And There Was Champagne All Around!

I just read Jes’s amusingly–but completely inaccurate–take on recent posts here at CSPT and how *sob* it’s not going to comment here anymore!

I walked away from Dana’s blog (finally disgusted by Sharon’s open pleasure at the discovery of a village where dozens of Iraqis had been massacred by other Iraqis, which she seemed to think helped her “debunk” the Lancet report) but this was a frequent argument with the misogynist anti-choicers on that site.

This quote pretty much typifies Jes’ argument style: if you can’t win with logic or facts, just attack the person! The truth was that I had no “open pleasure” about pictures of dead Iraqis. I had simply asked Jes to give evidence of mass graves to back up the Lancet study claim of 655K dead. The fact that there are no graves for all those bodies should make one, at the least, skeptical of the numbers. That’s why I posted a link to pics of actual graves, the sort one is likely to find during a war.

What any of that had to do with misogyny is beyond me, but evidently it did for Jes who went on to describe Dana, Eric, and me as “a trio who loathe women having sex for pleasure, who loathe the idea of state health, and who loathe the idea that people should be able to access contraception anywhere for free at any age, and who say so.” None of that is true, of course. What I specifically stated was that adults (that includes women) who decide to have sex should accept the consequences of that behavior (i.e., pregnancy). There’s nothing in that statement that suggests I “loathe women having sex for pleasure.” As for the rest of the statement, there are some very good reasons to oppose socialized medicine, and being opposed to children having abortions without at least parental notification is more along the lines of respecting the fundamental right of parents to raise their children than some misogynistic attempt to keep women barefoot and pregnant. But such is the substance of Jes’ arguments.

Interestingly, this was only the second or third time I’d actually gone to Jes’ site and from there I discovered it isn’t the only one who has a reading comprehension problem. Iowa Liberal actually quotes me, then mischaracterizes the post (I’m seeing a trend here!). The point of the post, of course, is that if you want people to accept your views and philosophies, you persuade them rather than simply use judicial decrees to get your way. But, alas, if your arguments can’t support themselves, I suppose you must mischaracterize your enemy’s.

Dana did an excellent job of spotlighting the cognitive dissonance of Jeromy’s postion: that denying gays the right to marry is “ridiculously disrespectful,” but banning polygamy is acceptable because it is simply barring “a variation.” The problem with Jeromy’s argument is that gay marriage is only “a variation” under that definition (as is heterosexual marriage). This is why polygamists are using similar arguments as the gay rights supporters. Once you start changing the marriage rules, all bets are off.

89 Comments

  1. Actually, Sharon, I quite handily refuted the ridiculous polygamy argument. Feel free to jump in with your counter-argument, though it seems you don’t exactly operate that way.

  2. Really? You must have done that on some other blog but your own then, because the argument you presented wasn’t exactly outstanding.

  3. And the day you find an argument against homosexual marriage that is logically valid and isn’t based on disgust, distaste, or viewing homosexuals as second-class citizens, you go ahead and let me know, Sharon. Your slippery slope argument won’t cut the mustard, so what next?

    Your arguments are all rationalizations derived from emotion and your specific religious interpretations of the Bible, again based on emotion (unless you take all of Leviticus literally, still support slavery, etc.). Judicial cases are supposedly decided on the basis of what the Constitution actually says. The problem is people like you who stomp your feet and whine, “But I don’t want them gays to have marriage rights!”

    Yes, I’m happy to persuade anybody, my arguments are sound. The problem for you is that yours aren’t, and so you must rely on populist rallying of those who think gays are icky. I’ve been stomping on the same-old, same-old arguments for ten years, and every time your ilk just scurries away like rats, going back to your echo chambers where somebody can tell you, “It’s okay, Sharon, teh gay is wrong, the Bible tells me so! Let’s work on some more rhetorical mishmash flabberjabbery to keep them hommasectuals at bay!”

    Make your attempt, Sharon, and get yer scurryin’ boots on.

  4. Again, Sharon, if you actually want to contribute to the discussion, or support pretty much anything you’ve said, I’m waiting. I’m not sure if my arguments are outstanding, but they’re good enough to handle anything you’ve got, babe.

  5. Well, I did support what I said in various posts both here and at my blog. And given that your argument boils down to “it’s just not fair!” I wouldn’t say that’s “enough to handle anything you’ve got.”

    The truth is, if states want to make gay marriage legal, they have the ability to do so…through the legislative process. Anything else can simply change with the retirement of a few Supreme Court justices.

  6. And the day you find an argument against homosexual marriage that is logically valid and isn’t based on disgust, distaste, or viewing homosexuals as second-class citizens, you go ahead and let me know, Sharon. Your slippery slope argument won’t cut the mustard, so what next?

    It’s interesting that you accuse me of emotionalism (not to mention the red herring of bigotry), yet your entire argument is based on it. To argue that other groups–groups YOU find distasteful–can make the same arguments as gay marriage supporters isn’t a slippery slope. It’s the logical next step because they, too, see no reason their particular variations on marriage shouldn’t be recognized.

    Traditionally, marriage is a contract to bind men and women together because it is the best condition in which to have and raise children. You may disagree with that logic, but that doesn’t make it less valid. Once you remove the idea that marriage serves this purpose–and it is the only institution designed to serve this purpose–then there is simply no reason to deny anyone the right to marry whomever (or whatever) they choose.

    Your arguments are all rationalizations derived from emotion and your specific religious interpretations of the Bible, again based on emotion (unless you take all of Leviticus literally, still support slavery, etc.). Judicial cases are supposedly decided on the basis of what the Constitution actually says. The problem is people like you who stomp your feet and whine, “But I don’t want them gays to have marriage rights!”

    Well, not really. My arguments are based on history and Anglo-American jurisprudence. Judicial cases rest on more than just what the Constitution says and I’m really surprised that as a liberal you would want to argue for a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but have it your way.

    Yes, I’m happy to persuade anybody, my arguments are sound.

    You’re gonna need to work on this portion of your argument then because it’s not. It’s not grounded either in history or law.

    The problem for you is that yours aren’t, and so you must rely on populist rallying of those who think gays are icky.

    Well, at least my arguments are grounded in history and tradition, not to mention law. And, unlike you, I don’t have to rely on ad hominem attacks to try to put my opponents on the defensive because my arguments are too weak to stand alone.

    I’ve been stomping on the same-old, same-old arguments for ten years, and every time your ilk just scurries away like rats, going back to your echo chambers where somebody can tell you, “It’s okay, Sharon, teh gay is wrong, the Bible tells me so! Let’s work on some more rhetorical mishmash flabberjabbery to keep them hommasectuals at bay!”

    You really should spend time away from the nutroot sites, then. They are the ones who spend so much time with that low level of argumentation.

    But I’ll give you just an example of where your argument falls short:

    Barring polygamy or incest does not deny anybody the institution of marriage. It denies particular variations that are unwieldy and nearly unworkable legally. Also, polygamy and incest are far more superficial demands…the demand that you must not only be able to marry, but that you can marry as many people as you want, or the demand that not only you be able to marry, but that you absolutely must marry your sister. These easily fall within boundaries that the state can reasonably choose to stay out of, for entirely sensible and logical reasons.

    What sensible and logical reasons are those? And if allowing people to marry the person they choose (which was your argument about gay marriage) is a fundamental right, then why deny it to anyone for any reason?

    Dana pointed out to you that this is a state issue and there is no uniformity across the states as to the criteria used for marriage. It is perfectly permissible for different states to have different standards. The problem, of course, comes down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause which would demand that gay marriages be recognized in states that do not allow for it.

    As I’ve stated before, if you want gay rights to be treated like civil rights for black people, then spend more time passing legislation and less time in court. But be prepared to see your same arguments used by groups you clearly find “icky.”

  7. 1. “To argue that other groups–groups YOU find distasteful–can make the same arguments as gay marriage supporters isn’t a slippery slope.”

    Of course it is. For one thing, I said nothing of distaste in my argument, and outlined my distinctions rather dispassionately. You, on the other hand, need to lump in polygamy, incest, and homosexuality under one category, and reason be damned. Now you say it’s all based on what people find tasteful, and probably the next step is to lump them all together as “something other than what marriage currently is,” but these classifications merely serve your purposes, not the truth. The case for gay marriage is not the same as the case for polygamy or incest, but you need to slip and slide around that in order to preserve your slippery slope.

    2. “Traditionally, marriage is a contract to bind men and women together because it is the best condition in which to have and raise children. You may disagree with that logic, but that doesn’t make it less valid.”

    Your “tradition” is highly selective, excluding things like “men and women of the same race” and “the best condition in which to secure property and form allegiances.” That’s what makes it invalid, not to mention the fact that simply because something has not yet been does not prove that it therefore can never be. Marriage would also create the best conditions for homosexuals to raise families as well.

