Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights For Gays

…it is special rights for gays.

Currently everybody already has the same rights with regard to marriage. You, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and me are all legally allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex of our choice who is distant from us in terms of kinship and who is not already married. Homosexuals have that very same right.

In other words, homosexuals as citizens of the United States have the same rights as I do. If a homosexual man wanted to marry a female who he is not related to, he could do so just as easily as I can. Homosexuals, as a group, are treated equally with regard to marriage as any other group.

“But gays are not allowed to marry the person they love”, you say. But that is the case with everybody. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with my sister, I would not be allowed to marry her. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with multiple women, I would be restricted to only marrying one. And just like gays, if I, as a citizen of the United States fell in love with another man, I too would be restricted in marrying him. In other words, gays, as citizens of the United States, have the same rights, and the same limitations, as everyone else.

Where the special rights come in is in the fact that gays want the exception to be given to them and only them. They want marriage to be tweaked in their favor, and to create special circumstances for them. What about other unions that also desire to be included in the marriage definition? What about people who fall in love with their siblings, should they be allowed to marry also? What about polygamists, should we now include marriage to include multiple wives? What about multiple husbands? Do these other groups not get ‘equal rights’ too? No, of course not, only gays get them, and not these other groups.

So what gays want are not equal rights, they want special rights.

37 Responses to “Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights For Gays”


  • Not quite.

    Tell me, Mr. Hispanic Pundit, how would you feel if you could marry “anyone” you want, so long as it was someone of the same race?

    Something tells me you wouldn’t be so partisan, then.

  • Pancho,

    I am curious, would you say that denying people the ability to marry their siblings is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? Or would you say that our current ban on polygamy is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? If not, why not?

    Race, as I have explained before, is an inappropriate analogy when discussing gay marriage.

  • Mr. Hispanic Pundit,

    The analogy only goes the other way if you equate the homosexual community with the polygamist/incest “community.” You write:

    >There is a fundamental difference between someone’s sexual behavior, and say someone’s skin color, or nationality, or gender, or stage of development, things that do involve civil rights. And that difference is that homosexuality is defined by ones actions where as true civil right issues are not.So I agree that the inclination to be homosexual is something that homosexuals cannot control, something that is inside them just as much as my attraction to members of the opposite sex is inside me. However, that doesn’t change my point above; the action is still something chosen by the person.You and I would both agree that the inclination to masturbate is within us so strongly that it becomes hard to understand how anybody could live without masturbating, right? So here we have a case that parallels that of homosexuals, a ban on an action that comes from a strong inclination within us, yet we still wouldn’t call ‘the right to masturbate’ a civil right, would we?

  • Disregard the last post — there was an error. Here is what I originally wrote:

    Mr. Hispanic Pundit,

    The analogy only goes the other way if you equate the homosexual community with the polygamist/incest “community.” You write:

    >There is a fundamental difference between someone’s sexual behavior, and say someone’s skin color, or nationality, or gender, or stage of development, things that do involve civil rights. And that difference is that homosexuality is defined by ones actions where as true civil right issues are not.So I agree that the inclination to be homosexual is something that homosexuals cannot control, something that is inside them just as much as my attraction to members of the opposite sex is inside me. However, that doesn’t change my point above; the action is still something chosen by the person.You and I would both agree that the inclination to masturbate is within us so strongly that it becomes hard to understand how anybody could live without masturbating, right? So here we have a case that parallels that of homosexuals, a ban on an action that comes from a strong inclination within us, yet we still wouldn’t call ‘the right to masturbate’ a civil right, would we?

  • I discovered the problem. Here is the actual post:

    Mr. Hispanic Pundit,

    The analogy only goes the other way if you equate the homosexual community with the polygamist/incest “community.” You write:

    “There is a fundamental difference between someone’s sexual behavior, and say someone’s skin color, or nationality, or gender, or stage of development, things that do involve civil rights. And that difference is that homosexuality is defined by ones actions where as true civil right issues are not.”

    Are we talking about sexual behavior, or sexual orientation/sexuality? Nice spin, there. We’re discussing the latter. It’s the same tired “homosexuals choose to be homosexuals and can choose not to be homosexuals if they so wished” argument. Well, you say that you’re Mexican. You can’t change the fact that you were born in Mexico; but, you can change the fact that you might share certain aspects of the Mexican culture. It is your choice (assuming that you do) to maintain aspects of your culture and heritage, and it is also your decision not to choose to adopt the standard Anglo-Saxon culture that is dominant in the States. Based on your logic, since you choose your culture, you have no right to practice it, and if, one day, it became illegal to celebrate Mexican culture or show it in any way, you claim that it would not be a civil rights issue.

    Let’s put that aside, though. In responding to a comment, you also wrote:

    “So I agree that the inclination to be homosexual is something that homosexuals cannot control, something that is inside them just as much as my attraction to members of the opposite sex is inside me. However, that doesn’t change my point above; the action is still something chosen by the person.”

    So, homosexuals, even though — as you admit — they do not really choose to be attracted and to be romantically-interested in the opposite sex, still do not deserve civil rights, simply because this clearly natural — as you admit — trait is manifested through action? What would that action be? Anal sex? Cunnilingus? So, homosexuals are only homosexuals when they engage in homosexual sex? But, I thought that it was a natural trait? On the contrary, your own argument would suggest that homosexuals are homosexuals regardless of whether or not they are engaging in so-called homosexual “behavior.” Action is not necessary. Your following comments seem to substantiate this point:

    “You and I would both agree that the inclination to masturbate is within us so strongly that it becomes hard to understand how anybody could live without masturbating, right? So here we have a case that parallels that of homosexuals, a ban on an action that comes from a strong inclination within us, yet we still wouldn’t call ‘the right to masturbate’ a civil right, would we?”

    You again confuse homosexuality — which is a state, not an action — with masturbation — which is an action, not a state. Gay marriage is not gay sex. Gay marriage is marriage between gays. You only introduce action, because that is the only way you can deny it civil rights status. Unfortunately for your argument, action doesn’t really play any role in the discussion. Homosexuals can be homosexuals without ever engaging in gay sex, just as heterosexuals can be heterosexuals without ever engaging in heterosexual sex. Or, would you suggest that one is not heterosexual until one engages in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex? You confuse sexual behavior/actions with sexual orientation/sexuality, because that is the only way that you can (fallaciously) make your argument work.

  • Pancho,
    You’re rationale makes sense if one assumes that comparing heterosexuality to homosexuality is an apples to apples comparison because of the commonality of sexuality & consent. While that may make the two similar, it doesn’t guarantee moral commonality.

    Could you respond more specifically to HP’s comparison of homosexuality to incest or to polygamy, which also carry a commonality of sexuality & consent?

  • Pancho,

    Before we begin, I want to apologize for the spam thing. I guess the spam filter marked you as spam because you posted three consecutive posts. I have removed you from the spam filter blocked list and approved your above post, I trust that it is how you posted it and everything is to your liking. If there are any further problems, please let me know. Now, onto our discussion…

    you write,

    Well, you say that you’re Mexican. You can’t change the fact that you were born in Mexico; but, you can change the fact that you might share certain aspects of the Mexican culture.

    Yes, but here is the point that is missed, no matter what cultural changes I go through, I will still be Mexican. In other words, even if tomorrow I stopped eating beans, I stopped eating tortillas, I stopped eating chilaquiles, and forgot all of my Spanish, I will still be Mexican. And the vice versa is also true, even if tomorrow my white friend starts doing everything Mexicans do, he will still not be Mexican. There is no action that can make a Mexican become non-Mexican or a non-Mexican become Mexican. If you still dispute this, than please tell me, what cultural changes can my white friend do to become Mexican?

