So you believe gay people are the same as straight people? That makes me even more confused as to why you want to deny them marriage rights."

By "marriage rights", are you referring to a right to marry, or are you referring to the entitled benefits that come with the state's recognition of marriage?

Firstly, I don't believe civil marriage is a right. Like other state-issued licenses, there are prerequisites. In the case of marriage, the traditional man/woman dynamic was either explicitly stated or implicitly assumed. The state's intent wasn't to get an official definition of marriage on the books, and to traditional America, it was never the government's place to so. But you understand society at the time; the prospect of gay marriage didn't enter into the equation.

As for the benefits, tax and otherwise, that come with marriage, you can have them. They didn't factor in to my decision to get married. The state didn't legitimize my marriage. I spent five seconds signing a piece of paper, and haven't thought about it since. You want to walk down an aisle, get rings, eat some cake, change your name, divvy up your assets as you please? Knock yourself out. But please, have some charity. Marriage is a deeply-held Christian tradition in this country. Yes, the execution can be flawed, but the ideal remains. In Christianity, the man-woman dynamic is a core element of marriage, and additionally, frowns on the practice of homosexuality. Let us keep our tradition. Marriage is just a title, but it means a lot to a lot of people. Meet us in the middle; tolerate our beliefs as you want us to tolerate your lifestyle.

MysteryPerfecta, in what way does the marriage of two men affect your marriage?

And your beliefs will be respected only as long as they instruct you how to live YOUR life, and no longer. The point at which you assert that your beliefs should dictate the lives of others is the point at which you have seperated yourself from the ideals of America.

This country was not built on tradition. It was built on the proposition "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

America has not always treated all men as equals. But the moral foundation of America, that which makes it the finest country in the world, depends upon our continued, constant struggle to reach that worthy goal.

". . . any reasonably intelligent American should support homosexuals' right to marry."

That logic is so inbred it definitely couldn't get married in any state.

"Posted by: mysteryperfecta at June 8, 2006 10:38 AM

"MysteryPerfecta, in what way does the marriage of two men affect your marriage?"

It doesn't. Now answer a question for me. Should the extent of my interest in issues be limited to what directly and tangibly affects me? Because that excludes a helluva lot of important issues.

"The point at which you assert that your beliefs should dictate the lives of others is the point at which you have seperated yourself from the ideals of America."

Ideals such as democracy? A system of government in which we vote for people who represent our ideals, and for issues for which we believe a certain way? Issues that become laws that dictate other people's lives?

"This country was not built on tradition."

I disagree profusely.

"It was built on the proposition 'that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.'"

That's from the Declaration of Independence, and is philosophy, not policy. It also sounds eerily like a belief that would dictate the lives of others.

Law is filled with discrimination. Driver's license law, voting, holding office, drinking, smoking, Social Security, etc have built-in age discrimation. Welfare has income discrimation. Affirmative action has racial discrimination. Marriage license law has gender dicrimination. You don't have the right to any of these things unless you meet the requirements. If you meet the requirements, you gain access to stated privileges.

Gay "marriage" will definitely affect me personally. In several cities in Massachussetts, where a few self-absorbed judges forced their will on the people, many gays are demanding that homosexuality be taught as a viable lifestyle in school to children as young as kindergartners. I do NOT want my children to be taught this. Doesn't that affect me. You are all so blind.
When there is no "no" to any behavior, then there must be "yes" to every behavior. If same-sex "marriage" is allowed, no one will ever be able to say "no" to anything again. There is also a group of people in The Netherlands, a very permissive society, dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia.
I suppose that wouldn't affect me or my children either? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

There's a group in the USA dedicated to promoting pedophilia as well. They're called NAMBLA and nobody likes them.

I'm tired of this 'activist judges' nonsense as well. The Massachusetts ruling happened because it was decided that the existing statutes violated existing laws and were discriminatory. The judges were doing their jobs, which were to clarify existing law and eliminate conflicts.

Mysteryperfecta, our legal system has allowed all of those forms of 'discrimination' that you mention, several of which barely fit that word, for built-in reasons of public welfare. It has yet to be proven in any way that restricting marriage has any benefit to society whatsoever, although obviously that's what this discussion is about. But don't pretend like your version of discrimination is equivalent to keeping kids from drinking...why? Because they can't handle the responsibility? Because, as with welfare or affirmative action, assistance is not needed to promote a more equal society?

MysteryPerfecta said: "Should the extent of my interest in issues be limited to what directly and tangibly affects me?"

That is a fair point, but that is not relevant to what you originally said. You said "Let us keep our tradition." And I asked how the marriage of gay men can affect your tradition.

I would also like to add that tradition does not lend moral weight to anything. I am perfectly comfortable opposing, say, female genital mutilation, even though it is a cultural tradition is some parts of the world.

MysteryPerfecta said: "Ideals such as democracy? ..."

The ideals to which I was referring were freedom and limited government. And although democracy is the mechanism of freedom, our system was designed to protect from the tyranny of the majority, as well.

MysteryPerfecta said: "That's from the Declaration of Independence, and is philosophy, not policy. It also sounds eerily like a belief that would dictate the lives of others."

Again, a fair point, and one totally removed from your rhetoric. Your policy is clearly founded in a philosophy. If you believed homosexuality was morally neutral, you would not be making your argument.

Oh, and those words do not imply that we may dictate the lives of others. Just the opposite, in fact. They imply that every man has the right to his own choices, so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others. The country does not always work that way in practice, but that is the ideal to which we strive.

MysteryPerfecta said: "Law is filled with discrimination... Marriage license law has gender dicrimination. You don't have the right to any of these things unless you meet the requirements. If you meet the requirements, you gain access to stated privileges."

You offer no explanation of why those requirements can not or should not be changed.

"Many gays are demanding that homosexuality be taught as a viable lifestyle in school to children as young as kindergartners."

See this just sounds like paranoid, alarmist bullshit with no basis in reality. And the slippery slope argument is ridiculous. If we allow gay marriage, people will not be marrying dogs or trees in a few years. The sky hasn't fallen in the places that now allow gay marriage or civil unions.

"When there is no 'no' to any behavior, then there must be 'yes' to every behavior. If same-sex 'marriage' is allowed, no one will ever be able to say 'no' to anything again."

The slippery slope argument is a common logical fallacy. Nobody here is advocating pedophilia.

It's interesting, though, to see what the basic, underlying fear is of those on the other side: that this is one step on the road to allowing civilization as we know it to crumble (which is especially ironic since few Presidents have been as uninterested in the rule of law as the current one).
It seems like education is the only tool that will work to undermine this fear.

Yeah that is interesting jeff. Did people have this fear when interracial marriage bans were lifted? That it was the beginning of the end?

And I wonder why this is a threat to civilization only in even-numbered years?

I suspect they probably did, suspecting the African disposition for lawlessness and laziness. I heard that when a person meets and knows three gay people, that's when attitudes start to change. The non-threatening behavior of one gay person in someone's life can be considered an exception to the rule, and two can be a coincidence, but three is a trend (So the lesson is: gay people, stop moving to large cities!)

Maybe you would know more if you would stop reading something other than Moveon.org or 365gay.com. The people in Provincetown, MA have already proposed this educational change. The people in North Truro just fired someone because he does not support gay "marriage". Where is the tolerance? The sky didn't fall for many years on the societies that allowed decadence and pleasure to rule, but it did fall.