    3. “Once you remove the idea that marriage serves this purpose–and it is the only institution designed to serve this purpose–then there is simply no reason to deny anyone the right to marry whomever (or whatever) they choose.”
    What on earth does that have to do with polygamy? Polygamy is really good for breeding. Not that your logic follows anyway. That purpose has merely been one of many that marriage has served, and is one that gays can still serve. Otherwise, in this country at least, straights have long had the right to non-incestuously marry the person they love simply because they choose to. There is absolutely no grounds for insisting gays can only marry the opposite sex when that is not who they, by their most very fundamental nature, are truly capable of marrying. For such a restriction, the state should have a very heavy burden to limit their rights, and “But that’s just the way we been doin’ it!” doesn’t meet that burden. We can do it differently and make it work quite well.
    4. “My arguments are based on history and Anglo-American jurisprudence.”
    Excuse me, I’ll just have to giggle at that. Mine too, sweetheart. Sans the exclusion of the Enlightenment principles that led to the formation of the USA.
    5. “Judicial cases rest on more than just what the Constitution says and I’m really surprised that as a liberal you would want to argue for a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but have it your way.”
    Sure, a judge isn’t going to sit there and not pay attention to the world, but their rulings should also not flagrantly violate the most basic principles upon which the Constitution was built such as freedom, equality of treatment, individual sovereignty, etc.
    Otherwise, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. Are you saying that the “conservative” position doesn’t rely on literal interpretation of the Constitution? Quite a startling admission from a GOP-er, really. But you folks wouldn’t be proposing a new Constitutional amendment if you didn’t already know you were on the wrong side legally, would you?
    6. “And if allowing people to marry the person they choose (which was your argument about gay marriage) is a fundamental right, then why deny it to anyone for any reason?”
    That’s not my argument for gay marriage, but you sure do need it to be, don’t you? You can’t really function here without a straw man, which underlines my point that there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage and you aren’t remotely close to providing one. You are inherently incapable of providing an intellectually honest response, because intellectualism isn’t where you started.
    7. “The problem, of course, comes down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause which would demand that gay marriages be recognized in states that do not allow for it.”
    Which goes back to that fundamental problem the right has with the Constitution, which, after George W. Bush, we’ve seen is far more extensive than gay.
    It’s good that you’re close to admitting the obvious, that the Republican Party is, in fact, the Confederate Party, the Constitution long ago rejected for a theocratic legally enforced culture. You know what you want and you really don’t give a rat’s ass how you get it.
    ***
    To summarize, you’re incapable of even entering the discussion at hand, instead turning everything I’ve said into the straw man of “Well, the gays want to just marry whoever they want!” and then blathering on endlessly.
    You first drew my attention, Sharon, with your profound inability to comprehend simple English when it conflicts with your ideology. Simple, clear sentences simply vanish in your head, and new ones that you can deal with spring up. I’d tell you that you wouldn’t get far thinking like that, but obviously you could become President carrying on so. But you’d still be intellectually dishonest. And regarding gay marriage, an agent of hatred, feeding the Republican hate machine in search of some imagined utopia at the expense of those you value less.

    Nice of you to try, Sharon, but you’ll simply have to do better.

  8. Jeromy wrote:

    (1)
    “The case for gay marriage is not the same as the case for polygamy or incest, but you need to slip and slide around that in order to preserve your slippery slope.

    What’s different about the case for gay marriage compared to the case for polygamy?

    Any principle utilized by gay marriage advocates is potentially fair game for other groups–so what’s the alleged difference?

    (2)
    It’s not clear why using a “highly selective” argument would invalidate the argument.
    The last comment of Jeromy’s is a red herring. Of course it’s possible to have gay marriage–but is it a good idea, and does it have sufficient support to pass legislatively without judicial activism?

    (3)
    Jeromy’s mention of polygamy seems to be a red herring, here. If love and/or sex is the basis for marriage, then what principled reason bars any combination of love/sex partners from marriage?
    If advocates of homosexual marriage cannot draw that line, then what’s the justification for moving the current line (where that same justification can’t be used to move the line yet again)?

    (5)
    “But you folks wouldn’t be proposing a new Constitutional amendment if you didn’t already know you were on the wrong side legally, would you?”
    The amendment would limit the ability of activist judges to freely interpret the Constitution as a license to redefine marriage. It’s really that simple.

    (6)
    I see ad hominem and a complaint of a straw man, but no distinction between the true position and the supposed straw man.
    It’s a good idea to present the real argument, if it’s different from the straw man (if it’s not different then it doesn’t matter so much).

    “Nice of you to try, Sharon, but you’ll simply have to do better.”

    She’s got the better case as it stands.
    If you argue that homosexual marriage makes for better homosexual families, then rest assured that other interest groups will play the same card.

    Seriously, Jeromy, if your argument hasn’t been represented by Sharon then take seize the initiative and present your true argument.

  9. Of course it is. For one thing, I said nothing of distaste in my argument, and outlined my distinctions rather dispassionately.

    If you think accusing your opposition of finding certain sexual practices “icky” as being dispassionate, then we obviously have different definitions.

    You, on the other hand, need to lump in polygamy, incest, and homosexuality under one category, and reason be damned.

    No, the reason I brought up all different groups who want to alter marriage as it is now defined is that they all have that same end in mind. And to that end they may all use similar arguments.

    Now you say it’s all based on what people find tasteful, and probably the next step is to lump them all together as “something other than what marriage currently is,” but these classifications merely serve your purposes, not the truth.

    How is it not the truth that all of these practices–many of which have been practiced in other societies for generations but are not acceptable in our own–have in common the fact that they are unacceptable under current marriage laws? Are you saying that our current laws allow for polygamy as well as gay marriage?

    The case for gay marriage is not the same as the case for polygamy or incest, but you need to slip and slide around that in order to preserve your slippery slope.

    No, the case polygamists make is exactly the same case those in favor of gay marriage make, as I pointed out to you before.

    Your “tradition” is highly selective, excluding things like “men and women of the same race” and “the best condition in which to secure property and form allegiances.” That’s what makes it invalid, not to mention the fact that simply because something has not yet been does not prove that it therefore can never be. Marriage would also create the best conditions for homosexuals to raise families as well.

    As I told you previously, there’s nothing in anything I’ve said that assumes gay marriage may not be allowed, simply that it has not traditionally been done, given that it doesn’t meet any of the goals or purposes of marriage as defined through history.

    What on earth does that have to do with polygamy?

    Because as many gay marriage supporters are quick to point out, polygamy isn’t exactly the best conditions under which to have and raise children because wives then compete for scarce resources.

    Polygamy is really good for breeding.

    True, but not necessarily best for raising children.

    Not that your logic follows anyway. That purpose has merely been one of many that marriage has served, and is one that gays can still serve.

    Only under artificial means. And don’t bother going down the “what about in vitro babies” route. Because there are situations in which heterosexual couples are incapable of having children doesn’t negate the fact that, by design, they are the only way children are naturally conceived. If you’ve got examples of homosexual couples reproducing without medical aids, then that’s a real story. But, as I said previously, the theory behind marriage was about providing the best environment for having and rearing children, specifically children produced from that marriage.

    Otherwise, in this country at least, straights have long had the right to non-incestuously marry the person they love simply because they choose to.

    Wrong again. You may not marry your cousin. You can’t marry a person under a certain age. You can’t marry someone who is already married to someone else. Even if you are heterosexual.

    There is absolutely no grounds for insisting gays can only marry the opposite sex when that is not who they, by their most very fundamental nature, are truly capable of marrying.

    Your arguments work just as well for the adult who wants to marry a 12-year-old or a person who wants to marry someone already married. I’m sure they would tell you that by their fundamental nature, those persons are incapable of marrying whom the law allows.

    For such a restriction, the state should have a very heavy burden to limit their rights, and “But that’s just the way we been doin’ it!” doesn’t meet that burden. We can do it differently and make it work quite well.

    You oversimplify arguments you dislike, I notice. The idea isn’t merely that it’s “just the way we’ve been doin’ it.” It’s that one man-one woman heterosexual marriage has, through experience, provided the greatest happiness and stability for society in general. That’s why marriage is a legal venture in the first place; it solves societal goals for peace and stability, creating a nurturing environment for having and rearing children.

    Excuse me, I’ll just have to giggle at that. Mine too, sweetheart. Sans the exclusion of the Enlightenment principles that led to the formation of the USA.

    Sorry, Goober, but you’re wrong. Maybe I should have been more specific. There are certain areas of Anglo-American jurisprudence which govern family matters. That’s the body of law to which I referred.

    Sure, a judge isn’t going to sit there and not pay attention to the world, but their rulings should also not flagrantly violate the most basic principles upon which the Constitution was built such as freedom, equality of treatment, individual sovereignty, etc.
    Otherwise, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

    Given your limited understanding of family law, I’m not surprised. See, when judges rule in cases, they look not just to the Constitution–which you seem to think guarantees homosexual marriage–but they look at, literally, hundreds of years of family law. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, considering the criteria for marriage to be best left to states. You, on the other hand, like most gay marriage supporters, are trying to turn this into a civil rights argument. The problem is that there is actual documentation in the Constitution which supports the idea that one cannot discriminate based on certain critieria. Sexual orientation doesn’t make that list.

    Are you saying that the “conservative” position doesn’t rely on literal interpretation of the Constitution?

    Conservative positions regarding Constitutional interpretation are varied. Some, like Justice Scalia, are literalists and your argument would fail with him. Others believe that we gain understanding of legislative intent through reading other documents as well as the Constitution. Your argument is unique among the moonbats in that you, seemingly, want to take a literalists approach–not unlike Justice Scalia. Usually, your ilk is arguing for a “living Constitution.” Isn’t that what you really want? Because otherwise, your argument fails on its face.

    Quite a startling admission from a GOP-er, really. But you folks wouldn’t be proposing a new Constitutional amendment if you didn’t already know you were on the wrong side legally, would you?