    In other words, someone’s skin color, or nationality, or gender, or stage of development, are not defined by actions, so they do involve civil rights, but that is not the case with gays. To be gay is to imply a certain action, whether that action is born out of a natural inclination or a choice is irrelevant, it is an action nonetheless.

    Now, you ask,

    So, homosexuals, even though — as you admit — they do not really choose to be attracted and to be romantically-interested in the opposite sex, still do not deserve civil rights, simply because this clearly natural — as you admit — trait is manifested through action? What would that action be? Anal sex? Cunnilingus? So, homosexuals are only homosexuals when they engage in homosexual sex?

    Great question!! Yes, when I refer to homosexuals, I am only referring to those people that actively engage in ‘homosexual acts’. I am not referring to people who may have the inclination, but don’t act upon it. For example, let’s suppose that I was attracted to members of the same sex, but because my father would strongly disapprove of any homosexual relationship, I decided to marry someone of the opposite sex. I was able to control my sexual urges so well, that I was able to lead a lifelong happy marriage, raising children and so forth. Under my definition of the term, I would not be considered a homosexual, at least not in the sense that it relates to gay marriage and so forth. After all, if we are referring to a group of people who have the inclination but don’t act on it, we wouldn’t be having a gay marriage discussion, now would we?

    One more minor point of clarification, while I agree that the homosexual inclination is not chosen, and probably has strong roots in nature, I would not refer to it as ‘natural’. There are several ways, in which the world natural can be used, and under certain bounded definitions, I could see the word natural being used in reference to gays, but I don’t think it would apply to all usages of the term, so I try to stay away from referring to the homosexual inclination as natural.

    Back to our main discussion, I still get the feeling that I have not conveyed my point well. In my ‘gay marriage is not a civil right‘ post I tried very hard to pick examples that do not convey any moral judgment, that are seen as ‘benign acts’, to prove my point. I used ‘writing with your left hand’, ‘masturbating’, ‘sex outside of marriage’, all as examples to get across my point that regardless of your moral views regarding an act, whether one sees an act as benign or ‘morally wrong’, an act is still not a civil rights issue. They are fundamentally different. And since homosexuality implies an act, specifically because it is a behavioral attribute, in other words, because it is defined by its actions, the parallel with civil rights does not hold.

    But since my point still does not seem to be grasped (which is probably because I did not explain it well) allow me to use another analogy, in the reverse direction, in other words, in a direction where I think (I hope) we can both agree the act is wrong. Let’s talk about pedophilia. Now, before we get into this, I want to make clear that I am NOT morally equating pedophilia with homosexuality. In other words, I am ONLY using this example to try and show how one can, and should, separate inclination from act.

    With that in mind, I would say that pedophilia is like homosexuality in the sense that it too is an inclination that is grounded, again just like homosexuality, both in nature and in nurture. Again, just like homosexuality, pedophilia tends to be incurable and tends to be a strong inclination within the person. One can refer to it as natural in the same sense that they can refer to homosexuality as natural. In fact, pedophilia tends to parallel homosexuality in all respects except in the moral gravity of the act. Yet, based on this, would you say that the right to engage in pedophile acts is a ‘civil rights’ issue? Of course not, why? Because you have made a moral judgment that pedophilia is wrong, regardless of whether or not the person was born with the inclination, regardless of whether or not the choice was a ‘freely’ chosen one or one pushed upon by the persons internal inclinations. In other words, we all distinguish between inclinations and personal choices, and to have one, does not have to entail the other.

    To give just one more example, President Clinton, when he cheated on his wife with Monica, that was not just ‘a man being a man’, that was a conscious choice to disobey the vow he took as a husband. You may say it was difficult for him to resist, you may even say it was almost impossible for him to resist, but nobody would say it was completely impossible for him to resist. As my father used to say, “Nobody put a gun to his head”. We are all moral creatures, capable of making distinctions between what we want to do, and what we should do. Many, many other examples can be given to show my point here, whether we are talking about temper mental people, people who are in a rage of emotion, or people born with certain inclinations, it is a choice when you move from the inclination to the act. One does not have to entail the other.

    In other words, whether something is naturally inclined or not, every human act is fundamentally a choice. And every act can be morally judged. You may think homosexuality is a benign, morally neutral act, and that is fine, that is a respectable position to take, but you cannot equate it to something that is not tied to actions. In other words, even writing with your left hand is not a civil rights issue, since it too entails an act.

    Which brings me full circle back to my original point, that gay marriage is not equal rights, but special rights. The reason not allowing blacks to marry whites was wrong, was because there is no fundamental difference between two white people marrying, and an interracial couple marrying, the fundamental act of marriage, the fundamental essence of it, remains the same in either circumstance. However, that is not the case with regard to gay marriage. Just like polygamy and sibling marriage, gay marriage fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage. To allow gays to marry so fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage that it is like allowing siblings to marry, or polygamous unions. The very act in all of these various unions fundamentally changes marriage, whereas there is no ‘act’ associated with interracial marriages. Which brings me to my next point…

    So now that I have answered all of your questions, can you please show me the same courtesy and answer the questions I asked you, which were, “I am curious, would you say that denying people the ability to marry their siblings is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? Or would you say that our current ban on polygamy is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? If not, why not?

  • Humm, as a gay man and an outspoken right winger, I feel I have to respond to this post.

    Hispanic Pundit is absolutely right. I have the same right to marriage as any straight man, lesbian, etc.

    People seem to forget that.

    The gay attempt to redefine marriage violates that equality.

    While I support civil union legislation with out reserve (my own experience with my partner and I trying to insure each other was convincing), I still dont support gay marriage.

    Lets face it, marriage is a social contract that has existed for thousands of years and it is exclusively for heterosexual couple who want to procreate, and God bless em.

    Respect begets respect. My partner and I are respected by our neighbors because we respect our neighbors. They know we’re a gay couple, but we also don’t shove it in there faces, treat them all with respect for their families, and God knows, we watch out for their kids like they were our own. They are NEIGHBORS in the best sense of the word because we are NEIGHBORS in return. We live in a small basicially Republican enclave in the SF Bay area, and wouldn’t trade it for anything.

    Respect begets Respect.

    Gay and straight can live in peace, as friends and neighbors.

  • John,

    Great comments, thanks for chiming in, please feel free to come by again, your input is very much appreciated.

    Phreadom,

    I read your post, but I honestly don’t see how it addresses what I wrote. In fact, my paragraph that starts with, “But gays are not allowed to marry the person they love”, you say, directly addresses what you write. If, however, I have missed a central point of yours, please feel free to comment back and point it out.

    But if you do decide to comment back, please answer my question directed to Pancho above, which is, “I am curious, would you say that denying people the ability to marry their siblings is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? Or would you say that our current ban on polygamy is also equivalent to restricting marriage by race? If not, why not?“

  • I addressed all of that in the following post I believe. You must have missed that one.

  • To more clearly address this “race” issue you all seem so hot about… race is completely irrelevant, so I really don’t see why you’re even mentioning it. If you would like to clarify for me why it is remotely relevant beyond it being a historical case in point of a failed argument based on ignorance and outdated thinking in part the fault of religion that went so far as to have laws passed to legitimize it’s use in discriminating against people and depriving them of their rights? Considering that marriage laws requiring marriage licenses were first put into effect to necessitate a government mandated license, thereby allowing the government to expressly forbid interractial marriage, thus gaining a foothold in restricting marriage rights from then on.