I have never once read moveon.org, and I have never heard of the other site before. But thanks for the insult. Maybe you should start reading something other than rushlimbaugh.com. So in Provincetown there is a legitimate effort to teach kindergarteners about accepting homosexuality?

Lucretia, does the school board in Provincetown select the curriculum? And is the school board elected by the citizens?

Lucretia (are you naming yourself after a Borgia? Ironic, eh?), your fears are noted. Please try to understand that your fears will not come true and nobody will be marrying dogs anytime soon. By the way, plenty of societies that didn't allow 'decadence and pleasure' have fallen also. Societies fall for lots of reasons. It's how history works. Are there any particular societies you're thinking of?

"societies that allowed decadence and pleasure to rule"

Are you saying that gay marriage is a form of decadence and pleasure? Because I would argue the opposite...that marriage has responsibilities and sober realities. Decadence and pleasure to me is being single.

Why do you resort to such statements about dogs? Is that the best argument you can come up with for destroying the basic structure of society - the family - with a married mother and father and children? Where do you people come from? This is a no brainer. If everyone suddenly adhered to the immoral lifestyle you tend to think is harmless, then that would be the end of civilization, wouldn't it? Who do you think you are deciding whether a child should have his natural born mother and father or be subjected to only the mother or the father, who will of course force his or her abnormalities on the child. And don't tell me this is not happening. Don't you realize that gays don't only want to denegrate the institution of marriage, they want to destroy the family unit as it has been for thousands of years. In Canada, there is a group of gays who want the terms mother, father, husband and wife removed from any government document. In Spain, people are insisting that birth certficates have the terms Progenitor A and Progenitor B replace mother and father. Is this what you all want? I am so sad for you. No slippery slope, huh?

Oh lord. jeff or eric, you can take this one. I don't even know where to begin.

I dunno, there's not much to do except be sad about a comment like that one.

Hey Lucretia, do you want to discuss this issue or are you just looking to rant? I'm honestly asking.

Okay, I'll try to respond as best I can to Lucretia, point by point:

"Why do you resort to such statements about dogs? Is that the best argument you can come up with for destroying the basic structure of society - the family - with a married mother and father and children?"
I'm pointing out the absurdity of your position. Nobody is saying that any currently existing heterosexual family has to be broken up or altered. When a group lobbies to have marriage legalized between a woman and a doberman, I will line up with you in solidarity, Lucretia.

"Where do you people come from?" Denver, CO.

"This is a no brainer. If everyone suddenly adhered to the immoral lifestyle you tend to think is harmless, then that would be the end of civilization, wouldn't it?" If you're suggesting that if all of humanity suddenly went gay then there would be no more births, then I suppose you might be correct. Obviously, this will never happen because less than 10% of the population is gay.

"Who do you think you are deciding whether a child should have his natural born mother and father or be subjected to only the mother or the father, who will of course force his or her abnormalities on the child. And don't tell me this is not happening." This is mostly nonsense. I would love for every family to consist of two loving parents, but in reality that is not the case. Likewise it is as impossible to 'turn' someone gay as it is to actually 'turn' someone straight. This is a matter of scientific record.

"Don't you realize that gays don't only want to denegrate the institution of marriage, they want to destroy the family unit as it has been for thousands of years. In Canada, there is a group of gays who want the terms mother, father, husband and wife removed from any government document. In Spain, people are insisting that birth certficates have the terms Progenitor A and Progenitor B replace mother and father. Is this what you all want?"

I do not believe your larger statement is true, although it does tie in to larger issues regarding gender equality. I am not aware of what you're talking about in Canada and Spain, although it seems you're plugged into the typical paranoid hate news media that our Mr. Nicol D. is also aligned with.

Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett had the same discussion we're having on The Daily Show:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614

Lucretia said: "Why do you resort to such statements about dogs?"

I think that was meant to illustrate the absurdity of your "slippery slope" argument.

Lucretia said: "If everyone suddenly adhered to the immoral lifestyle you tend to think is harmless, then that would be the end of civilization, wouldn't it?"

But that's not what's going to happen. As Jeff said, only a small portion of the population is gay. And the fact that you or I won't be choosing to do something is no reason to forbid others from making that choice.

"Who do you think you are deciding whether a child should have his natural born mother and father or be subjected to only the mother or the father, who will of course force his or her abnormalities on the child. And don't tell me this is not happening."

It is not happening. Nobody is removing children from the arms of loving, healthy parents. If you know of some gay conspiracy to kidnap children, please contact the authorities.

Lucretia said: "Don't you realize that gays don't only want to denegrate the institution of marriage, they want to destroy the family unit as it has been for thousands of years."

Your paranoia is genuinely unsettling.

Why do you guys continue to feed the trolls?

I think the trolls will continue on their way regardless of what we do...nonetheless, the effort must be made.

I tried to stay out of the conversation for awhile, but saw some points made that deserved a response.

I wouldn't call them trolls, though, because I think they do believe in what they say and they try to argue their point. This is not typical troll behavior, which is usually simple provocation.

"There is also a group of people in The Netherlands, a very permissive society, dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia."

Since you didn't provide any source or reported fact to support this assertion, Lucretia, I Googled "Netherlands support pedophelia."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-05-30T170341Z_01_L30338107_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-PEDOPHILES.xml&src=rss

What you failed to mention in your hysterical claim - and yes, I'm calling your rant just that - is that you failed to note how the majority of people in the Netherlands feel about this group:

"The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.

This "group of people in the Netherlands" as you call them are the Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party. It carries no political power and has no support for its agenda. It is of no threat to you or your children.

"The overwhelming majority of citizens did not oppose the state's recognition of marriage when it began, for obvious reasons (i.e. benefits)."

mysteryperfecta, 70% of Americans in our forming country had no say or no vote (uhm...like slaves, indians, Latins, women) so I don;t know what in heck you are talking about. Yes--BENEFITS did exist for the white businessmen who are called our founding fathers--of course marriage suited them. They had a permanent servant who couldn;t leave (wife). Making women dependent on men meant they Had to marry or stay under the protection of their father or brother(s) if they had them, for life.

And in the present day I do not understand how it makes sense to try to "ratify" an Institution that fails for 70% of people who try it--Marriage in the USA. It's a failing program with a high rate of recidivism. Funny how Christain conservatives complain about welfare/education programs that fail 50% of the time (or less) yet are gung ho for the failure-bound program of American marriage.

The future has to be universal civil union or universal marriage AND divorce rights. If people want any hallowed aspects they can do it on their own time and keep that personal belief nonsense out of the courts.

I find it funny that it is much harder to get divorced than it is to get married. It should be the other way around.

If the Pro-Amendment marriage people were so certain they are right, marriage should come with a complete money back guarantee.

and Deadbeat Dads?! They occur both inside and outside of marriage contracts. A dad is a dad--he is supposed to help his child whether or not there is or was any legal bond with the mother.

My state puts married and unmarried dads in JAIL if they refuse to support their child. Now that's some legal action I can get behind.

God the movies suck lately. best thing at the Show lately is Army of Shadows.

I agree, Army of Shadows is a great film.
What state are you in, Lota?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You are lost. You will not answer my questions intelligently. I am done with you. You have nothing but disdain for anyone who does not believe as you do. I only ask that I am not subjected to the immorality of a perverted lifestyle. I do not want anyone persecuted, just that they keep their disordered lifestyles to themselves. Goodbye.