    No, what the amendment means is to head off court battles to enforce gay marriages in states which have banned it. It’s called pre-emption. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.

    That’s not my argument for gay marriage, but you sure do need it to be, don’t you?

    If you don’t mean that gay marriage is a fundamental right (which is what heterosexual marriage is considered), then what exactly do you mean? Virtually every argument you have made implies the idea that because gay people “can’t love” anyone else that they have to marry each other. That implies a fundamental right.

    You can’t really function here without a straw man, which underlines my point that there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage and you aren’t remotely close to providing one.

    This really is pointless since, as I said originally in this post, you seem to suffer from the same reading disorder as Jes. You make an argument for gay marriage that sounds like one thing, yet when I rephrase your argument that way you scream I “made a strawman.” The problem is that YOU made a strawman by your argument and now want to back away from it.

    You are inherently incapable of providing an intellectually honest response, because intellectualism isn’t where you started.

    This is projection. You have repeatedly attempted to inject emotion into this discussion through your use of ad hominem attacks and strawmen. You’ve yet to provide any reason that cannot be applied to any other group seeking marriage rights, then cried when it was pointed out that you didn’t.

    Which goes back to that fundamental problem the right has with the Constitution, which, after George W. Bush, we’ve seen is far more extensive than gay.

    The Right has no more of a problem with the Constitution than the Left. Each clings to different sections of it and excoriates the opposition. Unless, of course, you are going to tell me now that you embrace fully the 2d Amendment as applied to individuals and the 10th Amendment, amond others.

    It’s good that you’re close to admitting the obvious, that the Republican Party is, in fact, the Confederate Party, the Constitution long ago rejected for a theocratic legally enforced culture. You know what you want and you really don’t give a rat’s ass how you get it.

    Ah, yes, playing the race cared even where it is inappropriate. Don’t you lefties ever learn? I suppose you think it’s your “Get Out of Jail Free” card, but it’s tired, trite, and useless. And given the Left’s usage of the courts to try to cram their agenda down American citizens’ throats, I don’t think you should be accusing anyone of not giving a rat’s ass about how their agenda is fulfilled.

    To summarize, you’re incapable of even entering the discussion at hand, instead turning everything I’ve said into the straw man of “Well, the gays want to just marry whoever they want!” and then blathering on endlessly.

    Projection. You can’t articulate an intelligent argument to support your theory, so you simply stick your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself. You reject the fact that the arguments you use to support gay marriage are equally valid with other groups you loathe. You know so little of the history of marriage and family law that you dismiss the importance of those things to any discussion on the subject. And then, when your arguments fall apart, you have the audacity to say someone else is arguing from emotion, when virtually every sentence of your comment is packed with emotional argumentation.

    You first drew my attention, Sharon, with your profound inability to comprehend simple English when it conflicts with your ideology. Simple, clear sentences simply vanish in your head, and new ones that you can deal with spring up.

    Funny, you sounded so much like Jes who spewed nothing but lies and crap that I didn’t even notice you existed.

    I’d tell you that you wouldn’t get far thinking like that, but obviously you could become President carrying on so.

    Well, I would say that I’d do better than someone who can’t make a reasonable argument without doubling back on himself constantly.

    But you’d still be intellectually dishonest.

    Nope. Sorry. Wrong.

    And regarding gay marriage, an agent of hatred, feeding the Republican hate machine in search of some imagined utopia at the expense of those you value less.

    Is this the only thing you have? “Republicans are bad”? They “hate” gay people? That’s such a pedantic, inaccurate, and overused phrase, but I know how you liberals need to make yourselves feel better by using it.

    Nice of you to try, Sharon, but you’ll simply have to do better.

    Projecting till the end, I see. Go do a little studying and come back next time with a real argument.

  10. My, you certainly are good at saying, “I’m rubber, you’re glue!” ten different ways, Sharon.

    It’s quite late tonight to be getting back to you, but let me try to summarize quickly, and then come back tomorrow to beat you senselessly, metaphorically.

    You have offered zero, zilch, nothing whatsoever to suggest a commonality between the homosexual, the polygamist, and the incestualist beyond the broadest most meaningless fact that they each argue for a change in marriage, which also puts them in the same category as those who previously argued in favor of miscegenation. You lump, and without this mashing together, virtually everything else you say completely falls apart. You say that’s what my argument “sounds like” to you, but I’m afraid I’m going to insist you deal with what my argument actually is, not what you need it to be.

    A homosexual person cannot reasonably be expected to marry someone of the opposite sex. That goes to the core of who they are fundamentally, that which our Constitution is designed to respect. It is not a choice, or a convenience to marry the same sex. If they are to marry at all, it can only reasonably be expected that they marry their own sex. All other restrictions must be dealt with on their own merits. They cannot marry their relatives, they cannot marry five other homosexuals, they cannot marry an underage person.

    Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying only one person, and in a society where citizens of all genders are equal, polygamy is essentially unworkable. The government need not be forced to accommodate the polygamist, and can reasonably expect to allow each person one spouse at a time. Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying anybody but their sibling, and again the legal complications that would arise from inter-familial marriage, as well as scientifically sound gene-pool reasons, provide the state a compelling reason to decline to grant that right.

    Your “compelling reason” so far to deny homosexuals marriage is that you think heterosexual marriage is the best. Well, whoopty-fargin’-doo, Sharon. Those who are heterosexuals can beat their chests all they want. But that does not create a compelling state interest to stop, ban, or interfere with homosexual unions.

    This is hardly my first attempt to outline the distinctions, but there you go again. It’s easy for you to claim projection, but I claim it too, Sharon.

    And you will steadily realize that on the merits, I shall earn my claim.

  11. Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying only one person, and in a society where citizens of all genders are equal, polygamy is essentially unworkable. The government need not be forced to accommodate the polygamist, and can reasonably expect to allow each person one spouse at a time.

    Boy, now THERE’s a self-serving argument if ever I heard one! It boils down to “Equal rights for me, but not for thee!”

    Sorry chum, but if you want to demand “equal rights” for gay marriage, then you’re in no position to squash the rights of polygamists to their own form of marriage. It really is as simple as that.

  12. You have offered zero, zilch, nothing whatsoever to suggest a commonality between the homosexual, the polygamist, and the incestualist beyond the broadest most meaningless fact that they each argue for a change in marriage, which also puts them in the same category as those who previously argued in favor of miscegenation.

    It’s not meaningless to point out that the same arguments gay marriage supporters use are identical to the arguments used by other unaccepted groups. There is no more legal reason to give homosexuals the right to marry than there is to give polygamists, bigamists, or NAMBLA the same right to marry. Exactly what reason do you think gay marriage transcends these other groups? You’ve offered NOTHING to back your claim that homosexuals have a superior right to marriage than any of these other groups.

    You lump, and without this mashing together, virtually everything else you say completely falls apart. You say that’s what my argument “sounds like” to you, but I’m afraid I’m going to insist you deal with what my argument actually is, not what you need it to be.

    To put it kindly, I put your argument in the best possible legal light there is: that homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry that is similar to heterosexuals. You’ve now tried to reject that argument, for some bizarre reason, and act insulted at this idea. Well, sorry for you, but if you can’t claim a fundamental right to marriage for homosexuals, then any argument you make in their favor simply comes down to which groups are favored and which are not. Which is why it is similar to the polygamist and bigamist.

    A homosexual person cannot reasonably be expected to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    This isn’t exactly true, since, for hundreds of years, homosexuals have done exactly this. And they have done it for a variety of reasons you would probably declare unreasonable, but, nonetheless, they have done it.

    But again, this self-same argument can be used by the polyamorist who wants to marry a man and a woman. That person cannot reasonably be expected to marry only someone of the opposite sex, when they clearly love both sexes. Why do you think this argument works better for homosexuals than other groups?

    That goes to the core of who they are fundamentally, that which our Constitution is designed to respect.

    Our Constitution does not say anything whatsoever about sexual orientation or marriage. This is where your argument falls apart.

    It is not a choice, or a convenience to marry the same sex.

    Just as it isn’t a choice to marry your sister, someone already married, or a child.

    If they are to marry at all, it can only reasonably be expected that they marry their own sex.

    No, it isn’t reasonable to expect them only to marry their own sex. What you want is the choice for them to do this, something that has been barred historically because it offers no particular benefit to society (which, after all, gets to determine these things). But that is exactly what the groups you find icky would like to do as well. They want the choice to marry, too.

    All other restrictions must be dealt with on their own merits. They cannot marry their relatives, they cannot marry five other homosexuals, they cannot marry an underage person.

    But why? That’s the question. If you think it is only reasonable that homosexuals be allowed to marry whomever they please, why are you so doggedly determined to separate that group from other groups who want the same thing? The arguments, unfortunately for you, are exactly the same. It’s ridiculous for you to keep denying this when, as I linked in the original post, members of these other groups are using the exact same arguments and are no less right for doing so.

    Why gay marriage? Why only 2 people? Why not a family member? Why not anyone or anything one desires? You cannot argue that the Constitution protects your right to gay marriage but bars other groups from marriage when sexual orientation is no more a part of the Constitution than bigamy or incest. This is why marriage is an issue that trascends the Constitutional points you wish to make, and is better discussed in terms of general family law and history (something you seem loathe to discuss).

    Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying only one person, and in a society where citizens of all genders are equal, polygamy is essentially unworkable.