    Standing against same-sex marriage is just the modern version of racism illustrated in protesting interracial marriage. Just as the War on Drugs is the failed modern incarnation of Prohibition.

    All have roots in the very same kind of self-righteous ignorance.

  • Phraedom,

    I already know that you believe that those who are against gay marriage are really just against it because they are (religious) bigots. I didn’t ask you that, I asked you if you think the prohibition against siblings being allowed to marry, or the prohibition against polygamy, is parallel to the prohibition against gay marriage. In other words, was it based on (religious) ‘bigotry’ to ban sibling marriage? Was it based on (religious) ‘bigotry’ to ban polygamy? Was all of this also comparable to interracial bans? Would you allow polygamous marriages too? What about sibling marriages?

    I have addressed why the gay marriage ban is not analogous to the interracial ban, but since you disagree with my argument, the least you can do is answer my questions.

    If you have already answered it and I missed it, than please, spell it out for me, you know how dumb us ‘bigots’ are, we need the extra explanation.

  • Israel Rodriguez

    I find those that support gay marriage with their reasoning to be flawed. They still haven’t address the issue why gay marriages can be allowed, but polygamy marriages, sibling marriages and any other forms of relationships with an adjective in front of marriage cannot get the same treatment. The equality rational they espouse cannot be supported in the courts due to the equal protection clause in the constitution. So its only fair to conclude that they must support those lifestlyes as well. If not, can it be said they are bigots as well?

    I believe a majority of Americans are supportive of gays having civil unions due to issues such as visitation rights, ect. But this big push for “gay” marriages may have the unintended consequence of driving down support for civil unions.

  • Here, let me explain it in small words then, because obviously it eludes the lot of you.

    Marrying your sister = deformed babies.

    Marrying a bunch of women = requires a complete overhaul of the legal system in relation to marriage, although I see no reason it should be illegal should you so choose to do it.

    Marrying someone of a different race = no valid reason against it. Offends racist people.

    Marrying someone of the same sex = no valid reason against it. Offends people who don’t like homosexuality.

    There is no credible detrimental effect to be had by allowing same-sex marriages. NONE. All it does is clear away an ignorance based social stigma around homosexuality and bring same-sex couples into the mainstream. This allows for a more cohesive social structure.

    And I’d be willing to bet that Israel the gay hater there doesn’t realize that the anti-gay marriage laws that were passed recently, actually undermined existing marriage laws far more than same sex marriage laws would have? Brilliant strategy to start destroying marriage itself in defense of civil unions when you claim to be so terribly upset about the sanctity of marriage etc.

    I’ll try to bite my tongue and not insult him as I’m itching to do. There’s nothing I hate more than ignorant hypocritical bigots trying to cover up their stupidity with fabricated bullshit. Your pathetic justifications are about as valid as the Ku Klux Klan claiming that black people are not even human, but mud people etc, just because they say the bible says so.

    Perhaps you should go read about the interracial marriage issues in the 50’s – 70’s etc. About how the racists who were against it used all of the same arguments that the anti same-sex marriage people are using. “marry a nigger and then what? marry your dog? or how about marrying 10 women? or your car?”

    And they’re about as correct now as they were then.

    Marriage should be between 2 adults who love each other and want to spend their life together and possibly raise a family. And thanks to the very high number of children in need of adoption, raising children for same sex couples is a very valid and beneficial option to society, especially given that it’s a fact that same sex couples on average provide more stable households than heterosexual couples due to generally higher income and the fact that the children are wanted and planned for. No “oopsies” babies.

    TRY READING THIS.

    AND THIS ONE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.

    I figure I need to make those a little easier to see, as it’s obvious that neither of you actually read them, at least the second one. And if you did, then you’re just fucking stupid, because I shouldn’t have had to repeat myself.

    If you can’t understand the very pronounced and obvious detrimental effects of marrying a close family member, then I’m sorry, but you’re stupid. If you can’t understand why it would be a legal nightmare to implement polygamy, then I’m sorry for you. However, like I said, if you should so choose to have multiple spouses, and could find willing partners, I believe that should be your choice. The limiting factor being the fact that it is quite incompatible from a technical aspect with the way marriage law has been implemented from the start in the United States. And aside from being stupid and pointless, can you explain to me why you guys KEEP BRINGING UP INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE!? There is NOTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH IT. The bans on it were COMPLETELY wrong and based on religious justifications, ignorance and racism. PERIOD. Which should be an obvious fact DECADES after the fact.

  • Here, let me explain it in small words then, because obviously it eludes the lot of you.

    Marrying your sister = deformed babies.

    Marrying a bunch of women = requires a complete overhaul of the legal system in relation to marriage, although I see no reason it should be illegal should you so choose to do it.

    Marrying someone of a different race = no valid reason against it. Offends racist people.

    Marrying someone of the same sex = no valid reason against it. Offends people who don’t like homosexuality.

    There is no credible detrimental effect to be had by allowing same-sex marriages. NONE. All it does is clear away an ignorance based social stigma around homosexuality and bring same-sex couples into the mainstream. This allows for a more cohesive social structure.

    And I’d be willing to bet that Israel the gay hater there doesn’t realize that the anti-gay marriage laws that were passed recently, actually undermined existing marriage laws far more than same-sex marriage laws would have? Brilliant strategy to start destroying marriage itself in defense of civil unions when you claim to be so terribly upset about the sanctity of marriage etc.

    I’ll try to bite my tongue and not insult him as I’m itching to do. There’s nothing I hate more than ignorant hypocritical bigots trying to cover up their stupidity with fabricated bullshit. Your pathetic justifications are about as valid as the Ku Klux Klan claiming that black people are not even human, but mud people etc, just because they say the bible says so.

    Perhaps you should go read about the interracial marriage issues in the 50’s – 70’s etc. About how the racists who were against it used all of the same arguments that the anti same-sex marriage people are using. “marry a nigger and then what? marry your dog? or how about marrying 10 women? or your car?”

    And they’re about as correct now as they were then.

    Marriage should be between 2 adults who love each other and want to spend their life together and possibly raise a family. And thanks to the very high number of children in need of adoption, raising children for same sex couples is a very valid and beneficial option to society, especially given that it’s a fact that same-sex couples on average provide more stable households than heterosexual couples due to generally higher income and the fact that the children are wanted and planned for. No “oopsies” babies.

    TRY READING THIS.

    AND THIS ONE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.

    I figure I need to make those a little easier to see, as it’s obvious that neither of you actually read them, at least the second one. And if you did, then you’re just fucking stupid, because I shouldn’t have had to repeat myself.

    If you can’t understand the very pronounced and obvious detrimental effects of marrying a close family member, then I’m sorry, but you’re stupid. If you can’t understand why it would be a legal nightmare to implement polygamy, then I’m sorry for you. However, like I said, if you should so choose to have multiple spouses, and could find willing partners, I believe that should be your choice. The limiting factor being the fact that it is quite incompatible from a technical aspect with the way marriage law has been implemented from the start in the United States. And aside from being stupid and pointless, can you explain to me why you guys keep bringing up interracial marriage!? There is nothing at all wrong with it. The bans on it were completely wrong and based on religious justifications, ignorance and racism. perdiod. Which should be an obvious fact decades after the fact.

  • I agree with the first half of the HP argument (Gay marriage is not equal rights), but the logic falls apart inthe second half. (If gay marriage were permitted, everyone would have that right, not just homosexuals.) The real problem with the debate is that it is focused on “rights” issues and analogies to interracial marriages and other situations.