What questions didn't get answered intelligently? Honestly asking because I think all were answered as intelligently as they could be.

"And the fact that you or I won't be choosing to do something is no reason to forbid others from making that choice." Gee, thanks Eric, you confirmed what I already knew, it is a CHOICE.

Argument over. If you can choose one, you can choose the other.

Curses! She's on to us! A poor choice of words has ruined all of our gay agendizing! I'm melting! Meeelltiiinng...

If you want to discuss further, Lucretia, you're welcome to. But it certainly appears that your mind is made up and you have no interest in learning, or for that matter in trying to convince the rest of us.

Will churches and synagogues that cite Scripture forbidding such marriage be indicted for hate speech? They will be! We hear about gay rights, never first realizing that what ultimately will be taken from most everyone else will be freedom of speech and religion; our privacy itself. Our tolerance for the unconventional will result in federal intolerance for the conventional, the necessary.

Of course you are completely wrong about this one. PC ridiculousness aside, freedom of speech and religion are not under threat. You can say anything you want about how much you disapprove of gay behavior. You can even try and talk gays out of their lifestyles. "Federal intolerance for the conventional, the necessary" is actually kind of a nice phrase. Unfortunately it is also completely unrealistic.

I'm very sorry that you are so fearful. Do you know a single out homosexual? I suspect not. They're just like anyone else.

"mysteryperfecta, 70% of Americans in our forming country had no say or no vote (uhm...like slaves, indians, Latins, women) so I don;t know what in heck you are talking about."

I'm not sure how that applies. I simply stated that the state's involvement in marriage (i.e. benefits) hardly seemed suspect at the time. I'm sure that you'll agree that if gay marriage was seen as an eventual repercussion, in those times, things would have happened differently.

Not that this is relevant, but where are you getting the 70% failure rate for marriage? I heard as recently as last night that the real rate is around 38% and dropping. But there's a lot of variables.

The slippery slope argument: I agree that it's often a lazy debate device, but in terms of the Equal Rights justification for gay marriage, it is valid. Using the Equal Rights argument, you cannot simply add same-sex relationships and stop. If it applies in that instance, it applies in all alternative lifestyles.

But as I've shown, Equal Rights does not apply: there is no right to be recognized by the state as married, as the state did not create marriage, nor has it ever deemed it's recognition a "right". Government involvement is only required only to receive governmental benefits. If you want those benefits, fight for those benefits.

Judicial activism: while this may be a facade in this particular issue, it is real and it is a threat to those who believe in original intent and reject the act of legislating from the bench.

Fear: There are certainly instances of that. But charges of homophobia (of which jeffmcm has applied to at least two people in this thread) are lazy ad hominem attacks.

I find it amusing that one of the reocurring arguments here is the criticism of marriage itself. "High divorce rates! Infidelity! A non-sacred benefits grab! Give us that."

Perhaps some of the problems of marriage stem from those who hold it in such low regard.

mysteryperfecta, I look forward to getting married someday. I hold marriage in high regard. I have mentioned divorce and infidelity because I believe they are real threats to the sanctity of marriage, and not gay marriage. Like I said before, allowing two men or two women to get married does not make me want to get married any less or cheapen the meaning of marriage for me. The possibility of divorce and/or infidelity is what gives me pause.

It's funny that many of the judges conservatives cry about (and use to support their claims of judicial activism) were appointed by Bush, such as the school board evolution case in Pennsylvania.

The slippery slope argument is crap. No one is going to start advocating that we allow people to marry animals. To believe that is foolish.

Lucretia said: "You will not answer my questions intelligently."

We have done so point-by-point. You are the one ignoring the arguments and questions of others. Every post you make that fails to address our arguments is an implicit acknowledgement that you have lost.

Lucretia said: "I only ask that I am not subjected to the immorality of a perverted lifestyle."

You are free to your choices, as they should be free to theirs. You have still not offered any convincing argument that gay marriage will harm you in any way.

Lucretia said: "I do not want anyone persecuted, just that they keep their disordered lifestyles to themselves."

It is you who is imposing your value system on others.

Lucretia said: "Gee, thanks Eric, you confirmed what I already knew, it is a CHOICE. Argument over. If you can choose one, you can choose the other."

My statement on choice was not specific to homosexuality, but rather about a general principle of letting others live their lives as they wish.

And regardless, your point is absurd on its face. Lucretia, do you think anybody, anywhere, would CHOOSE to be gay? When there are people like you in the world?

Lucretia, when did you choose to be straight?

I could do this all day.

MysteryPerfecta said: "Using the Equal Rights argument, you cannot simply add same-sex relationships and stop. If it applies in that instance, it applies in all alternative lifestyles."

You acknowledge the weakness of the slippery slope argument, and then you use it again.

You want to stop gay marriage by tying it to something that is indefensible. But there is no logical progression from gay marriage to polygamy or bestiality. Each will be evaluated ON ITS OWN MERITS.

MysteryPerfecta said: "Equal Rights does not apply: there is no right to be recognized by the state as married, as the state did not create marriage, nor has it ever deemed it's recognition a 'right'. Government involvement is only required only to receive governmental benefits. If you want those benefits, fight for those benefits."

Isn't that the point here?

"Judicial activism: while this may be a facade in this particular issue, it is real and it is a threat to those who believe in original intent and reject the act of legislating from the bench."

No sitting Supreme Court justice has voted to overturn more laws than the conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. That, my friend, is called judicial activism.

MysteryPerfecta said: "Fear: There are certainly instances of that. But charges of homophobia (of which jeffmcm has applied to at least two people in this thread) are lazy ad hominem attacks."

I quite agree with you on this point: ad hominem attacks are the quickest way to end an argument by losing it.

MysteryPerfecta said: "I find it amusing that one of the reocurring arguments here is the criticism of marriage itself. 'High divorce rates! Infidelity! A non-sacred benefits grab! Give us that.'"

You are mischaracterizing their argument. Nobody here is suggesting that the institution of marriage itself is the problem.

They are pointing out the emptiness of the claim that marriage is threatened by gays, on the grounds that marriage has already been cheapened by decades of bad behavior from those who have been allowed to abuse it.

"You acknowledge the weakness of the slippery slope argument, and then you use it again."

I acknowledged that it is "often" weak; but not always. If gay marriage were justified on the basis of equal rights, then other less socially acceptable arrangements claiming the same protection would be an inevitability. And their argument would have the same merit. That's why it's a slippery slope.

"Isn't that the point here?"

I believe these rights are secondary to the primary objective, which is to gain the perceived legitimacy of the title.

"No sitting Supreme Court justice has voted to overturn more laws than the conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. That, my friend, is called judicial activism."

Not quite. The court's job is to judge the constitutionality of new law. I don't have a problem with overturning laws, I have a problem with reinterprations without precedent that change the original intent of the law.

"You are mischaracterizing their argument. Nobody here is suggesting that the institution of marriage itself is the problem."

To an exent, you may be right. The difference is, same-sex marriage is seen as flawing the premise of marriage, whereas those other issues are flaws in the execution.

I appreciate you guys keeping it civil with me. I know this is a passionate issue on both sides.

I think the debate is really about whether being gay is a choice or a natural disposition (60 minutes did a piece where evidence shows that homosexuality wasn't the genes necessarily but in the way they are carried in the mother's womb).