    Social scientists (and more than a few unhappy wives) would tell you differently, Jeromy. There are, in fact, people incapable of marrying only one person. The problem with your argument is that, despite statistics to the contrary, you insist that homosexuals are incapable of marrying heterosexually. And why is polygamy unworkable? It has worked in almost every society since the dawn of time. Just because we have sexual equality doesn’t change the idea that polygamy could work here, as well. The problem is, you wouldn’t want polygamy to work here. And, frankly, I don’t either. But my reasons for not wanting it to work here are more basic than yours; I don’t think it works well for society to endorse it.

    The government need not be forced to accommodate the polygamist, and can reasonably expect to allow each person one spouse at a time.

    But why? That’s where your argument falls apart. Of course, it is within the government’s ability to limit marriage to only two people, but if we are changing the definition to suit one group, why should the government limit marriage by number? Or consanguinity? Or age? Why do you insist that all other groups are “capable” of marrying within the limits currently set, but insist that homosexuals cannot (not just don’t want to)?

    Your “compelling reason” so far to deny homosexuals marriage is that you think heterosexual marriage is the best. Well, whoopty-fargin’-doo, Sharon. Those who are heterosexuals can beat their chests all they want. But that does not create a compelling state interest to stop, ban, or interfere with homosexual unions.

    This is another place your argument fails, Jeromy. You seem to dismiss the idea that creating a stable environment for creating and raising the next generation is a trivial matter. This argument is truly bizarre, given history. And, unfortunately for you, it does create a compelling state interest. We don’t have laws simply to benefit individuals, but to benefit society in general. That’s why there is a balance between individual rights and those of society.

    You really don’t do your argument any service by trivializing the benefits marriage has for society. But the truth is, that’s the real reason we have legal marriage in the first place. And society is perfectly within reason to prefer and endorse certain behaviors over certain other behaviors. That’s why denying homosexual marriage isn’t any different from denying polygamy or incest. All are practices that have not been deemed to be most beneficial to societal goals of stability, peace, and happiness.

    This is hardly my first attempt to outline the distinctions, but there you go again. It’s easy for you to claim projection, but I claim it too, Sharon.

    Well, you’ve already made lots of claims, Jeromy. They just haven’t been true.

    And you will steadily realize that on the merits, I shall earn my claim.

    No, actually, you won’t. You aren’t the first person I’ve had this discussion with, either.

  13. Let us deal, today, with every one of your falsehoods and faults in reason.

    1. You insist over and over again that “that which isn’t already marriage” is a sufficient enough category to handle gay marriage, polygamy, incest, even pedophilia and marrying trees. Par for the course of those who despise homosexuals, sure.

    The exact same argument, half a century ago, against miscegenation.

    You’ve said, “How is this not the truth?” It’s technically true, but of course, as I’ve already said, it’s overly broad and insufficient to escape the charge that you’re engaging in a logically invalid slippery slope.

    The truth is that each of these things are separate, distinct issues entirely deserving of their own individual treatment. If you can’t figure out why you object to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc. specifically, then you need to do some more thinking, don’t you?

    2. “If you’ve got examples of homosexual couples reproducing without medical aids, then that’s a real story. But, as I said previously, the theory behind marriage was about providing the best environment for having and rearing children, specifically children produced from that marriage.”

    So homosexuals with children should be barred from marriage because it’s not the super-duper-est way of raising them, in your view, despite the research that illustrates homosexuals can make fine parents. But straights can marry for whatever reason they feel like, have kids in whatever way they feel like?

    It should be beyond obvious that many gay couples can do a far better job of raising children than many straight couples. The burden on the state to explain its interference and unequal treatment is simply not met by a supposed and slight preference for heterosexual parents.

    All the arguments for marriage, in fact, support their application to gays. Allowing them to create stable family units would have enormous benefits to all involved. In your words, “it solves societal goals for peace and stability, creating a nurturing environment for having and rearing children.” For gays raising children, marriage would then be essential, would it not?

    3. “No, what the amendment means is to head off court battles to enforce gay marriages in states which have banned it. It’s called pre-emption.”

    Of course, it’s pre-emption. That’s not a contradiction of anything though. You’re attempting to pre-empt a loss, because judges who actually bother with honoring the Constitution, unlike conservative activist judges like Scalia who see the Constitution as some limited list on the rights of individuals in direct violation of the 9th amendment. Of course, with Bush’s hacks the rightwing agenda is more likely to take center stage over the constitution.

    4. “Virtually every argument you have made implies the idea that because gay people “can’t love” anyone else that they have to marry each other. That implies a fundamental right.”

    Yep. In light of the absence of a compelling reason on the state’s part to treat them unequally, they must be allowed to marry each other. The big-government social conservatives who will cry because gays look normal don’t serve as cause. They should go on about their lives being hateful nutbags, and the gays can go about their lives, and thus prospers America!

    5. “The Right has no more of a problem with the Constitution than the Left. Each clings to different sections of it and excoriates the opposition. Unless, of course, you are going to tell me now that you embrace fully the 2d Amendment as applied to individuals and the 10th Amendment, amond others.”

    The 10th Amendment thing is news to me. And I’m a gun rights supporter without doubt. I loves me the whole Constitution, but the right has demonstrated with George Bush that they’ve got a problem with nearly the whole thing, not just one or two amendments. When you eliminate habeus corpus, Sharon, you’ve crossed out most of the Bill of Rights. And unequal treatment of homosexuals is unreasonable gender discrimination, just like laws barring miscegenation were unreasonable racial discrimination.

    If you truly honored the Constitution, and if you truly believed the entire left had abandoned the 2nd, that wouldn’t be an excuse for you, would it? Do two wrongs make a right, Sharon? Of course not. I agree that the left has historically been guilty of rebelling somewhat against the 2nd, but that’s been dramatically toned down in recent years. When does the right plan on getting on board with the Constitution again?

    6. “And given the Left’s usage of the courts to try to cram their agenda down American citizens’ throats, I don’t think you should be accusing anyone of not giving a rat’s ass about how their agenda is fulfilled.”

    This doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. I consider it important to have the rights of homosexuals legally recognized. I’m not trying to cheat or game the system, but one who was sympathetic with the goals of the Constitution would understand that the rights of individuals must, at times, be necessarily defended against the mobs.

    Given the rapid increase in support for gay marriage just over the past couple decades, it’s clear the right is also trying to pre-empt public opinion.

    But you can’t exactly be honest about that, naturally.

    7. This is an illuminating passage, first me in italics then your response.
    You have offered zero, zilch, nothing whatsoever to suggest a commonality between the homosexual, the polygamist, and the incestualist beyond the broadest most meaningless fact that they each argue for a change in marriage, which also puts them in the same category as those who previously argued in favor of miscegenation.
    “It’s not meaningless to point out that the same arguments gay marriage supporters use are identical to the arguments used by other unaccepted groups.”
    Right after I mention miscegenation, you drop that line. Hilarious. Yes, Sharon, the problem isn’t gay marriage supporters, but that people like you are using the identical argument against them that people decades ago used against miscegenation. Parents of the same race are best for the children, y’know. Marriage has always been between people of the same race. Blacks have the right to marry blacks, etc. etc.

    The problem with sameness is yours, not mine.

    8. Another good exchange:
    A homosexual person cannot reasonably be expected to marry someone of the opposite sex.
    “This isn’t exactly true, since, for hundreds of years, homosexuals have done exactly this. And they have done it for a variety of reasons you would probably declare unreasonable, but, nonetheless, they have done it.”
    That was my point, Sharon. It was unreasonable. They were expected to just tuck away their homosexuality and pretend they were straight. You who speaks so much of what’s best for the children should be sensitive to the long trail of broken marriages that resulted.
    9. “But again, this self-same argument can be used by the polyamorist who wants to marry a man and a woman. That person cannot reasonably be expected to marry only someone of the opposite sex, when they clearly love both sexes.”
    Sure they can. It is reasonable of the state to keep marriage as a union of two consenting unrelated adults. I would sympathize, though moreso with three polyamorists. But the state really shouldn’t be expected to dive into the tangled mess of dividing rights among more than two people. The bisexual can be expected to pick one person to marry. If that couple wants to toss in a third privately, they can do so.
    You should understand that polygamy actually does create a true slippery slope, not an illogical clumsy one like yours. If you can marry more than one person, what is the limit? Five? Ten? Fifty? Would we eventually end up with giant collectives of hundreds of people? Maybe I want to be considered married to anybody who’s a Morrissey/Smiths fan. If you love Morrissey, then I love you.
    Three is probably workable. But the slippery slope is genuine here. Not your idiotic gamble that people can’t tell the different between homosexuality and pedophilia. See the next example:
    10. “Just as it isn’t a choice to marry your sister, someone already married, or a child.”
    First of all, if you can’t understand why pedophiles can’t marry children, then…well, you couldn’t possibly be that stupid, Sharon. You understand perfectly well, you’re just a rightwinger, fundamentally incapable of behaving any other way than throwing everything at the wall and hoping it sticks. You’re completely willing to trivialize pedophilia in order to further your agenda against gays.

    Sticking to consenting adults, the state can reasonably expect you to find somebody on this planet of six billion people that isn’t directly related to you. Banning gay marriage tells a gay person they can’t marry anybody they love, period. That distinction is of utmost importance.