    The key question is why should the State intervene at all to create marriage? Historically, there are two primary reasons which appear to underlie laws related to marriage – protection of the family unit and issues related to the social, economic, and (at times) legal inequality of the sexes. Neither of these rationales supports extending marriage to include homosexual unions. Gay couples may acquire children, but they do not produce them together. Gay couples also inherently do not have unequal socioeconomic power BECAUSE of their gender (though as individuals they might).

    I think the whole debate (not just on this site) should be more focused on the specific benefits and burdens of marriage and whether the State should extend those to gay couples. Tenancy by the Entireties? Homestead Laws? Dower? Is there a compelling reason to extend these benefits?

    Remember, gay couples (and polygamous groupings) are free to live as they want now. The question is whether the State should reward them.

  • Phreadom,

    Thanks for your response, just a couple points.

    First off, nobody here is objecting to interracial marriages. I fully support them and find nothing wrong with them at all (in fact, I think we need more interracial marriages, they produce some of the prettiest children). My point with interracial marriages was to show that they are not analogous to gay marriage, that was all I was trying to say there.

    Secondly, why should the potential for having deformed babies prohibit siblings from marriage? Isn’t this very similar to an argument opponents of gay marriage make, being that gay unions are innately ordered against the procreation of children?

    As far as your overall acceptance of polygamy, I applaud your honesty; several proponents of gay marriage will not go so far. Personally, I, while still against polygamous marriage, find the arguments in favor of polygamous marriages much more coherent and justifiable than arguments in favor of gay marriage. So it always comes across as hypocritical when gay marriage proponents will argue for gay marriage in one hand, but in the other be adamantly opposed to polygamous unions.

    Oh yeah, one more minor point of disagreement. I realize that in gay circles, it is almost a non-questioned fact that gay unions make better parents, but the deeper you dig into this, the more you realize that it is not a settled topic. Now before you respond with quote after quote that shows gay unions make good parents, please read the article first. You will notice that it was written in slate, a very liberal periodical, written by an author that clearly favors gay marriage, and based on the science by Judith Stacey, ” a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of “alternative” families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists”. So a bias charge would be unfair. And since children are our societies most cherished possessions, I would err on the side of caution and side against gay unions raising children, at least until the science is much more objective and clear, anything less would be letting children down.

    Now, onto the core of our disagreement, you write,

    There is no credible detrimental effect to be had by allowing same-sex marriages. NONE. All it does is clear away an ignorance based social stigma around homosexuality and bring same-sex couples into the mainstream. This allows for a more cohesive social structure.

    This is not true at all. Legal recognition of gay “marriage” further erodes the connection between marriage and child-rearing, thus creating less impetus for heterosexual couples to marry simply because they want to live together and possibly to procreate. This will lead to children being raised by couples who never bothered to marry, which will lead to more separations and more harm to the children. Some of this is touched on by Harvard trained anthropologist Stanley Kurtz here and here.

    There is also the fact that allowing gay marriage will strip marriage of its (albeit already shaky) objective meaning and make it nothing more than a power grab. Allow gay marriage and you make the arguments against polygamous marriages much shakier, you make the arguments against sibling marriages much shakier, and you make the arguments against having out of wedlock children much more shaky. In other words, marriage now becomes something that any other group can get if they only got enough political power to change it, there is no longer any true, rooted in children, meaning to it anymore.

    In addition to this, there is also the threat to religious freedom, touched on here.

    And all of this just scratches the surface, I haven’t even started talking about what the governments sanctioning of an inherently more risky form of sex will do to the AIDS epidemic and insurance costs…etc. So while you may not think the costs are significant enough to restrict gay marriage, to say that there is “no credible detrimental effect to be had by allowing same-sex marriages. NONE” is a very big stretch, to say the least.

    But back to gay marriage, it is important to stress, in all gay marriage discussions, that the gay marriage debate is not about gays, it is about marriage. What does marriage mean, what are its limitations, and what will changing it do to the future of society. How you answer these questions regarding marriage in general, will dictate on what side you stand on in this debate.

    So with that in mind, I don’t see a compelling reason to allow gay marriage. Briefly, marriage is fundamentally not a ‘love certificate’, but a recognition that society confers on the very union that all children come from. In other words, the loving commitment of a heterosexual union, by its very nature, has the potential for children. It is the core of all families, and something that is cross cultural, it is unique, makes its mark on everyone, and is the basic building block of all societies. It has something that all other unions fall short of, whether they be brother and sister unions, first cousin unions, polygamous unions, best friends unions, and yes, even homosexual unions. Any argument any other union gives to being established into law, the loving heterosexual union has that claim, and more. And therefore should always be seen separate and above all other unions.

    To further clarify this point on what marriage means, allow me to quote from Andrew Sullivan, an ardent defender of gay marriage, he writes:

    They make a deeper commitment to one another and to society; in exchange, society extends certain benefits to them. Marriage provides an anchor, if an arbitrary and weak one, in the chaos of sex and relationships to which we are all prone. It provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security, and the healthy rearing of the next generation. We rig the law in its favor not because we disparage all forms of relationship other than the nucelar family, but because we recognize that not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue. In the context of the weakened family’s effect upon the poor, it might also invite social disintegration.

    You see, no matter which way you cut it, marriage is linked to children and their upbringing. Society recognizes that the ideal, proper upbringing for its future citizens is in its biological father and mother household. The fact that marriage happens so often in society, marriage through the government was created to tie up all of the legal paper work and duties all in one act, and at the same time, encourage and recognize this special union as unique.

    The ironic part about the whole gay marriage debate is that it is proponents of gay marriage that insert religion into it, not the opponents. Why should the government care that two members of the same sex declare their love for one another? Why should the government care that two siblings declare their love to each other? Why should the government care that I declare my eternal friendship to my life long childhood friend? The answer is simple, from the governments perspective, the government should not care. Those relationships should be arbitrary from the governments perspective. Whether I love my best friend, my sister, or another male, is none of the governments business.

    However, when I make a public declaration to love, and have an intimate sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex, than the government should care. Why; because this relationship of love and sexual intimacy with someone of the opposite sex is inherently ordered towards the procreation of children. And because children are society’s most cherished citizens, the government has some interest in their proper upbringing, hence marriage and its role in society.

    But aside from the hospital visitation rights, and inheritance issues with gays (while I support civil unions, my support for them are a bit more nuanced than others, I explained it here), I see no reason the government should care whether you love or sleep with other members of the same sex, just like I see no reason the government should care whether or not I love or sleep with multiple women (polygamy), or others have sex or love their sibling, while you are free to do that in the privacy of your own home, the government itself should careless.

    Thanks for the intelligent discussion, I know how difficult it could be to talk to an ‘ ignorant hypocritical bigot’ like myself, but I did enjoy this exchange, and for that I thank you.

    Troyus,

    Great response, and I agree, the question should be focused on what marriage means, and its benefit from the governments perspective.

    Update: Typos fixed.

  • Israel Rodriguez

    It’s not surprising that when an extremist liberal fails to make their case, they resort to calling people names and using bad language. Phreadom’s diatribe still fails to make the case, even if he links to his blog. For the record, I would prefer if you can link to leading authority in sociology that can logically explain why “gay” marriage would be just as good for society; as “marriage” is defined by the rest of the world for more than a millennium. I believe HP has very thoroughly made the case. You have not sir. Sorry.

    I also want to address your references to interracial marriage for this discussion. First of all, where in these discussions above have I mentioned it specifically? Besides, interracial marriage is still a marriage (hint= between a man and a women). It’s just that people have decided to give it a name. So your point is moot. I personally don’t think of it much. Especially considering that as a Latino, I’m married to a Japanese woman. Yes HP, you are correct. Latinos with other races do produced beautiful children.