Or as Jon Stewart put it, whether it is part of the human condition or just a random fetish. Because then it would be wrong to call it a "lifestyle." Polygamy is a lifestyle...there is no evidence that anyone is born needing to marry more than one person. Besides if you needed more sex partners, the best way would be to stay single. The same logic goes for bestiality...

I don't think anyone would choose to be gay if they had a choice. And as Stewart points out, Dick Cheney supports the idea of gay marriage...so perhaps there's something about when you get to know or care about them.

Punchline:

And if it's a natural phenomenon and not a choice, then they definitely should get rights.

Jon Stewart's comments reveal the core issue of contention here. Is it that a committed union between ANY two people--OR a committed union between a male and a female--that offers the best foundation for our society?

I am disturbed by those who claim this is simply an issue of civil rights or compare this to interracial marriage. We are dealing with a very different psychological and social construct here––is it the best course for our society?

In my research I've found very little long-term data. I've seen plenty of studies showing having a mother/father in the home is best for the psychological and social health of children, and history has shown this is an important part of society.

It is not a "right" to have marriage benefits. It is a reward for providing a structure that offers the best enviornment for the upcoming generation. Our society continues to diffuse this concept, however, until one day it will become meaningless.

So where do we draw the line? Should EVERY inclination be given legal recognition?

"It is a reward for providing a structure that offers the best enviornment for the upcoming generation."

I totally disagree. So denying people marriage is punishment (since you used the word "reward") for something they didn't choose to be? Our society benefits from treating people with respect so long as they don't harm others. If gay marriage caused in increase in murders or stolen vehicles, then you might have a point but until then...

And again, you use the word "inclination."

We don't know that it's an inclination, ie. fetish, or not. If it is, then your slippery slope arguments have more weight. If not and they are born that way, then I think they should be allowed to marry for sure.

Can gay people be healthy members of society with a positive influence on children? I think the clear answer is yes since they have been for millenia.

"In my research I've found very little long-term data. I've seen plenty of studies showing having a mother/father in the home is best for the psychological and social health of children, and history has shown this is an important part of society."

I don't think anyone is really arguing that this is not ideal. I also think that it is irrelevant to what is under discussion here. Heterosexual couples are not under threat in any way, shape, or form. The Onion ran a headline a while back that read something like "Heterosexual Marriage Banned" or something like that to point out the silliness of this argument.

Gay marriage is about according rights to the OTHER families who happen to not consist of a male-female coupling. Allowing a gay couple to share health insurance or inherit each others' property is what is at stake, and each of these things support structures that are also in society's best interests.

How does it benefit society to put financial and institutional roadblocks up to allow people to be happy together in the privacy of their own lives?

"Fear: There are certainly instances of that. But charges of homophobia (of which jeffmcm has applied to at least two people in this thread) are lazy ad hominem attacks."

I apologize for my laziness, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and they seemed to be correct in each of the two instances you see. Fear is prevalent on both sides of the divide, but I consider one to be justified and the other to be based in ignorance.

"I don't think anyone is really arguing that this is not ideal. I also think that it is irrelevant to what is under discussion here."

This is the very crux of the argument! Why should we reward a family structure that is less than ideal? When did we assume that tax breaks and government benefits are entitled to those who simply want to be happy? Shouldn't we reward those constructs that are BEST for society, even if it means some might be left out?

"Can gay people be healthy members of society with a positive influence on children? I think the clear answer is yes since they have been for millenia."

Uh...millenia? Socrates and other "great thinkers" also regularly sodomized young boys, but that's not an accepted practice today. Again, where's your data? Are we sure there are long-term benefits?

All this being said, there is something to the idea that there should be more availability to legal rights involving privacy, inheritance, and the like. We've had issues of the same kind with my adult brother––he's bipolar and makes poor choices that land him in the hospital, but no one has any overreaching rights to get him the help he needs because, as an adult, he gets first say. So naturally, he refuses all help and continues to hurt himself.

I believe there can be a middle ground to sooth all in this debate, but it will take time...

"Why should we reward a family structure that is less than ideal?"

Okay, then by this logic we must not allow teenagers or people in their very early 20s to get married. We all know that people who are very young are not prepared to raise children, and would be better off waiting until their later 20s or 30s. Also, let's not allow anyone with a criminal record to get married. They have proven that they are not fit to raise children. In fact, we should form a governmental body to determine who is ideally fit to have a family, possibly involving court-ordered sterlizations and abortions...

Slippery slope all over again.

Let's put it this way: which is more 'ideal', two men living together, or two men married who can share health insurance and parental rights? Pretty simple answer. This is the reality of the situation. Allowing two gay men to marry DOES NOT AFFECT heterosexual couples.

"Socrates and other "great thinkers" also regularly sodomized young boys, but that's not an accepted practice today."
Are you saying Socrates was not a great thinker?

The comment you are responding to has to do with the fact that homosexuals have always existed and are not harmful to a healthy society; therefore will always exist and have no reason to harm society. Sounds like you disagree.

Our government doesn't serve people by enforcing what some people think is the ideal for everyone...one size fits all. It serves them by making sure everyone has an opportunity to reach their own ideal...granted that ideal does not cause direct harm to anyone else.

Condemning the works of gay people throughout history is a very grim prospect. Regardless of whatever you believe about homosexuality, they have contributed a great deal.

By the way, 'sodomy' is primarily practiced by heterosexual people in the world today.

Again, the presumption is that homosexual unions are as psychologically and socially as healthy for our society as traditional unions––if this is true, then why has the behavior been condemed by every major society for hundreds upon hundreds of years?

Christianity is not the sole opponent to such a practice. Those civilizations that openly practiced it eventually fell apart. There is zero evolutionary proof it serves a species and it's never been a major tenet of any religion in the history of humankind that any far-reaching influence.

(It's true that there are still tribes in the East Indes where men still sodomize their sons to become men––but does that make it right? Would that practice be considered allowable in the U.S. if both father and son consented to the practice? Again, where is the line?)

I've never understood why those seeking to change the status quo demand those who defend it to somehow prove its existence. We are trying to change a long-standing practice based on emotion and subjective reasoning with little basis in logic. Instead of real answers, questions just get turned back around in an endless cycle.

My thought? If you want the change, then prove to me it serves our society. The voice of the mob is not democracy.

BTW, I AM all for consistency, however. If we begin allowing homosexual unions full marriage benefits, then there is zero excuse for polygamous marriages between consenting adults to remain illegal.

I figure if we want to equal the playing field, then let's do it all the way. How's that for a slippery slope? :)

Left-handedness doesn't 'serve society' either. So why bother making a big deal out of it?

Homosexuality has been condemned throughout history because it threatens traditional societal constructs of gender roles and patriarchy. I don't know what civilizations you're talking about that 'eventually fell apart'. The Greeks? The reasons for their decline are many and various, but 'moral collapse' was not high on the list. Indeed, most historians date the end of high Greek culture to when they were consolidated under the empire of Alexander the Great...and we all know which way he swung.

You are wrong, however, that 'we are trying to change a long-standing practice based on emotion and subjective reasoning with little basis in logic.' I consider that real-life common sense supports allowing gays to marry, while subjectivity and emotion are what fuels the reactionary side in the argument.

Here's a link in support of gay marriage from the prominent and generally conservative (fiscally, anyway) British magazine The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2459758

There are none so blind as thouse that will not see.