    Watch you glide right over itJ

    11. “What you want is the choice for them to do this, something that has been barred historically because it offers no particular benefit to society…”

    Here’s where we get into your hatred of homosexuality. As I mentioned, the benefits of marriage would do wonderful things for homosexuals, and society as a whole, much the same way it benefits straights.

    12. “The problem with your argument is that, despite statistics to the contrary, you insist that homosexuals are incapable of marrying heterosexually.”

    Oh, they can pretend to, of course. Do you think that a good thing?

    13. “You seem to dismiss the idea that creating a stable environment for creating and raising the next generation is a trivial matter.”

    Your poor English aside, of course not. I dismiss it as grounds to tell homosexuals they don’t get to marry. Stability is one of the best reasons to introduce marriage to homosexuals.

    14. “And society is perfectly within reason to prefer and endorse certain behaviors over certain other behaviors.”

    Homosexuality extends beyond “behavior” or “lifestyle” or whatever diminishing term you wish to use.

    Again, those of us who consider gays their equals really cannot be fooled by such junk.

    15. “You aren’t the first person I’ve had this discussion with, either.”

    Really, what happened? With me, realizing their failure, people like you just slink away to lie another day, or they come up with some self-fellating tripe about how they’re too good to waste their time debating the miserable likes of me.

    They never wonder why I bother with their scumbag asses.

    You’re going to come back with more of “your argument is identical” even though I’ve been extremely specific about how it isn’t several times now. Not because you’re right, Sharon, but because you’re lost without that. The next step is conceding the argument to me, and people just don’t work that way. So I’ll expect your exit soon.

  14. In two parts:

    Let us deal, today, with every one of your falsehoods and faults in reason.

    1. You insist over and over again that “that which isn’t already marriage” is a sufficient enough category to handle gay marriage, polygamy, incest, even pedophilia and marrying trees. Par for the course of those who despise homosexuals, sure.

    The exact same argument, half a century ago, against miscegenation.

    You’ve said, “How is this not the truth?” It’s technically true, but of course, as I’ve already said, it’s overly broad and insufficient to escape the charge that you’re engaging in a logically invalid slippery slope.

    The truth is that each of these things are separate, distinct issues entirely deserving of their own individual treatment. If you can’t figure out why you object to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc. specifically, then you need to do some more thinking, don’t you?

    2. “If you’ve got examples of homosexual couples reproducing without medical aids, then that’s a real story. But, as I said previously, the theory behind marriage was about providing the best environment for having and rearing children, specifically children produced from that marriage.”

    So homosexuals with children should be barred from marriage because it’s not the super-duper-est way of raising them, in your view, despite the research that illustrates homosexuals can make fine parents. But straights can marry for whatever reason they feel like, have kids in whatever way they feel like?

    It should be beyond obvious that many gay couples can do a far better job of raising children than many straight couples. The burden on the state to explain its interference and unequal treatment is simply not met by a supposed and slight preference for heterosexual parents.

    All the arguments for marriage, in fact, support their application to gays. Allowing them to create stable family units would have enormous benefits to all involved. In your words, “it solves societal goals for peace and stability, creating a nurturing environment for having and rearing children.” For gays raising children, marriage would then be essential, would it not?

    3. “No, what the amendment means is to head off court battles to enforce gay marriages in states which have banned it. It’s called pre-emption.”

    Of course, it’s pre-emption. That’s not a contradiction of anything though. You’re attempting to pre-empt a loss, because judges who actually bother with honoring the Constitution, unlike conservative activist judges like Scalia who see the Constitution as some limited list on the rights of individuals in direct violation of the 9th amendment. Of course, with Bush’s hacks the rightwing agenda is more likely to take center stage over the constitution.

    4. “Virtually every argument you have made implies the idea that because gay people “can’t love” anyone else that they have to marry each other. That implies a fundamental right.”

    Yep. In light of the absence of a compelling reason on the state’s part to treat them unequally, they must be allowed to marry each other. The big-government social conservatives who will cry because gays look normal don’t serve as cause. They should go on about their lives being hateful nutbags, and the gays can go about their lives, and thus prospers America!

    5. “The Right has no more of a problem with the Constitution than the Left. Each clings to different sections of it and excoriates the opposition. Unless, of course, you are going to tell me now that you embrace fully the 2d Amendment as applied to individuals and the 10th Amendment, amond others.”

    The 10th Amendment thing is news to me. And I’m a gun rights supporter without doubt. I loves me the whole Constitution, but the right has demonstrated with George Bush that they’ve got a problem with nearly the whole thing, not just one or two amendments. When you eliminate habeus corpus, Sharon, you’ve crossed out most of the Bill of Rights. And unequal treatment of homosexuals is unreasonable gender discrimination, just like laws barring miscegenation were unreasonable racial discrimination.

    If you truly honored the Constitution, and if you truly believed the entire left had abandoned the 2nd, that wouldn’t be an excuse for you, would it? Do two wrongs make a right, Sharon? Of course not. I agree that the left has historically been guilty of rebelling somewhat against the 2nd, but that’s been dramatically toned down in recent years. When does the right plan on getting on board with the Constitution again?

    6. “And given the Left’s usage of the courts to try to cram their agenda down American citizens’ throats, I don’t think you should be accusing anyone of not giving a rat’s ass about how their agenda is fulfilled.”

    This doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. I consider it important to have the rights of homosexuals legally recognized. I’m not trying to cheat or game the system, but one who was sympathetic with the goals of the Constitution would understand that the rights of individuals must, at times, be necessarily defended against the mobs.

    Given the rapid increase in support for gay marriage just over the past couple decades, it’s clear the right is also trying to pre-empt public opinion.

    But you can’t exactly be honest about that, naturally.

    7. This is an illuminating passage, first me in italics then your response.
    You have offered zero, zilch, nothing whatsoever to suggest a commonality between the homosexual, the polygamist, and the incestualist beyond the broadest most meaningless fact that they each argue for a change in marriage, which also puts them in the same category as those who previously argued in favor of miscegenation.
    “It’s not meaningless to point out that the same arguments gay marriage supporters use are identical to the arguments used by other unaccepted groups.”
    Right after I mention miscegenation, you drop that line. Hilarious. Yes, Sharon, the problem isn’t gay marriage supporters, but that people like you are using the identical argument against them that people decades ago used against miscegenation. Parents of the same race are best for the children, y’know. Marriage has always been between people of the same race. Blacks have the right to marry blacks, etc. etc.

    The problem with sameness is yours, not mine.

  15. Part two:

    8. Another good exchange:
    A homosexual person cannot reasonably be expected to marry someone of the opposite sex.
    “This isn’t exactly true, since, for hundreds of years, homosexuals have done exactly this. And they have done it for a variety of reasons you would probably declare unreasonable, but, nonetheless, they have done it.”
    That was my point, Sharon. It was unreasonable. They were expected to just tuck away their homosexuality and pretend they were straight. You who speaks so much of what’s best for the children should be sensitive to the long trail of broken marriages that resulted.
    9. “But again, this self-same argument can be used by the polyamorist who wants to marry a man and a woman. That person cannot reasonably be expected to marry only someone of the opposite sex, when they clearly love both sexes.”
    Sure they can. It is reasonable of the state to keep marriage as a union of two consenting unrelated adults. I would sympathize, though moreso with three polyamorists. But the state really shouldn’t be expected to dive into the tangled mess of dividing rights among more than two people. The bisexual can be expected to pick one person to marry. If that couple wants to toss in a third privately, they can do so.
    You should understand that polygamy actually does create a true slippery slope, not an illogical clumsy one like yours. If you can marry more than one person, what is the limit? Five? Ten? Fifty? Would we eventually end up with giant collectives of hundreds of people? Maybe I want to be considered married to anybody who’s a Morrissey/Smiths fan. If you love Morrissey, then I love you.
    Three is probably workable. But the slippery slope is genuine here. Not your idiotic gamble that people can’t tell the different between homosexuality and pedophilia. See the next example:
    10. “Just as it isn’t a choice to marry your sister, someone already married, or a child.”
    First of all, if you can’t understand why pedophiles can’t marry children, then…well, you couldn’t possibly be that stupid, Sharon. You understand perfectly well, you’re just a rightwinger, fundamentally incapable of behaving any other way than throwing everything at the wall and hoping it sticks. You’re completely willing to trivialize pedophilia in order to further your agenda against gays.

    Sticking to consenting adults, the state can reasonably expect you to find somebody on this planet of six billion people that isn’t directly related to you. Banning gay marriage tells a gay person they can’t marry anybody they love, period. That distinction is of utmost importance.

    Watch you glide right over itJ

    11. “What you want is the choice for them to do this, something that has been barred historically because it offers no particular benefit to society…”

    Here’s where we get into your hatred of homosexuality. As I mentioned, the benefits of marriage would do wonderful things for homosexuals, and society as a whole, much the same way it benefits straights.

    12. “The problem with your argument is that, despite statistics to the contrary, you insist that homosexuals are incapable of marrying heterosexually.”

    Oh, they can pretend to, of course. Do you think that a good thing?

    13. “You seem to dismiss the idea that creating a stable environment for creating and raising the next generation is a trivial matter.”

    Your poor English aside, of course not. I dismiss it as grounds to tell homosexuals they don’t get to marry. Stability is one of the best reasons to introduce marriage to homosexuals.

    14. “And society is perfectly within reason to prefer and endorse certain behaviors over certain other behaviors.”

    Homosexuality extends beyond “behavior” or “lifestyle” or whatever diminishing term you wish to use.