    Phreadom, you should be more careful before you post such outrageous comments. You’ve made assumptions about me without knowing where I come from. Since I must be a racist according to you, I’ll be sure to let my wife know, my sister in law (she’s black), and gay friends know. Why is that we cannot disagree on conferring rights to a segment of the population because it will make them feel better or because they want it? I tell you this, if the children factor was not in question, I would be the first to say “Do away with marriage all together and have only civil unions. Leave marriages to the church”. Since this is not the case, we’ll have to just agree to disagree.

  • I appreciate both of your more well thought out and worded posts. In response before I head to bed (I’ll be back on this later, after I’ve had the chance to thouroughly read the links that HP listed), what makes you think that homosexual couples don’t have children? I know many myself, and they usually end up getting impregnated by a friend, and usually it’s a sibling of the significant other, so that they still share the same genes basically as would that of the same sex unions offspring. The couples still live together. They still have sex. They still have children. The difference is, that thanks to you, they have less stable households in which to be raised and live. If one parent dies, the other doesn’t have the right to keep the home, or continue to raise the child. It’s silly to think that they’re not having children, not raising children and not having a family unit just because they’re not legally married. It’s also ignorant of you to believe that “family” means a mom, a a dad and kids. I thought I touched on that in my previous posts, but I guess you missed it. And having studied Cultural Anthropology (A+ student no less), I would guess that I might have a tiny bit more of an idea about family groups etc.

    So, having rather easily shot down your “logic” on this supposed lack of children in same sex unions, and your completely erroneous perception of “family”, I think that leaves you back at the “leave marriage in the church and separate church and state and give us civil unions that are equal across the board should we so choose, and a “wedding” to be back where it should be, as a religious ceremony.

    Because you’re right, in a sense this does come down to a marriage issue… and I personally dislike having morality legislated on me. Who says that adultery should be illegal? I know many swinging couples. Who says that sodomy should be illegal? I know many gay couples, and hell, I’ve personally done it. How about pornography… oral sex… in the state I live in, any sexual position besides “missionary” is illegal, even in the privacy of my own home.

    If you want to marry several women, go ahead. if you want to marry your same sex partner, go ahead. if religion doesn’t approve, then keep religion where it belongs, in the church and out of the government. but your arguments against same-sex marriages continue to fail as long as you imply that civil-unions and marriage are equal, because that’s simply false.

    As for what HP said about same-sex couples not having deformed babies… how does that draw a parallel to inter-family procreation? It is diametrically opposed if anything.

    And Troyus said “Gay couples may acquire children, but they do not produce them together.” “acquire”? Whatever you mean by that, it does not change the fact that many many gay couples do have children, either from previous marriages where they were trying to live as a heterosexual, or from being impregnanted by their lovers sibling or a friend, or by artificial insemination etc. Those who want children have them, and as I stated before, they are almost always planned for.

    Now, as I’ve said, I need to read HP’s links and consider his points. I appreciate the clarified posts and appreciate HP and Troyus’ views especially.

    Marriage between a single man and a single woman is a relatively modern and Christianity based practice that spread primarily from Europe to the United States. If you can show me your evidence to disprove this, I’d appreciate it.

    Enough for now, I have to sleep and read before I post more.

    Ah, just read the slate post, and I totally agree with it. I also note that Estimates of the number of kids of gay and lesbian parents range from 6 million to 10 million …. That’s a lot of kids that seem missing from some of your logic. Also, I should note that even in midieval europe, there was no family in the modern sense. People simply didn’t know where babies came from. Having a father didn’t mean that that person was your biological father etc. The goal of a family was not to procreate, it was simply to provide a stable household.

    Think about that.

    And from the closing line of the Slate article:
    What will help clarify it are experiences like mine, watching my sister and her partner sharing the hard work and the happiness of raising their daughter. I can’t think of a better argument for gay marriage than that.

  • I appreciate both of your more well thought out and worded posts. In response before I head to bed (I’ll be back on this later, after I’ve had the chance to thouroughly read the links that HP listed), what makes you think that homosexual couples don’t have children? I know many myself, and they usually end up getting impregnated by a friend, and usually it’s a sibling of the significant other, so that they still share the same genes basically as would that of the same sex unions offspring. The couples still live together. They still have sex. They still have children. The difference is, that thanks to you, they have less stable households in which to be raised and live. If one parent dies, the other doesn’t have the right to keep the home, or continue to raise the child. It’s silly to think that they’re not having children, not raising children and not having a family unit just because they’re not legally married. It’s also ignorant of you to believe that “family” means a mom, a a dad and kids. I thought I touched on that in my previous posts, but I guess you missed it. And having studied Cultural Anthropology (A+ student no less), I would guess that I might have a tiny bit more of an idea about family groups etc.

    So, having rather easily shot down your “logic” on this supposed lack of children in same-sex unions, and your completely erroneous perception of “family”, I think that leaves you back at the “leave marriage in the church and separate church and state and give us civil unions that are equal across the board should we so choose, and a “wedding” to be back where it should be, as a religious ceremony.

    Because you’re right, in a sense this does come down to a marriage issue… and I personally dislike having morality legislated on me. Who says that adultery should be illegal? I know many swinging couples. Who says that sodomy should be illegal? I know many gay couples, and hell, I’ve personally done it. How about pornography… oral sex… in the state I live in, any sexual position besides “missionary” is illegal, even in the privacy of my own home.

    If you want to marry several women, go ahead. if you want to marry your same-sex partner, go ahead. if religion doesn’t approve, then keep religion where it belongs, in the church and out of the government. but your arguments against same-sex marriages continue to fail as long as you imply that civil-unions and marriage are equal, because that’s simply false.

    As for what HP said about same-sex couples not having deformed babies… how does that draw a parallel to inter-family procreation? It is diametrically opposed if anything.

    And Troyus said “Gay couples may acquire children, but they do not produce them together.” “acquire”? Whatever you mean by that, it does not change the fact that many many gay couples do have children, either from previous marriages where they were trying to live as a heterosexual, or from being impregnanted by their lovers sibling or a friend, or by artificial insemination etc. Those who want children have them, and as I stated before, they are almost always planned for.

    Now, as I’ve said, I need to read HP’s links and consider his points. I appreciate the clarified posts and appreciate HP and Troyus’ views especially.

    Marriage between a single man and a single woman is a relatively modern and Christianity based practice that spread primarily from Europe to the United States. If you can show me your evidence to disprove this, I’d appreciate it.

    Enough for now, I have to sleep and read before I post more.

    Ah, just read the slate post, and I totally agree with it. I also note that Estimates of the number of kids of gay and lesbian parents range from 6 million to 10 million …. That’s a lot of kids that seem missing from some of your logic. Also, I should note that even in midieval europe, there was no family in the modern sense. People simply didn’t know where babies came from. Having a father didn’t mean that that person was your biological father etc. The goal of a family was not to procreate, it was simply to provide a stable household.

    Think about that.

    And from the closing line of the Slate article:
    What will help clarify it are experiences like mine, watching my sister and her partner sharing the hard work and the happiness of raising their daughter. I can’t think of a better argument for gay marriage than that.

  • Phreadom,

    Thanks for your response, just a couple points.

    First off, I did not make the claim that homosexuals don’t have kids. I made the claim that homosexuals are not ordered towards kids. In other words, they can’t produce children through their acts of love. I realize that there are many homosexual unions that have children, but just like there are many brothers and sisters raising kids, and best friends raising kids, this is a completely separate issue than whether or not their union is ordered toward children.