Answer one question, jeffmcm, WHY do gays need to be married? Two men (or women) are physically incapable of producing offspring. If they want property rights or inheritance rights, they need only file a power of attorney. The only reason they want marriage is to have validation for what they know is intrinsically abnormal and unnatural. They want people who believe that homosexuality is wrong and disordered to be forced to accept it through law. They are dispicable. If homosexuality were as normal as heterosexuality, we would not have two different sexes. It is as simple as that. You have no idea what you and your ilk are proposing. Still, no one answers my questions about the impact of forcing me to accept this harmful lifestyle. WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?????????

Wow, I've missed so much over these last few days. Now you've got a real live gay person to debate with! Not just a hypothetical "other."

So. I am gay. Was born that way, just as the majority of you were born straight. Never even so much as kissed a girl, that's how clear it was to me from an early age.

I have a boyfriend that I am very much in love with that I am outlawed from marrying. Can you really give me a good reason why I shouldn't be able to? There are a whole host of legal rights that, despite us being partners, we do not share. We cannot share property rights in the same manner as straight people, if he is in the hospital, I do not have family visitation rights, etc.

Please, I'm curious. Tell me to my e-face. Why am I a lesser citizen of the United States than you are?

And Blackcloud, I've seen you comment in other posts and know you to be an intelligent person, but I still don't get why you would deprive me of this right. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Lucretia, the answer to your first question ("WHY do gays need to be married?") is: why not?
And the answer to your second question "WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?????" is, you have the right to loathe homosexuals as much as you want, in the privacy of your own home and in your speech. I fail to see how your rights are infringed in any way.

I hope you can let go of the fear and ignorance in your heart, and I suggest you stop quoting verses at others, as it points out your hypocrisy when they are easily applicable to yourself.

By the way, is Lucretia your real name or are you actually taking on the name of one of the Borgias, as I asked before?

You know, if I had to prioritize the family structure, I would start with a happy, healthy male and female married couple.

That said, this is a rarity. Not just because of divorce, but because of all kinds of family issues. I would far prefer to see a child I cared about raised by two committed men or two committed women than a miserable heterosexual couple that just did as “nature intended.” Of course, this also starts to edge on the Catholic disbelieve in birth control... how exactly is that a responsible position in an era of high population density? Nature wants more of us to die. But we don’t seem to, as a species, want to listen to nature. No ice floe for the old... not many childhood killers in first world nations... extended lives in the middle. “Nature” has been left to the poor or the 3rd world nations.

I hear you, Lucretia. But you have to understand that your hope not to have to deal with change plays as selfish. And like it or not, your arguments do bring back images of arguments that have allowed many millions to die. You don’t have to accept homosexuals. You really don’t. But you don’t have the right to subjugate them either.

There are plenty of Americans who still hate “niggers, “kikes,” “spics” and so many others. Yet, the law puts up with all of us. Jesus, there are more rules protecting the rights of illegal aliens than of homosexuals in this country. And it all stems from the belief that being gay is a choice. And even if I believed that – which I most certainly do not – this country still allows people to choose drunkenness, whorishness, some amount of physical abuse, emotional scarring, etc.

I simply do not believe that any American deserves to be a second class citizen. None of this encourages child porn, molestaion or anything like that. But hey, the Catholic Church seems to be offering up plenty of that and covering it up to boot. And that saddens me, much as I’m sure it does you. But it just goes to show, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Just because someone is the minority doesn't make them abnormal...indeed, our abnormalities often make us great as in true IQ geniuses who occupy a very small percentage of any population.

Again, is there evidence that supports the idea that gay people choose this widely hated orientation? What do they stand to gain from it?

Until you can definitively answer the basic question of whether it is innate or chosen, you have no reason to call it abnormal or despicable. Please provide this evidence if it exists...because there is evidence on the other side.

Dear Mr. Poland,
I am white, or caucasian, if you will. Tomorrow, I can NOT choose not to be white. Just as a black person cannot wake up tomorrow and choose to be white or Chinese or any other race. I can, however, CHOOSE, whether or not to engage in homosexual behavior. There is absolutely no proof that it is genetic. It is a behavior, and can therefore be changed. Even if it were to be proven innate, there are lots of psychiatrists that will tell you that you can be born a sociopath!!!!!!!!!!!

I resent your implications about the Catholic Church. If you would read anything published by anyone other than people who hate the church, you might find some enlightening facts, but, of course, you will not do that. I read articles from every viewpoint and study many different philosphies, before I make up my mind.

Again, you have not answered my question about why I should be forced to accept behavior that I find to be immoral.

Philosophies, sorry for the misspelling.

You can be a homosexual without ever having sex in your entire lifetime. It is an internal response to stimuli, a mental preference. Every reputable psychological organization in the country has determined that homosexuality is not and should not be 'cureable'. This is a scientific fact that I would expect anyone who reads articles from every viewpoint might know. Here's a link to something published by the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

"Again, you have not answered my question about why I should be forced to accept behavior that I find to be immoral."

You don't have to 'accept' anything. You do, however, have to tolerate how people live their lives in the privacy of their own homes.

"There is absolutely no proof that it is genetic."

No one said it was. There is some evidence that it is a hormonal effect caused when the baby is in utero. That is how identical twins with the same genes and same upbringing would produce a gay brother and a straight one. It was on 60 Minutes two months ago.

The following was sent to all EPA employees. Do think this about what people do in privacy of their homes? NO, it is not. My friend who works for the EPA is being bullied, on our tax dollars, to attend meetings celebrating homosexuality. Here is the memo:

This message is being sent to all EPA Employees.
Please do not reply to this mass mailing.
********************************************************

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Gay and Lesbian Pride Month 2006

FROM: Karen D. Higginbotham, Director Office of Civil Rights

TO: All EPA Employees

During the month of June, we recognize the diversity of our workforce by celebrating and observing Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. This year’s international theme is “Pride, not Prejudice.” As members of the EPA workforce and community, it is important that we treat each other with dignity and respect.

The EPA Office of Civil Rights, Diversity Program for Sexual Orientation is sponsoring an opening event in concert with the EPA-approved Chapter of Gay, Lesbian, Or Bisexual Employees (GLOBE). The opening ceremony will be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Pavilion Room on the second floor of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. We are extremely pleased to have an outstanding guest speaker -- accomplished actress, writer, and producer Sheryl Lee Ralph.

In addition, we will have Gilles Marchildon, Executive Director for Egale Canada (Equality Canada) and the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust as a speaker. The program will take place June 28, 2006 in the Rachel Carson Room of the Ariel Rios Building from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

There will be other activities sponsored at regional offices and laboratories during the month. Please join us at these events and encourage all employees to attend. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Jerome King, National Diversity Program Manager, at (202) 564-7429.

I notice that it does not say that these meetings are mandatory. Is your friend complaining that she's getting distressing memos?
WOW. The world's smallest violin is on the phone to say that it's running late and might not make it.

I would be glad to let gay poeple have their lives, if they would just do it in the privacy of their own homes. But, they don't want that, they want me to accept their lifestyle no matter what I believe.
My aunt lived with a woman for over twenty years and HATED the way the radical gays kept pushing for acceptance in her community. She had no desire to get married. She particularly did not want children learning about homosexuality in school. She had no desire to force her way of life on ANYONE! There was no problem when her friend died and left everything to her. She merely wanted to be left alone to live her life. That is why I respected her, although I did not agree with her choice of partner.
Of course, she grew up in a time when people were not so sex-obsessed.
This is my last posting on this site. I just ask that people realize that we should not change the structure of the family and the institution of marriage just to accommodate a very small self-absorbed percentage of society. My aunt, who truly cared about others and cared about what is best for society knew that a family consisting of a father and a mother and their children, was the best family for society and that we should do everything to encourage mothers and fathers to stay together and fulfill their responsibilities to their children. She chose a different lifestyle, but she never tried to force me, my family or anyone else to accept or approve of her choice. Goodbye.