    Again, those of us who consider gays their equals really cannot be fooled by such junk.

    15. “You aren’t the first person I’ve had this discussion with, either.”

    Really, what happened? With me, realizing their failure, people like you just slink away to lie another day, or they come up with some self-fellating tripe about how they’re too good to waste their time debating the miserable likes of me.

    They never wonder why I bother with their scumbag asses.

    You’re going to come back with more of “your argument is identical” even though I’ve been extremely specific about how it isn’t several times now. Not because you’re right, Sharon, but because you’re lost without that. The next step is conceding the argument to me, and people just don’t work that way. So I’ll expect your exit soon.

  16. “And unequal treatment of homosexuals is unreasonable gender discrimination, just like laws barring miscegenation were unreasonable racial discrimination.”

    The above encapsulates Jeromy’s penchant for poor argumentation.

    There is no unequal treatment of homosexuals in traditional marriage law. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else–marry a member of the opposite sex, that is.

    Anti-miscegenation laws were actually passed on a reasonable premise–that racial mixing was not good for society (it was thought that mixing genetic lines would result in inferior offspring). When that premise was undermined, such laws were no longer tenable and the remaining justifications were insufficient to keep them on the books.

    Society needs no extraordinary justification for denying homosexuals recognition of their marriages (because, lest we forget, homosexuals do have the freedom to “marry” one another) any more than the state need extraordinary justification for keeping 17-year-olds from voting.

    Good luck getting the last word in on Sharon’s home turf, Jeromy.
    Your arguments look pretty standard so far, BTW.

  17. First, let’s deal with your miscegenation argument.

    Unlike gay marriage, our country (and others) have had anti-miscegenation laws since colonial times. Why? Because such unions created children and those children were considered less desirable that others. In other words, the reason for the laws at the time was because of perceived societal instability.

    Gay marriage has never been recognized in this country, which means comparing it to miscegenation is simply wrong on its face. Why has gay marriage never been recognized? Because gay people did not fall within the class of people who would be producing more people and thus, were not considered part of the class of people for whom marriage would be necessary. In other words, homosexuals were not included because their relationships did not meet the criteria for marriage.

    You dislike grouping gay marriage with other unacceptable groups who want to marry, but the reasoning comes down to the same thing: homosexuals have not fit the traditional criteria for marriage. That is, they do not produce children naturally, which means they do not produce offspring that then become the responsibility of the state. The bottom line with marriage is that it is designed for the government to be able to easily determine who is responsible for whom, at what time, and for how long. This is the traditional reasoning, and it’s why, regardless of the racism involved in anti-miscegenation laws, there were reasons for creating them.

    But let’s go back to the Loving v. Virginia case to see how the courts determined to deal with anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the Supreme Court said that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional because they were race based, a classification disallowed under the 14th Amendment. You don’t seem to understand that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gay marriage because sexual orientation is not one of the categories which receive the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny for a more in-depth explanation.

    The only classifications which get strict scrutiny are: race, religion, speech, alienage, and a few others not important to this discussion. In short, sexual orientation has not been recognized by the courts in a way that would mandate gay marriage.

    This isn’t, of course, to say that the Supreme Court may not determine at some point that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Certainly Justice Kennedy–the same justice so reviled this term–set up the framework for such a decision with his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. And that decision was 6-3, which means that it would probably still go the liberal way even under Chief Justice Roberts.

    Justice Scalia makes excellent points in his dissent, by the way, when he brings up, for example, the Milner v. Apfel, which asserted that “legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality…rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms;” and Owens v. State, which held that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage.” This is from the Wikipedia entry for Lawrence.

    More importantly, Scalia noted that the same rationale used to overturn Bowers (looking to (1) “whether its foundations have been ‘eroded’ by subsequent decisions; (2) it has been subject to ‘substantial and continuing’ criticism; (3) it has not induced ‘individual or societal reliance’”) could be applied to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which the Justices in the majority in Lawrence had just recently upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

    Scalia also criticizes the writers of the opinion for their unwillingness to give the same respect to the doctrine of stare decisis that some of them applied in Casey . There, Scalia notes, stare decisis was of the utmost importance, and that there the court gave even more weight to the concept because of the divisive nature of the case. The Lawrence decision “do[es] not bother to distinguish—or indeed, even bother to mention—the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today’s majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it.” He goes on to write “Today, however, the widespread opposition to Bowers, a decision resolving an issue as ‘intensely divisive’ as the issue in Roe, is offered as a reason in favor of overruling it.”

    More importantly, when Scalia was asked the exact question you are on March 8, 2006 “at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, when asked about constitutional rights to gay and lesbian citizens, Scalia said: ‘Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It’s absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question.’”

    That is, unless you are suddenly going to change your mind about Constitutional interpretation. You wouldn’t do that, would you?

  18. So homosexuals with children should be barred from marriage because it’s not the super-duper-est way of raising them, in your view, despite the research that illustrates homosexuals can make fine parents. But straights can marry for whatever reason they feel like, have kids in whatever way they feel like?

    Homosexuals are barred from marriage because they cannot produce offspring in the fashion that heterosexual couples do, which necessitates laws regarding their conduct to each other and their offspring. That’s where marriage comes from, Jeromy. Try reading up a little on the history of marriage before going down this path.

    This isn’t an argument about homosexuals making better parents or heterosexuals making worse ones. It’s about the state’s role in endorsing the best environment for having and rearing children. That environment is heterosexual marriage.

    Now, if you want to change marriage from a legal contract about family into one simply about couples, then you have a whole different set of problems arguing that gay marriage is fundamentally different from polygamy, bigamy, etc.

    Of course, it’s pre-emption. That’s not a contradiction of anything though. You’re attempting to pre-empt a loss, because judges who actually bother with honoring the Constitution, unlike conservative activist judges like Scalia who see the Constitution as some limited list on the rights of individuals in direct violation of the 9th amendment. Of course, with Bush’s hacks the rightwing agenda is more likely to take center stage over the constitution.

    Interesting that you dislike Scalia so much for actually reading the text of the Constitution as it is, rather than as you’d like it to be. Not surprising, though. The only way, in fact, that you can make your arguments is to disregard what the Constitution says or what the Founders’ Intent was.

    Yep. In light of the absence of a compelling reason on the state’s part to treat them unequally, they must be allowed to marry each other. The big-government social conservatives who will cry because gays look normal don’t serve as cause. They should go on about their lives being hateful nutbags, and the gays can go about their lives, and thus prospers America!

    See the argument on strict scrutiny. Sexual orientation isn’t a classification that requires it.

    The 10th Amendment thing is news to me. And I’m a gun rights supporter without doubt. I loves me the whole Constitution, but the right has demonstrated with George Bush that they’ve got a problem with nearly the whole thing, not just one or two amendments. When you eliminate habeus corpus, Sharon, you’ve crossed out most of the Bill of Rights. And unequal treatment of homosexuals is unreasonable gender discrimination, just like laws barring miscegenation were unreasonable racial discrimination.

    Oh, wonderful to see you aren’t as big a nutbag as you first appear. And as much as you struggle to find sexual orientation in the Constitution, you can’t find it. It ain’t there.

    If you truly honored the Constitution, and if you truly believed the entire left had abandoned the 2nd, that wouldn’t be an excuse for you, would it? Do two wrongs make a right, Sharon? Of course not. I agree that the left has historically been guilty of rebelling somewhat against the 2nd, but that’s been dramatically toned down in recent years. When does the right plan on getting on board with the Constitution again?

    Come on, Jeromy, you aren’t this stupid. Liberals don’t just dislike the 2d Amendment. They dislike the 1st when it discusses religion, speech, assembly, and petition specific to causes and situations they don’t like. The heated desire to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, for example, shows what a lie it is that liberals love free speech. And there’s nothing toned down about the left’s hatred of the 2d Amendment. Just go to Media Matters, Daily KOS, or Pandagon and you’ll find them in full spit-flying fury.

  19. This doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. I consider it important to have the rights of homosexuals legally recognized. I’m not trying to cheat or game the system, but one who was sympathetic with the goals of the Constitution would understand that the rights of individuals must, at times, be necessarily defended against the mobs.

    For 50 years, the American Left has used the court system to do what it was unable to do through the legislature: rewrite laws it disliked. This was done regardless of the sensibilities, opinions, beliefs, and desires of large numbers of Americans and was clearly a perversion of the way the court system was designed by the Founding Fathers. In short, the American Left decided persuading 5 judges was easier than hundreds of legally elected legislators. That, my friend, has been extremely offensive to a large number of Americans, not because they could not have been persuaded about the rightness of certain causes, but because the Left decided they didn’t care about persuasion. They branded anyone who disagreed with them as racist, sexist, and bigots of the worst sort (you have done some of that here, as well). Instead of trying to change hearts and minds, they used liberal courts to give them the victories they couldn’t achieve popularly.

    This is why your statement that conservatives don’t give a “rat’s ass” how their agenda is fulfilled is rife with hypocrisy. Liberals have spent half a century not giving a rat’s ass how their agenda was fulfilled.

    Given the rapid increase in support for gay marriage just over the past couple decades, it’s clear the right is also trying to pre-empt public opinion.