    When a heterosexual union announces their love for one another, the state gives them recognition because that union, by its very nature, is ordered toward children. It is the fundamental unit of society. All children come from male/female bonding, not homosexual or sibling bonding.

    Here, let me try to explain this another way. Let’s say that tomorrow I declared my loyalty to a best friend of mine. This best friend of mine was a member of the opposite sex, but still someone very special to me. However, this loyalty pledge was non-sexual, meaning that it was just a promise to be ‘platonic friendship for ever’. Now this type of union, I would say, should also not be allowed to be called marriage, even though we are members of the opposite sex. Why? Because from the governments perspective, who cares if two people form non-sexual friendship bonds, that does not, and should not, concern the government.

    However, when these same two people, say me and a female friend, declare sexually ‘non-platonic friendship for ever’, well that is completely different. That very union, a loving sexually intimate union between male and female is ordered towards children. Now, granted, that union may never produce children, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it is ordered towards children. In other words, the environment now created, a sexual union between two loving people of different sexes, is where children come from. And since the proper upbringing of children is one of the governments first priorities, the government has great concern in how that union ends up. So it establishes a ‘marriage’, that first, ties up all legal matters in one simple procedure (makes it cheaper, therefore more reachable for the poor), and second, holds that union up as separate from all other unions precisely because it is separate from all other unions.

    One last point, as for the ending of the article I quoted (which, btw, shows that I quoted an unbiased source) that reads:

    What will help clarify it are experiences like mine, watching my sister and her partner sharing the hard work and the happiness of raising their daughter. I can’t think of a better argument for gay marriage than that.

    This is strange logic. What parent, indeed what individual that cares about children, will say that because we don’t know if something is damaging to a child that we should ‘allow it to happen’ and ‘see what happens’? Come on now, if in doubt, always, always, err on the side of caution, at least when children are concerned.

  • I appreciate both of your more well thought out and worded posts. In response before I head to bed (I’ll be back on this later, after I’ve had the chance to thouroughly read the links that HP listed), what makes you think that homosexual couples don’t have children? I know many myself, and they usually end up getting impregnated by a friend, and usually it’s a sibling of the significant other, so that they still share the same genes basically as would that of the same sex unions offspring. The couples still live together. They still have “intercourse”. They still have children. The difference is, that thanks to you, they have less stable households in which to be raised and live. If one parent dies, the other doesn’t have the right to keep the home, or continue to raise the child. It’s silly to think that they’re not having children, not raising children and not having a family unit just because they’re not legally married. It’s also ignorant of you to believe that “family” means a mom, a a dad and kids. I thought I touched on that in my previous posts, but I guess you missed it. And having studied Cultural Anthropology (A+ student no less), I would guess that I might have a tiny bit more of an idea about family groups etc.

    So, having rather easily shot down your “logic” on this supposed lack of children in same-sex unions, and your completely erroneous perception of “family”, I think that leaves you back at the “leave marriage in the church and separate church and state and give us civil unions that are equal across the board should we so choose, and a “wedding” to be back where it should be, as a religious ceremony.

    Because you’re right, in a sense this does come down to a marriage issue… and I personally dislike having morality legislated on me. Who says that adultery should be illegal? I know many swinging couples. Who says that sodomy should be illegal? I know many gay couples, and hell, I’ve personally done it. How about pornography… oral… in the state I live in, any position besides “missionary” is illegal, even in the privacy of my own home.

    If you want to marry several women, go ahead. if you want to marry your same-sex partner, go ahead. if religion doesn’t approve, then keep religion where it belongs, in the church and out of the government. but your arguments against same-sex marriages continue to fail as long as you imply that civil-unions and marriage are equal, because that’s simply false.

    As for what HP said about same-sex couples not having deformed babies… how does that draw a parallel to inter-family procreation? It is diametrically opposed if anything.

    And Troyus said “Gay couples may acquire children, but they do not produce them together.” “acquire”? Whatever you mean by that, it does not change the fact that many many gay couples do have children, either from previous marriages where they were trying to live as a heterosexual, or from being impregnanted by their lovers sibling or a friend, or by artificial insemination etc. Those who want children have them, and as I stated before, they are almost always planned for.

    Now, as I’ve said, I need to read HP’s links and consider his points. I appreciate the clarified posts and appreciate HP and Troyus’ views especially.

    Marriage between a single man and a single woman is a relatively modern and Christianity based practice that spread primarily from Europe to the United States. If you can show me your evidence to disprove this, I’d appreciate it.

    Enough for now, I have to sleep and read before I post more.

    Ah, just read the slate post, and I totally agree with it. I also note that Estimates of the number of kids of gay and lesbian parents range from 6 million to 10 million …. That’s a lot of kids that seem missing from some of your logic. Also, I should note that even in midieval europe, there was no family in the modern sense. People simply didn’t know where babies came from. Having a father didn’t mean that that person was your biological father etc. The goal of a family was not to procreate, it was simply to provide a stable household.

    Think about that.

    And from the closing line of the Slate article:
    What will help clarify it are experiences like mine, watching my sister and her partner sharing the hard work and the happiness of raising their daughter. I can’t think of a better argument for gay marriage than that.

  • Well, I’ve tried to respond, but frustratingly enough, this stupid blog keeps saying my post is just spam. I guess that leaves me out of the conversation. *sigh*

    I’m sure you’ll all find that humorous. :-/

  • Sorry about that Phreadom, I fixed it and hopefully you won’t be blocked anymore (try to use the same computer/IP address since that is what you are ‘whitelist’ under).

    I addressed your (repeated because of the spam filter) comments above.

  • Generally speaking I agree with the logic in your approach, and again, appreciate your well worded response. However, following that logic, should sterile couples not be allowed to marry? Should that be a stipulation of the marriage license? Requirement to bear children must be fulfilled? This is not the case, and as the statistics show, a fair percentage of them do raise families, around 25% on the lesbian couples and 5% to 17% of gay couples, based on their rough estimates. Obviously procreation is not the justification.

    But as you also note:

    So it establishes a ‘marriage’, that first, ties up all legal matters in one simple procedure (makes it cheaper, therefore more reachable for the poor), and second, holds that union up as separate from all other unions precisely because it is separate from all other unions.

    Marriage is to create a stable and secure family unit. Now while the possibility of children obviously plays a part in this, same-sex couples also have the possibility of raising children, and the fact that they cannot produce them with each other does not change the fact that they have them through a number of means available to them. Denying them the very benefits you point out, denies them those same benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

  • It’s doing it again. :-/

    If you could, could you delete the second 2 duplicate posts where I was trying to edit out which words I used to see if I was being spam-filtered for using the word “sex” too much, and also the note where I said I was being filtered, and this one as well etc.

    Keep the discussion on topic and not on the shortcomings of WordPress’ spam filter. ;-)

    Thanks.

  • Phreadom,

    Thanks for your response; again, sorry about the spam filter thing, I’m still working on trying to fix that. Which posts do you want me to delete? Can you give me their specific number, for example, this post is post 29. I don’t want to delete the wrong ones, and your description gives me too much room for error. Now back to our discussion…

    However, following that logic, should sterile couples not be allowed to marry? Should that be a stipulation of the marriage license? Requirement to bear children must be fulfilled?

    Actually, the problem for us opponents of gay marriage is bigger than your response above. For example, you could also respond with, “What about two 80 year olds getting married, they clearly can not produce children either, should they be allowed to marry”? These are all fair questions, and I grant that they get at the gray areas of this whole discussion. And personally, I think it is these gray areas where the true gay marriage debate is.