Things change Lucretia. I'm sorry that your aunt had such a sad life and I assure you that many homosexuals do not have it as easy as she did.

Best wishes.

jeffmcm, you are so irritating. I just couldn't let that go. Don't you dare feel sorry for or patronize her. My aunt had a wonderful and very fulfilling life as a teacher and then as a very important part of her community. If you lived in her town, and I told you her name, you would know who she was. She just did not believe that her personal choices were anyone's business. She was the most active, vibrant person I knew. She loved her life, she just felt it was important not to demand that everyone approve of her personal choice of companion. Hundreds of people, in a town of a few thousand, showed up at her memorial service. She cared about everyone, and they cared about her. She was very happy, I assure you. Please, do not make any more comments, you are not worthy to speak about her.

Sounds like I misinterpreted your earlier post.

You are absolutely correct that her personal choices were not anyone's business. Why did you bring them up, then?

By the way, if she had been heterosexual, she would have acquired common-law marriage status. So in effect, your aunt was all but married to her partner.

In fact, your aunt was also lucky that, when her partner died, she was able to inherit her belongings. Many people in life-long partnerships have had everything stripped from them in such cases:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342

Suddenly there is a gay aunt. Lucretia, as far as I can tell you never answered me. When did you choose to be straight?

"The world's smallest violin is on the phone to say that it's running late and might not make it."

We may disagree on this subject, but that's just dang funny, Jeff. I'm going to find a way to use that line sometime this week. :)

"I consider that real-life common sense supports allowing gays to marry, while subjectivity and emotion are what fuels the reactionary side in the argument."

That's a silly statement. This idea that "my camp is reasonableand balanced while the others are just plain kooks" shows exactly the probelm with this debate. Both sides are so convinced of their own morality that this is ultimately a values debate, not one based on logic. My contention is that the status quo has history on its side.

This really comes down to the idea that we never completely defined what marriage was as a nation––we never assumed to add the phrase "between a man and a woman" because no one in their right mind ever thought homosexuality would demand social acceptance.

I think this is a healthy debate as it causes us to reexamine our values as a nation, and forces us to make a choice. It should be a decision made by the people--not politicians, not judges--as all constitutions were never written with such a possibility in mind.

Dave and others might be offended that this subject gains prominence in our government despite more pressing issues, yet clearly he and thousands of other media venues have MADE it an issue by staging places to debate it.

For me, though I'm clearly against gay marriage (in the form the vocal majority demands, at any rate) I enjoy hearing from all sides of the issues, preferrably with less EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!! :)

P.S. Jeff--thanks for the links. Good info. It shows that there should be a domestic partnerships rehaul in the system, regardless of sexuality. Again, I do believe there is a middle ground that can serve both sides...at least the non-extremists.

Slavery, racism, and sexism have 'history' on their side as well,

There is no proof that I am _not_ a murderer, therefore by that logic I should be put into jail to ensure that I continue to not murder people. If there is no scientific proof on either side, then should we not err on the side of greater freedom and equality?

Ultimately, this will be decided by consensus as that's the way the system works.

"we never completely defined what marriage was as a nation"

No we aren't quite yet a fascist nation yet. But given some of the Bills that are currently circulating the Senate and HR floors, maybe those who care about maintaining the wise precept of separation of church and state should start doing a little more to kill these Bills.

I keep noticing that the people arguing against gay marriage are conveniently ignoring the real, living people involved in the matter, treating gay people instead like a nameless, faceless group. Again, I ask, why should I personally not be able to get married? Please let me know.

No, the burden is on you; why should you get special benefits simply because you choose to define your relationship as the exact same thing as a traditional marriage? When was "love" and "committment" the only qualifications for such benefits?

It's a false stereotype to presume that all opponents of gay marriage neither care about nor understand the gay community. On the contrary––I understand your plight better than you might think, which is why I do think there is a way to reward "traditional" marriage while providing core benefits to long-term partnerships. I count many homosexuals as dear friends.

More important, however, I also know the frustration of having my hands tied when the system denies access to someone you care about. Having a bipolar adult brother who makes choices that put him in the hospital on a regular basis, the system gives HIM first choice when it comes to his mental health decisions––his direct family is denied access to records, disallowed to have any direct influence to get him the treatment he needs, and we must stand idly by as he refuses treatment. Only his spouse (if he had one) would have open access.

To get a judge to provide temporary legal guardianship of him takes a lot of money and time, so we get to watch as, one day, he will kill himself.

That's why I think there should be a domestic partnership bill that provides basic legal benefits to ANY two people, regardless of sexuality. But additional benefits (and a strengthening of the marriage contract across the board) should be provided to "traditional" marriages as they prove to be the healthiest social construct for our society and children.

That seems to serve both sides––but I have a feeling that won't be enough for many gay marriage proponents, who REALLY want legal recognition of homosexuality by continuing to fuel this debate.

An addition; I went back to a similar "debate" on this subject on that thread back in March, and Jeff completed nailed what I see happens in this kind of discussion over and over agin...

"There was never a debate. Just two sides restating their positions over and over again in such a way that no common ground was ever really reached, although it was attempted occasionally."

It was funny to read that few, if any, ever really answered anyone's questions and, if they did, people would simply restate their opinion. As I said before, this is an issue that polarizes people on both sides--utterly convinced of the correctness of their own morality.

Facinating.

Sorry. "Fascinating."

One key to this stalemate is the idea that our laws should be shoehorning everyone into what is best for society. While that sounds ideal if you already fit into the mainstream, it sounds like a cage for those who don't. I would counter with the harm principle...we should allow a freedom until it is shown to have definitely a negative affect on people. That is what guides other restrictions on freedoms...so why not in this case, especially when so much of what could go wrong is speculative?

"No, the burden is on you; why should you get special benefits simply because you choose to define your relationship as the exact same thing as a traditional marriage? When was "love" and "committment" the only qualifications for such benefits?"

This is incorrect, because James is not asking for 'special benefits', he is asking for equal rights. Huge difference. Also, 'love' and 'commitment' are currently the only requirements for ordinary heterosexual marriage anyway, besides the normal age limits.

Also, Estevares, what do you mean by 'legal recognition of homosexuality'? I've never heard of this before and don't really know what it would entail. Membership cards?

PalmTree:

Well said, but that's exactly my point––God or evolution (regardless) has revealed the healthiest social construct, and traditional marriage is a way to encourage it. Besides, you're dealing with people who believe homosexuality can never be considered healthy, regardless of how much love is involved.

Jeff:

Maybe that card idea just might work. "My name's Erik, and I'm a Practicing Heterosexual" could open some doors. :)

Seriously, though, you bring up another important issue of this debate. What some groups see as a reward or privliege, others see as a right. And visa versa. I don't think it's a civil right to get marriage benefits––homosexuals are not denied living together, sleeping together, having a "marriage" ceremony or living their lives as they see fit.