    This is quite a stupid statement. The Right isn’t trying to “pre-empt” public opinion (you might want to use a dictionary, btw), but is using that good ol’ American tool of debate to advance its own ideas and opinions. Unlike the Left, conservatives don’t think Americans are stupid. If Americans decide they deeply desire homosexual marriage, then the legislatures can create that legislation and it will become law. Which is the way things are supposed to work.

    Right after I mention miscegenation, you drop that line. Hilarious. Yes, Sharon, the problem isn’t gay marriage supporters, but that people like you are using the identical argument against them that people decades ago used against miscegenation. Parents of the same race are best for the children, y’know. Marriage has always been between people of the same race. Blacks have the right to marry blacks, etc. etc.

    See comment on miscegenation. Your argument still doesn’t work, Jeromy.

    That was my point, Sharon. It was unreasonable. They were expected to just tuck away their homosexuality and pretend they were straight. You who speaks so much of what’s best for the children should be sensitive to the long trail of broken marriages that resulted.

    Marriage was not designed for homosexual liaisons, since homosexuals don’t reproduce naturally. Sorry you don’t like that answer.

    Sure they can. It is reasonable of the state to keep marriage as a union of two consenting unrelated adults. I would sympathize, though moreso with three polyamorists. But the state really shouldn’t be expected to dive into the tangled mess of dividing rights among more than two people. The bisexual can be expected to pick one person to marry. If that couple wants to toss in a third privately, they can do so.

    This is hilariously hypocritical. Why is it reasonable for the state to keep marriage to 2 people if it is unreasonable for the state to limit marriage to man-woman couples? There’s nothing less logical in several people wanting to marry than in 2 people wanting to do so. And you are declaring that the state of affairs (pardon the pun) that you dislike for homosexuals (that their relationship should be private) is perfectly acceptable for polyamorists. Priceless!

    You should understand that polygamy actually does create a true slippery slope, not an illogical clumsy one like yours. If you can marry more than one person, what is the limit? Five? Ten? Fifty? Would we eventually end up with giant collectives of hundreds of people? Maybe I want to be considered married to anybody who’s a Morrissey/Smiths fan. If you love Morrissey, then I love you.

    But according to your logic, it is unreasonable to expect someone who wants to be married to 50 people not to do so because that is their desire. The slippery slope is yours, Jeromy. Once you start redefining marriage, you cannot assume that other groups are going to accept their ostracization.

    First of all, if you can’t understand why pedophiles can’t marry children, then…well, you couldn’t possibly be that stupid, Sharon. You understand perfectly well, you’re just a rightwinger, fundamentally incapable of behaving any other way than throwing everything at the wall and hoping it sticks. You’re completely willing to trivialize pedophilia in order to further your agenda against gays.

    Why not allow adults to marry children? Jes was advocating lowering the age of consent to 12 on a different thread before it ran off to cry like a little girl. This isn’t about “throwing everything out there and seeing what sticks.” It’s about illustrating that the state has the perfect right to restrict marriage to certain groups of people because those unions are beneficial to society.

    Sticking to consenting adults, the state can reasonably expect you to find somebody on this planet of six billion people that isn’t directly related to you. Banning gay marriage tells a gay person they can’t marry anybody they love, period. That distinction is of utmost importance.

    Well, the problem with this argument is that the pedophile, the bigamist, the polyamorist, the elderly brother and sister would tell you that they can’t marry anybody they love, either.

  20. Here’s where we get into your hatred of homosexuality. As I mentioned, the benefits of marriage would do wonderful things for homosexuals, and society as a whole, much the same way it benefits straights.

    I’m not even going to bother with your ludicrous assertion that I hate homosexuals. You know nothing about me and are clearly becoming unhinged. When I talk about something’s historical significance, that’s exactly what it is: historical. There has never been any historical advantage for homosexuals to marry. Whether you think it would be beneficial to them in modern times is a different argument.

    Oh, they can pretend to, of course. Do you think that a good thing?

    I think there are people who have behaved homosexually in the past who go on to marry and have heterosexual lives. And yes, that’s a good thing.

    Your poor English aside, of course not. I dismiss it as grounds to tell homosexuals they don’t get to marry. Stability is one of the best reasons to introduce marriage to homosexuals.

    I’ll take my poor English over your poor logic any day. Stability is about providing a home for children, not for the individual preferences of adults. Nice of you to gloss over that.

    Homosexuality extends beyond “behavior” or “lifestyle” or whatever diminishing term you wish to use.

    Well, not exactly. One is considered homosexual if one exhibits certain behaviors, just as heterosexuality is determined similarly. This is one of the key differences between sexual orientation and race, btw.

    Really, what happened? With me, realizing their failure, people like you just slink away to lie another day, or they come up with some self-fellating tripe about how they’re too good to waste their time debating the miserable likes of me.

    Oh, typically, they get progressively more pissed off as I deflect their arguments. Then they descend into name-calling which gets sillier with each comment. Finally, like Jes, they end up with a big FU because they just can’t win and then they run away.

    They never wonder why I bother with their scumbag asses.

    More of the intellectual discussion I’ve come to expect from the Left.

    You’re going to come back with more of “your argument is identical” even though I’ve been extremely specific about how it isn’t several times now. Not because you’re right, Sharon, but because you’re lost without that. The next step is conceding the argument to me, and people just don’t work that way. So I’ll expect your exit soon.

    God, you really are quite arrogant. It doesn’t matter if you try to say your arguments cannot be used by other groups. You can spam the queue here with it but it doesn’t make it correct. Polygamists specifically ARE using the same arguments. And seriously, anybody who’s been at this site a while knows I don’t back away from an argument.

  21. This isn’t an argument about homosexuals making better parents or heterosexuals making worse ones. It’s about the state’s role in endorsing the best environment for having and rearing children. That environment is heterosexual marriage.

    Nope, all lies, as you know. Though you are again predictable in your lying. You are also aware of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, right? Seriously, Sharon, no need to be this disingenuous all the time. Doesn’t it get old? Hating everything you have no clue about?

  22. Let’s try to pare your supposed points down a bit. What does Sharon believe?

    1. Gay marriage hasn’t existed in the USA before, for the sake of argument excluding Massachusetts. Because it’s never been, that lends reason to why it should never be. Lack of change is a good reason to not change. The endless self-perpetuation is a plus!

    2. Miscegenation was banned, but it was recognized. That makes it totally different from gay marriage. This totally makes sense.

    3. Miscegenation was totally a deviation from traditional marriage, which puts it squarely in the same camp as gay marriage, polygamy, incest, pedophiles marrying children, etc. No individual arguments can be made about any of the other things on their own merits, but an individual argument can be made against miscegenation. This is totally consistent!

    4. Race-based discrimination aside, there were valid reasons for miscegenation, although they were entirely race-based.

    5. She is able to dream up new rationales for the existence of marriage at will.

    “The bottom line with marriage is that it is designed for the government to be able to easily determine who is responsible for whom, at what time, and for how long.”

    No reason can be applied to gays, because it wasn’t before. Even if it completely does apply to them. Any previous purpose of marriage swatted aside by society, such as for alliances and property, must be ignored.

    6. Marrying for love is simply out of consideration, because Sharon says so. Straights can marry for love, but that’s just a bizarre freak accident of this marriage thing, which is intended to reward those who can best raise children and exclude anybody who isn’t best. This system can totally be determined by who has a penis and who has a vagina. Bad parents who are straight are inherently better parents than good parents who are gay.

    7. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, to libertarians and liberals specifically refutes the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a laundry list of specific rights, beyond which the state may interfere at will. This amendment must be ignored. If the Constitution doesn’t mention it, you don’t get it. This is considered “literalist,” in much the same way as people who cherry-pick the Bible for their pet causes call themselves literalists.

    The 14th Amendment provision against unequal application of the law also does not exist. Gays can be essentially denied the entire institution of marriage at the whim of a gang of theocratic homophobes. In fact, it’s entirely constitutional to deny anybody extramarital sex, and then deny gays marriage, thus denying them the right to have sex, as the minority opinion of Scalia argues.

    This is all totally in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, Enlightenment values, etc. etc.

    8. The banning of all extramarital sex will totally catch on someday.

    9. Nobody understood homosexuality until very recently in our nation’s history, but all of our previous treatment of homosexuals is totally valid.

    10. This argument isn’t about heterosexuals being better parents, it’s about a heterosexual environment making them better parents. Any rational gay person should completely understand that.

    11. Heterosexuals can get their children any way they want. Gays being able to do the same means NOTHING. This is equal treatment of the law.

    12. Whatever the people want, the people get. The rights of the individual are lefty claptrap.

    13. Conservatives don’t think people are stupid. We’re fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here. They hate us for our freedom. Saddam Hussein was partners with Osama bin Laden. Syria and Iran are providing all the fighters in Iraq. The sun is heating up Earth! You think the Earth is 6000 years old? You go, man! You hate the gay? You know best! Screw the courts, unless they agree with you!

    14. Jeromy can explain why polygamy is a true slippery slope to me, and I can ignore it without consequence. The thought will never occur to anybody else.

    15. Nobody on the right thinks public opinion on gay marriage will eventually turn against them, despite their stronghold of resistance getting older and older.

    16. Sharon has no idea why pedophile marriage specifically is wrong, really. It’s no different than two consenting gay adults marrying. Allow one, you must allow the other.

    17. Sharon has no specific objection to incestuous marriage. It’s just something different than current marriage laws, although traditionally blood did intermarry.