    I’ve seen opponents of gay marriage respond in several different ways. If push comes to shove, there are (I’ve only seen one person take this stance though) some who would allow a ban on 80-year-old heterosexual couples from marrying. There are others that state that regulating infertile couples would be too costly, too much of a civil right violation, and since the percentages of infertile unions are so small, they can be ignored. There are others (myself included) who will say that even infertile heterosexual couples, be they 80 year olds or young adults, still provide society with a benefit by marrying, and so they should still be allowed to marry. We reason that these marriages still serve as examples to others and still promote a culture of ‘you should be married when you have children’ and a culture of ‘marriage is a good thing’. So because they still provide society with a benefit, specifically a benefit that benefits the proper upbringing of children (which is ideally children being raised by their original parents), they should still be allowed to marry. Add this to the fact that they represent a small fraction of total marriages, and one could easily reason that the cost/benefit analysis allows for these groups to also marry.

    Now, you may think all of these responses have holes in them. That they are still not completely coherent, that they don’t answer all of the issues, and that is fine, to some degree I would agree. But that is completely different than saying because of this, gay marriage is justified. Remember, gay marriage is a much larger departure from the core of marriage than the examples above, gay marriage will allow the union of two people whose very order is geared against having children, by their very nature. It would be even more of a departure than allowing siblings or cousins to marry. Man and man, and women and women, are completely at odds with producing children, and because of this, would dramatically change the meaning of marriage.

    Let me try to explain this with an example. In the past, I have heard opponents of gay marriage argue that if you allow gay marriage, that would eventually lead to allowing people to ‘marry their dog, or their animals and so forth’. Obviously that is a false analogy, since gay marriage still stands on the consensual agreement between two adults, and therefore to insert animals into the picture is a fundamental change in essence, in other words, it’s a non sequitur. While the two scenarios, gay marriage, and ‘marriage to animals’, both share the same characteristic – ordered against the procreation of children- they are still fundamentally different. And because of that fundamental difference, it would be logically erroneous to imply that one will lead to the other.

    Well, the same can be said with regard to sexually intimate heterosexual unions and sexually intimate homosexual unions. While infertile heterosexual unions and homosexual unions both share the same characteristic – procreation of children is impossible- they are still fundamentally different. To move from an infertile heterosexual union to a homosexual union is a change in essence, not a change in degree. So just as it would be illogical to assume that gay marriage is equivalent to animal marriages, so too it would also be illogical to assume that gay marriage is equivalent to infertile heterosexual marriages.

    And therefore gay marriage strikes at the heart of what marriage means, it takes an already shaky link to children, and completely severs it, leaving marriage fundamentally changed to what it was before.

    Which brings me back to what I said earlier. The gay marriage debate is not about gays, the gay marriage debate is about marriage. What does marriage mean, what are its limitations, and what will changing it do to the future of society. How you answer these questions regarding marriage in general, will dictate on what side you stand on in this debate.

    Again, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I hope we can learn to disagree without losing respect for one another, because I certainly respect your views, and benefited from this discussion.

    PS: Allow me to extend an olive branch, while I am still very much against gay marriage, there is a form of ‘marriage’ that gays and heteros alike can participate in, one that I would have a hard time arguing against. In fact, after thinking it over for some time, if society as a whole moved where all unions, hetero and homo, were based on contract (also referred to as ‘contract approach to marriage’), I would not disapprove, and I think it would be a solution both sides can agree on. To learn more about that view go here, and here.

    Update: Minor typos corrected.

  • While I have my plate full this evening with an entirely different issue, and am only responding because I can’t sleep, I’ll say a few things…

    While out at the bar tonight with my new roommate (an ex girlfriend), I shared our discussion with a friend of mine, who is a very very intelligent individual, and our discussion followed what I perceive our discussion here to be heading towards… that of the issues between civil unions and marriage. Basically, having been drinking tonight, I’ll just cut to the chase and let loose. ;-) Hopefully you’ll forgive the rough nature of my description.

    Essentially what it came down to, was that we essentially agreed that the real issue is that both homo- and hetero-sexual marriages should be, as far as the government is concerened, civil unions. The introduction of the fault into the system was in melding in a religious institution in the first place, and thereby introducing all the moral dilemmas inherent to violating the core morals of that religious system.

    Ow my head hurts.

    He actually made 1 very very interesting point, which I had not thought of, and I have not yet heard addressed in any forum yet… but at the moment, I forget what it was. :-( I’ll e-mail him and ask him to flesh it out again in an e-mail.

    Basically, I think we’re coming to a common ground in some respect. A happy medium so to speak. Based on all the relevant facts involved here.

    I think to put it simply, “marriage” is the problem. Which I know might sound a little rough… but realistically, as I think Troyus was hinting at… and that you as well have touched on… we have to address the issues of what is beneficial to the community or whatnot… what justifies the government granting the package security and benefits deal to a couple in exchange for some perceived benefit on their part… to society or their pocketbook, or whatever the case may be.

    Unfortunately, it’s almost 6am… I’ve been drinking… and I’m only awake because I was trying to sleep on the floor, having given the only mattress in the house to my new roommate, and found the effort a bit futile. Too much on my mind and a floor with 1 blanket not being conducive to falling asleep.

    I’ll touch base again when I hopefully get that information from my friend and can form any kind of coherent statement. ;-)

    Again, I appreciate the intelligent discussion, it has been a learning experience on my part as well.

    (Which infers an apology on my part for my initial hostility… I’ve been dealing a lot with very ignorant people lately arguing similar points… so when I see a flaw in a statement, even if it’s simply because the statement was overly generalized… something of which I am certainly guilty as well… I tend to be overly aggressive in my initial comments. Given your calm and rational responses, I feel obliged to extend my gratitude for a refreshingly intellectual discussion on the topic, and your general tolerance towards my oft-times unpleasant manner in addressing points I don’t agree with. ;-) I’ll be in touch again soon.)

    (Another note is that I give you credit for preemptively sensing where my rebuttals would come from. ;-) I’m impressed. I still have a few points to make, but as you can probably guess, I’m in no state of mind to articulate any of what I’d like to say. Just another tip of the hat where credit is due.)

  • I have to agree with Hispanic Pundit on this one. I have made this same argue to liberals and it gets a sigh or a roll of the eyes, so I am glad to see that someone else agrees.

    The crux of the debate is the definition of marriage. Historically, it has always been between a man and a woman. Fine. Let us all have equal rights. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you waive your right to that, then you should not expect something above and beyond that right.

    On a tangent, SCOTUS-watching blogs erupted when people found out that John G. Roberts did pro bono work for a gay rights lawsuit. Everyone thought that there was a disconnect, but there really is not. Mr. Roberts argued that people should not face hiring and housing discrimination based on sexuality. That is an issue of equal rights. The marriage issue is one of special rights.

    Maybe if we can separate issues of equal rights and special rights, then we can have a much more respectful debate.

  • Throughout the centuries, marriage, at its core, has been predominantly oriented around the protection of women and children. Until very recently, romantic love was not necessarily part of the deal.

    I am a single, heterosexual female, but there are millions of people out there that I cannot marry. I cannot marry my father; I cannot marry anyone who is already married (including my ex-husband). Any single, homosexual female out there is in the same situation; there is no discrimination towards her in this. Homosexual “marriage” is not the Holy Grail the homosexual communitity seems to think it is.

  • Consider this comparison –

    When gays ask permission to marry, government officials suggest that gays don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits marriage, that they marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. The gays will say that since they are not straight, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the gay that they CHOOSE to be gay and that America won’t provide gays with “special rights” based on their lifestyle choices. What gays do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should American society, built on monogamy, have to change to accommodate gays’ chosen lifestyle? The gays may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits to straights while they are those same benefits. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be gay rather than marry an opposite sex partner.