True it's more difficult (but not impossible) when it comes to legal matters like contracts and inheritance and such––hence my contention for limited partnership unions. This civil right issue is, IMHO, more associated with sodomy laws (which are all but dead).

If a particular "civil right" is completely denied, regardless of time or cost, I'm interested to learn more. But as far as I understand it, every legal benefit is available but might take a good deal more time and money if one is not married.

Wait, what is the healthiest social construct and how does traditional marriage encourage it?

"God or evolution (regardless) has revealed the healthiest social construct, and traditional marriage is a way to encourage it."

Yeah, but God or evolution also created gay people in the first place. So by saying that gays are flawed, are you saying God and nature are flawed as well? Or rather should we embrace the diversity of the world and try to accomodate the things that God or evolution created?

Estevares, I completely agree with you that civil unions are the way to go, and if a church will perform gay wedding ceremonies (as plenty do) then everyone should be happy.
The problem is that currently, marriage is a right, not a privilege. Privileges like drivers' licenses and citizenship require tests fo qualify and naturalization and so on, but just anyone who is old enough and heterosexual can show up at the justice of the peace and get married. On the legal side, this is where all the problems are in terms of hospital visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, insurance coverage etc.: all things that would make society stronger, not weaker, if they were allowed without trampling on anyone else's rights. Sure you can fight these things if you have enough money for a good lawyer, but that's pretty much the definition of 'unfair'.

PalmTree:

Since we're now getting silly and wildly speculating here––God or evolution also created a desire to overeat, have unprotected sex with thousands of partners, hit things when we're angry, run red lights when we're late and sleep in instead of work. So we should accomodate every strong desire and urge?

"Diversity" never meant to embrace every behavior under the sun, regardless if it's gaining social acceptance. As plenty have already said earlier, slavery was socially acceptable at one point, and polygamy is still considered "normal" in places around the world. Infidelity was openly practiced for hundreds of years, but is it right? Is it best for family and country?

When and where do we draw a line? Just because a vocal minority wants it?

And if this was simply an issue of basic domestic partnership rights––available to ANY two people, regardless of sexuality––then we're good. But part of the issue here (why it gets so heated) is that gay activists will not be satisfied until they get every single exact benefit of traditional marriage, right down to the 2-for-1 special at the buffet.

So when do all benefits become rights?

Is it a right to give child tax credits to families with eight kids––and nothing to those couples who are infertile? Why not lobby to give child tax credits for EVERYONE, even "Childless Americans," so everyone has equal benefits? Or is it a right?

Why should every behavior be given equal status? I say allow anyone to do as they see fit––but reward those behaviors that best serve our society and children. And until God (or evolution) says otherwise, most agree that a traditional male/female relationship is the healthiest social construct where children are born and raised.

Estavares - I would be pleased and amazed if George W came out for making civil unions available for all Americans.

Until that day (or a politically analogous one) comes to pass, I have to see "defense of marriage" as pure discrimination.

Accepting others is a personal matter. No one has to accept equality of women, black people, jews, hispanics, left-handed people, etc. No law can change that. But the law of this country does demand an effort at equality. That is why these laws keep getting struck down in the courts... not because of activist judges, but because they are unconstitutional discrimination.

This is the same reason why the right-leaning Supreme Court has made a number of decisions not considered to be right leaning. There still is a Constitution in this country and it may sway in the breeze a bit, but it has held up surprisingly well.

"Since we're now getting silly and wildly speculating here––God or evolution also created a desire to overeat, have unprotected sex with thousands of partners, hit things when we're angry, run red lights when we're late and sleep in instead of work. So we should accomodate every strong desire and urge?"

Geez, dude. You took my statement out of context. I didn't think you were that impulsive, Estavares. Throughout this entire thread, I've argued for the Harm Principle...so yes, there is a limit. We should accomodate things that are natural as long as they are not proven to be harmful to others. Rights are not a reward for anything, except I guess being alive. There's a reason they're called inalienable.

The issue, by the way, isn't that gay people are just clamoring to get married and want to adopt all of our babies and raise them. The issue is that a few leaders in our country want to actively discriminate against a group of people who don't fit in with a religious viewpoint. The arguments about history showing us the light are bogus...we don't do something because of history, we do it because it is the right thing to do.

I'm wildly impulsive, with a touch of ADD, so be patient. :)

But you see, that's the point. The Harm Principle is indeed been met by those who believe homosexuality is psychologically, spiritually and socially harmful. You may not agree with those harms, but others feel that threshold was met––especially when sodomy laws died.

In that context, denying official "acceptance" of a practice that is inconsistent with the health of our society is "the right thing to do." Isn't is funny how morality can be so polarized?

(Not funny "ha ha" but curious, you know....)

BTW, my last point was weird. My having impulsivity issues isn't "the point," but I was reponding to PT's previous thread.

*impulsively hits Post button"

So I am immoral and harmful to society for being born gay? In what way?

Estavares, you keep dodging issues by hiding behind "some people" who believe that homosexuality is "psychologically, spiritually and socially harmful." Let's drop those hypothetical people for a moment -- is that what you yourself believe? If so, why?

So the "Harm Principle" is to be determined by polls now, regardless of real-world behavior? And even when it's a vocal minority who are making the accusations of harm, and when those making the accusations are not personally affected?

That's not the American way as far as I'm concerned. You (Estevares) keep saying 'inconsistent with the health of our society' when there is absolutely no proof, beyond paranoia and fears, that this is the case. None. Innocent until proven guilty in this country.

James, I'd be careful by accusing me of "dodging" anything when you haven't answered any of the questions posed.

I've been very clear––I support homosexuals as people but strongly disagree with the current concept of gay marriage. I agree that a few basic domestic partnership rights ought to become more accessible, but across-the-board marriage benefits is an unjustified move.

I also oppose gay marriage (as it's defined currently) on moral grounds––and I have that right. This idea that people cannot legislate or vote based on religious belief is a false understanding of the church/state separation. We are encouraged to act on our belief system. Gay activists promoting gay marriage are just as "religious" as pastors opposing it.

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

No proof? We should reward what works. Anything less than this seems like a "harm" to me.

Just because father/mother families are the shown to be good doesn't make gay families bad. I agree with the idea that two parents are better than one (I say that being raised with a single parent). That those two parents will be of the same sex doesn't make their parenting inherently any worse...that was the issue, not whether straight couples are good for society.

E, I agree that a father-mother family is great, but allowing two men or two women to also marry does not 'punish' heterosexual couples in any way. Do you honestly think that in places where it's allowed, a man and a woman look at each other and say 'Oh crap. Well why did we bother?' and start feeding their kids gruel and whipping them with their belts?

I am sure that studies also show that any two parents who share the stability of committed partnership is better than two parents who don't, and as far as I'm concerned that's what the debate is about.

"We should reward what works."

I know this is a different debate, but just want to see what people think.

If it was shown that abortion rights lead to a quantifiable reduction in crime in our society, then should we allow it...even if it counters religious principles?

Btw, this is not a theoretical question.

Ultimately all political questions are matters of trade-off. Your abortion question has to do with a pratical real-world good (lower crime) vs. a much more hazy area of morality (does life begins at conception). Currently, we allow abortion because enough people consider the uncertain morality outweighs the real-world practicalities. Marriage should be considered the same way: the benefits of allowing people in relationships to share legal/economic benefits vs. the costs. Personally, I am aware of very few costs.

I would like to see those 10,000 studies. I don't think they exist.

You could probably find them if you wanted to...but that's hardly the point.

Where is a study that says gay relationships are inherently going to bring down our society?

I agree that we can try to legislate our religious beliefs, but just not Federally. Let's keep that for the local level, just as there are "dry" counties that ban alcohol. Even if we do do something based on religion, at least let's try to back it up with something that resembles evidence.

There's the rub; how do we define "evidence"? There are millions who see beyond the short-term science of polls and rely on higher authority...and then there are those who think those people are kooks, so we're back to Square One.

Frankly, I don't think history or evidence matters to anyone on either side of the debate. That's the problem––a values debate relies mostly on what's in our heart. It's one reason why such debates never (and I mean never) get resolved.

I'm curious how they reconcile a gay marriage in one state that is not considered a marriage in another. And if there is no federal standard, could they file joint Federal income taxes?

Your above question will only be resolved by the Supreme Court, but technically, by the letter of Article 4 of the Constitution, a marriage contract made in one state must be upheld by every other state. Obviously, some people don't like this.

I disagree with the cynicism inherent in the above post, that if both sides hold strong opinions that there's no objective way to ever determine an outcome. Compromise solutions based on 'you believe one thing and we'll believe the exact opposite' don't last long and lead to civil wars. What we need is consensus, and that will only be reached through education.

"Frankly, I don't think history or evidence matters to anyone on either side of the debate."

I disagree. If I saw something rigorous that unequivocally shows how negative being gay is for society, I would have to seriously consider it and probably change my way of thinking.

My basic problem with religion is precisely what you said....no amount of evidence or facts would change its stance.

The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly
Pedophiles & Politics

June 19, 2006
S. Michael Craven

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

Pedophiles in The Netherlands have launched their own political party, The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party. Their goal is to legitimize pedophilia through the political process and a sustained campaign of public persuasion. According to Reuters, “Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals…” Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper, "We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion."

Additionally, Ad van den Berg told Reuters that, "We want to get into parliament so we have a voice." The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only “violent” pornography limited to the late evening. In addition, the party believes that toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. The NVD also argues that “sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal” and that “everybody should be allowed to go naked in public” and finally they promote “legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.”

Now before you dismiss this outrageous and seemingly irrelevant event; I want you to read this and consider seriously the implications of what is actually happening.

Several years ago I developed a theory which sought to identify the four stages of a society’s moral demise through the incremental acceptance of previously abhorrent behaviors. In the first stage like-minded practitioners of a chosen “lifestyle” begin to discover each other and emerge from the shadows of society. A sense of affirmation is accomplished and the group begins to garner empowerment. I call this the “Community Establishment Stage.”

Once empowered with a sense of “community” these groups begin to formally organize. I call this the “Organization Stage.” One effect of the Organization Stage is to further affirm the member’s chosen lifestyle or behavior. However, the principle purpose seems to be a precursor to the next stage – the mobilization stage. Pedophiles in The Netherlands have already accomplished this stage.

As the group grows and becomes more organized it is now able to pool its resources. It begins to arm its constituents with the most effective language and argument for their cause. This is the “Mobilization Stage.” They begin by reframing the issue outside the context of morality and into one of human rights. It is very difficult to win the moral debate in an already relativistic culture once the issue has been successfully reframed like this. You are no longer debating the behavior but instead you are forced to “accept or reject” the people. To do so makes any moral perspectives appear to be “hateful” or “intolerant” of people that are merely different, despite the fact that their only distinction is that of a chosen behavior.

Finally comes the “Legitimization Stage.” This occurs after a period of successful redefinition of the issue from a moral absolute to an individual choice or quality. A relativistic society slowly becomes reconditioned to believe the arguments put forth by the group are legitimate. The guiding principle of moral relativism is advanced and even those opposed begin to embrace the relativistic idea that they can no longer impose their morality on others. When the issue is argued from the perspective of individual choice and not moral absolutes, morality loses. The process is complete.

We have already seen these stages successfully unfold in the wake of the homosexual agenda that now stands ready to utterly obliterate the central defining institution of society: marriage. At every step along the way good citizens were in a position to oppose their incremental advance but unfortunately no significant resistance was mounted until it was almost too late. Following the acceptance of what was once morally abhorrent in Western societies polygamists, polyamorists and now pedophiles too are all at various stages in the advance of their respective agendas.

I wrote in November 2004:

The Internet has contributed greatly to the establishment of a “Community” of pedophiles. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) demonstrates that they are well into the Organization stage and recent events within ’s academic community indicate that the Mobilization stage has already been undertaken.

Recall Judith Levine’s book; Harmful to Minors published by the of . In it she argues (pseudo-scientifically) for loosening restrictions against sex between adults and minors. Her book apparently encouraged a number of academicians to come forward in support of this horrific notion. Jorja Prover of UCLA told the Chicago Tribune, “What we’ve been talking about in academic circles for a decade has been brought to public attention…”

And earlier this year [2004], professor Harris Mirkin published an article in the Journal of Homosexuality that dismissed fears surrounding child sexual abuse. He wrote: “Like homosexuality, the concept of child molestation is a culture – and a class specific modern creation.” He went on to say, “Though Americans consider intergenerational sex [Remember the process of reframing the issue with effective language?] to be evil, it has been obligatory or permissible in many cultures and periods of history.”

The Netherlands is a Western society emanating from the very same philosophical and religious foundations as America; they too chose to embrace a liberal sexual ethic which first separated sex from marriage, which in turn led to the acceptance of homosexuality, which in their case led to the legalization of same-sex marriage and polygamy and now they are confronted with pedophiles seeking similar rights. Do you see the trend?

Their society accepted a form of moral anarchy where the desires of the individual are elevated above God, nature, traditional morality and sociability. Once unfettered from moral and religious truth they are like a rudderless ship, adrift, crashing into any and every rocky moral shoal. Their demise is inevitable and ours as well unless we recover the appropriate “rudder.”

Sorry Lucretia, not convinced.

I should add, if you're concerned about 'moral decline', how about attacking the disease instead of the symptoms? Personally, I consider education to be the single worthiest of all causes, because an educated person can learn how to improve him or herself and spread health and well-being in a viral way (so to speak). I think you agree or you wouldn't keep posting here...but to come back to my point, I don't think your skills would be better served working to help people with literacy, or job training, or drug rehab, because the true roots of all of society's ills are poverty, ignorance, and addictive behaviors. Eliminate those and 'moral decay' will be eliminated as well.

Sorry, I mean "I do think your skills..." not "I don't". Typo.

The Netherlands is a Western society emanating from the very same philosophical and religious foundations as America; they too chose to embrace a liberal sexual ethic which first separated sex from marriage, which in turn led to the acceptance of homosexuality, which in their case led to the legalization of same-sex marriage and polygamy and now they are confronted with pedophiles seeking similar rights. Do you see the trend?

No I don't, Lucretia. Again, please feel free to cut/paste and read the news report from Reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-05-30T170341Z_01_L30338107_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-PEDOPHILES.xml&src=rss

Quoting the article here (again):

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.

This fringe group has very little support from the general population in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, no one buys your continued insinuation/assertion that allowing gays to have the right to a legal union will lead to an increase in pedophelia.

If you are truly worried about pedophelia, Lucretia, you should stop obsessing over what's happening in a small European country and instead petition our government to ban the Catholic Church.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)