    In Saudi Arabia, Christians can’t build churches. I imagine that when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi Arabia won’t provide Christians with “special rights” based on their lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to accommodate Christians’ chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits to Muslims while they are denied those same benefits. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be Christians rather than being Muslims.

    Sound familiar?

  • Nope, nobody ever made the ‘choose’ argument, atleast not on this blog.

  • Gay marriage is wrong, because God didn’t make humans to be like this. Most of us have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed that city because of its homesexual sins and abominations. Anyone who is gay should seek Jesus. He is the one who can satisfy and fullfill you.

  • Jesse, you’ve got it all wrong my friend. I was just talking to god last night and he told me that he purposely spared Mass of Hurricane Wilma cause he was so proud that they legalized gay marriage. Of course, not everyone gets to talk to god as often as I do, so I don’t blame you for your ignorance, but I just thought I’d let you know what the big guy is thinking.

    BTW, Florida is supposed to keep getting hit by hurricanes as punishment for Jeb Bush helping out brother Georgie. God, is he clever or what?

  • NO you are close but no cigar! Gays wish to have the same opportunity to marry for love of the TAX WRITE-OFFS that married couples have. PERIOD.
    The problem with this is that gays begin to argue along the lines of “the right to marry anyone that they wish…” No – one has no right to marry. If this was so then why then the marriage license? one must be certified as healthy, mentally and physically, gainfully employed, capable of communicating and especially for those of you who are not married to define WHY it is you love your partner to differentiate this from puppy love AKA infatuation. Infatuation is what gay couples are famous for – bed hopping, fighting (the lesbians next door to my buddy’s house WOW!Do they fight)nor that either the male or the female house repressed emotional or mental quirks. And foremost,the responsibility upon married couples is to procreate – to help guarantee that they will unite, live in commitment (another gay issue) love, conceive, carry, birth and rear a mentally,emotionally, educated and otherwise fine generation of healthy offspring to again, provide assurance of a capable, healthy and strong, moral, intelligent “next generation” through biology – through the basic normal channels of conception through sex and intercourse – together as a family unit.
    PERIOD — NO Adoption no bullshit and it doesnt take a geneticist or physiologist to tell you how children are conceived.
    Place ten gay couples in ten gay households for two years and within that two there will be ZERO offspring. That is what this is about. Gays love their freedom and that they do not need the same family core as do the heterosexuals — Hence the term “Gay” you homosexuals coined that term yourselves!! So live with that fact – quietly. But please, do not attempt to convince; especially married couples with children; that your gay union is even remotely close to that of a normal couple. I haven’t been successful in helping others see the very distinct boundaries between marriage exist so I quit.
    Instead, listen to Elton John himself so wisely describe his affair as a civil partnership and that union not being anywhere similar to heterosexuals marriage. Were one to make an effort, I am certain they would be gently laughed out of the room!
    Gays live in an intense level of denial believing that somehow, for some reasons that they themselves have created, their homosexuality is fine. It is – within the boundaries of ones self and who they choose to tell and share that with and this is as far as that goes. However, biologically, physiologically and speaking with regard to social welfare – no two same sex partners cant possibly marry.

    • Ok, I think I have a good grasp on the laws. There are tax benefits of marriage, but there are things that are missled concerning marriage. Not until the middle of the last century has marriage ever consisted of a union of ‘romantic’ love. It has always been a union to procreate. And to do so with the best mate possible. That is whay kings and such had a mistress or even a homosexual partner if they chose (the latter was shuned) Kind Edward II was killed because he wanted to be openly gay and not have a ‘marital’ relations with his queen to procreate an heir.
      The point of love here it is. My fiance’ and I love each other. But I am still legally married to my ‘ex-husband’ who physically abused my now 10 year old son. Now should I be allowed to marry the man I love? Not until I have divorced my husband. The state is paculiar about this. It would be easier to have 2 husbands at this point too. Heck I can’t even locate my husband to have him served papers. (Laws will allow me to divorce my current legal husband without any of that) The point I am trying to make is because we love each other is not a good arguement for wanting special treatment of a certain group. That being the case then a person that sexually loves another is not why the should be allowed to marry. A man can sexually love several women, and they all love him. But most would consider that acceptable.
      And eventhough polygamy has been apart of cultural anthropology for a long time. (The Old Testament) is rife with it. Look at the problems that it created. And not to mention polygamy and same-sex were not the institution of marriage created by God.
      And on an evolutionary point of view marriage is the product of civilization. One should go and look back on ancient Sumrian and Babylonion laws. No were is same-sex considered a marriage. Because marriage whether seen from a Creationist point or even an evolutionary point was to protect property and children. And same-sex was never considered a marriage. Now a person might be sexually in love with some one of the same sex. Ancient Greek liturate is rife with that. But even they new that marriage should be defined as man and woman. The Roman Catholic church helped to streamline these laws not for the peasant folk, but for the kings of Europe. Do I think that the bible talks against interracial marriage, no. But it does talk about about Christians marrying non-christians. And the Jews say the old testament does talk about interracial marriage in the fact that Jews should not marry non Jews. It would produce heathen children. Now if the Christian is an Ethiopian or an American, and the his/her spouse is also a christian but of another ethnicity then that is still biblically sound. Jesus didn’t even teach on homosexual marriage. Why? because in the Almighty’s eyes it is not a marriage. I think that law trumps any man made laws we might have.
      Lastly, David loved Bathsheba, and committed adultry with her. And had her husband Uriah murdered. But he loved her and he was also the king. Well, God seen it differently, David couldn’t change the laws to suit him (eventhough he was king). So when gays ask for them to have ‘special’ treatment that they should be allowed to marry whom they love. Its weak. Same-sex couples that have been together for years and are respected in their neighborhoods are never questioned. How about if a couple that is homosexual instead of wanting marriage laws changed to suit them. Use the other laws available to them. They can adopt chilren together. They can also raise children together. Power-of-attorney is a good thing. Wills can be made out, and hospital’s that don’t allow for couples to visit each other in hospital just because they are not married well that is weak too. Equal rights exsist in marriage laws. Not special rights.

  • “””Back to our main discussion, I still get the feeling that I have not conveyed my point well. In my ‘gay marriage is not a civil right‘ post I tried very hard to pick examples that do not convey any moral judgment, that are seen as ‘benign acts’, to prove my point. I used ‘writing with your left hand’, ‘masturbating’, ’sex outside of marriage’, all as examples to get across my point that regardless of your moral views regarding an act, whether one sees an act as benign or ‘morally wrong’, an act is still not a civil rights issue. They are fundamentally different. And since homosexuality implies an act, specifically because it is a behavioral attribute, in other words, because it is defined by its actions, the parallel with civil rights does not hold.”””

    HP Your logic is perfectly clear!! The gay argument has inhanced its presence in our social arena not through its amorality or ahumph,morality or especially social acceptance – you do well to make the clear distinction that gays are not being denied their civil rights. This civil rights horseshit has come to all of us in the United States through the courts! Socialized legalism. I “order you to recognize (in spite of the fact your manliness tells you differently) that homosexuality is acceptable and normal..sound of gavel BANG!! case closed! My ass! for me socialized legalism has reached its apex and the end of its life with this 2008 affirmative action, white house squatter, usurper media bought president hopenchange obahmah.
    Sorry, we’ve left reality a bit too far behind lts time to return to what is healthy and that which works.
    Plus the true impetus behind this gay marriage crap is not civil rights – that is the smoke and mirrors lie – the reality is the TAX WRITE OFF that married families get from IRS.

Leave a Reply