    18. Jeromy’s position is “Marry whomever you desire!” even though he has never said such a thing, even remotely!

    19. One is only homosexual via behavior. There is no such thing as a celibate homosexual! You are not a homosexual until you have gay sex! This is all true for heterosexuals also. Sharon lived in a quantum state of simultaneous homosexuality/heterosexuality until she first touched a penis! Anybody would agree!

    20. Some gays have absorbed enough self-hatred to try to carry on in heterosexual marriages. This always works out for the best. There is no stratospheric failure rate, misinformation, lack of scientific objectivity, basis in hatred of homosexuality, etc. involved whatsoever. None of this applies to those who live heterosexually and then declare they’ve been living a lie and go gay the rest of their lives. That isn’t as good, but Sharon doesn’t hate homosexuals!

    Any self-respecting homosexual who thinks they’re perfectly normal and meant to be that way can comprehend this. Any straight who respects homosexuals and thinks they’re perfectly normal needing no change can understand this.

    21. A bigamist can marry one person, but being unable to marry ten people means they are entirely excluded from marriage.

    22. A person can marry anybody on the planet who isn’t among the few in their direct family, but this means they are entirely excluded from marriage.

    Did I leave something out, Sharon, or does this summarize where you stand?

  23. Pingback: Iowa Liberal » Blog Archive » 22 things Sharon believes about gay marriage.

  24. Jeromy wrote, well above:

    Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying only one person, and in a society where citizens of all genders are equal, polygamy is essentially unworkable. The government need not be forced to accommodate the polygamist, and can reasonably expect to allow each person one spouse at a time. Nobody is fundamentally incapable of marrying anybody but their sibling, and again the legal complications that would arise from inter-familial marriage, as well as scientifically sound gene-pool reasons, provide the state a compelling reason to decline to grant that right.

    While I think that Eric responded to this quite well, with:

    Boy, now THERE’s a self-serving argument if ever I heard one! It boils down to “Equal rights for me, but not for thee!”

    Sorry chum, but if you want to demand “equal rights” for gay marriage, then you’re in no position to squash the rights of polygamists to their own form of marriage. It really is as simple as that.

    I’d like to expand a bit on it.

    Marriage is a “right” recognized nowhere in the Constitution; there is nothing about the Constitution which requires the state to recognize marriages at all. We could, if we so chose, recognize every individual as a legal person, and be done with it.

    However, we have chosen otherwise, and do recognize legal marriages. Doing so still does not require that we must recognize every form of marriage that some people might wish as legal, which is a point with which you agree. You said, “The government need not be forced to accommodate the polygamist, and can reasonably expect to allow each person one spouse at a time.”

    Now, if the government “need not be forced” to accommodate polygamists, by what contrary logic do you find that the government does need to accommodate homosexuals who wish to form a same sex marriage? Your quaint reasoning that “polygamy is essentially unworkable” is a judgement call on your part. If you believe that the government is perfectly within its purview to take such judgements, why would the government not be within its purview to take the decision that same-sex mariage is not to be allowed.

    After all, the notion of homosexual marriage is a relatively new (novel, really) concept, while polygamy is as old as recorded history; it’s really rather difficult to call something that has worked for at least 6,000 years unworkable.

    Indeed, I detect the work of the social engineer in your statement. You prefaced your “polygamy is essentially unworkable” statement with “in a society where citizens of all genders are equal.” Such assumes that everyone wishes to fit within your concepts of equality. Legally, the state may discriminate on the basis of sex, and in many instances the law treats men and women differently.

    Marriage, of course, differs widely. While there are many who absolutely abhor the thought that men and women are somehow diferent, in the vast majority of marriages men and women are different: different in function and responsibility and the way in which they treat each other. It seems a real strain to say that polygamy is unworkable in a society in which both genders have equal rights, because the internal workings of marriage are not set by the law, but by the relationships individuals within marriages form.

    If you wish to argue that the state can recognize same-sex marriages, I would agree with you: one state already does (though I certainly disagree of the court-forced method which brought that about), and several foreign countries do. But your argument that the state must, as a matter of legal rights, recognize same-sex marriage, is groundless.

  25. One additional thought: if “in a society where citizens of all genders are equal, polygamy is essentially unworkable,” and you consider the polygamist arrangement to be some sort of infringement on individual rights, ought the state to physically intrude and break up those arrangements in which more than two people live together without seeking the state-sanction of recognized marriage?

    In my view, we are doing it just about right: we are not using the police power of the state to force apart those couple or groups (of whatever sexual arrangements they may have) to reside separately, nor are we legally punishing those who have sex outside of marriage. If two men or two women choose to shack up, I don’t think that the state has a reasonable right to punish them for that — and I’d say the same for a threesome or moresome as well.

    But that does not mean that the state lacks the legal discretion to favor one type of relationship above others.

  26. After all, the notion of homosexual marriage is a relatively new (novel, really) concept, while polygamy is as old as recorded history; it’s really rather difficult to call something that has worked for at least 6,000 years unworkable.

    There’s also the fact that polygamy is sanctioned by at least one major world religion (Islam) and trying to oppose it could theoretically be fought on the grounds of religious discrimination. In contrast, there is no religious, cultural, or any other tradition for supporting gay marriage. But the bottom line is this: If opposing gay marriage is “discrimination”, then an equally strong (in fact, historically speaking, much stronger) case can be made about discriminating against polygamy. If Jeromy is so aghast at the former, why does he seem to accept the latter, based, it seems, on nothing other than personal prejudice?

  27. Shorter Jeromy: I can’t win a logical discussion about the history and legality of marriage, so I will mischaracterize Sharon’s arguments.

    Geez, Jeromy, is this the way you supposedly “win” arguments about gay marriage? By completely ignoring history and the law in favor of your particular Constitutional interpretation? Do you have any cases which support this view of marriage and the Constitution?

    I gave you several comments to answer your screed. I even tried to give you a short lesson on judicial review and the Lawrence v. Texas decision and why the dissent (and most Americans) would disagree with the logic involved in that majority opinion. You trivialize the importance of this, and, honestly, lose right there.

    Dana is correct when he points out (as i tried to repeatedly) that it isn’t a matter of the states being unable to legislate gay marriage. It is well within their rights and duties to do so. That historically and legally it has not been done for reasons having to do with society’s goals was the point. You don’t have to agree with those goals, but under our form of government, it is within the state’s rights to determine who may marry and under what circumstances.

    Continuously demonizing your opposition as bigots, homophobes, sexists, and race-baiters is the truest sign that your arguments fail, Jeromy. You can’t even discuss the ideas from the Lawrence dissent, or even recognize the significance of altering marriage law on this basis.

    And Jack, did you miss the part where I stated that because there are exceptions to the rule (i.e., homosexuals can have children through artificial means) that it doesn’t change the historical reasons for marriage? The fact is that homosexuals cannot unintentionally become pregnant. The purpose for marriage was to deal with this event by creating a legal institution for providing legitimacy to children (in an age where being illegitimate was the same as being a non-person). This is why the old joke about “the first baby can come any time after marriage but all the others take 9 months” was true.

    And, Jeromy, another sign that you lost is when you have to take the discussion back to your blog, looking for support. Good job!

  28. Jeromy wrote …

    Let’s try to pare your supposed points down a bit. What does Sharon believe?

    Cue the straw man parade!

  29. Interesting that Jeromy bases his argument on the 9th Amendment and completely ignores the 10th.

  30. And I *really* have to laugh that Jes is the only commenter he has. Seems like a match made in hell, to me.

  31. Polygamy has been around and it is societally unhealthy. If members of an elite can afford to have three wives each, a lot of guys are left out in the cold. Some may elect to take matters in hand but others might decide to play martyr and opt for that hair pie in the sky and look forward to fun and games as they score (with nearly four score) virgins.

  32. Such argument assumes that it will always be men with multiple wives, rather than women with more than one husband. Historically, that has been the case, but, as Mr Brown postulated, in our society, the two genders are now equal, so some polyandry might occur.

    One wonders what will happen in the People’s repubic of China, where the one child per family policy has resulted in a serious gender imbalance, with many more males than females. Might some polyandry result, or will the excessive number of males have to resort to the same-sex marriage Mr Brown endorses?

  33. Homosexual relationships are equal in terms of child-rearing when compared to heterosexual marriages. There is nothing supporting the arguments against same-sex marriage here but argument from tradition, with is logical fallacy. Whether homosexual relationships can inherently produce children is moot, since it is possible for them to produce children. All esle is simple bigotry, which is par for the course around here. Eric with his tweaking and Sharon with her complete devotion to stupidity. Dana, now, maybe you should be ashamed, but I doubt you ever will be. Whatever, you all have little shame for your idiocy and bigotry, so meh, I guess.

  34. From a physical standpoint, polyandry makes more sense than polygamy, given the different capacities of man and women to engage in certain activities. Some may fault the aesthetics.

  35. Jack, is there some particular reason you’re an asshole (and an idiot to boot) on virtually every thread here? I have to conclude that you have the I.Q. of a rock because you clearly can’t read. So, when I talk about the historical bases for marriage–which still shape family law today–it’s not out of some “stupidity” or “bigotry.” But, as I’ve said previously, when liberals run out of arguments, they turn to ad hominem attacks.

    You can argue as the day is long that homosexuals make equally qualified parents. That has nothing to do with the historical basis of marriage. And while you don’t care about any of that, obviously the courts do and have.

  36. Homosexual relationships are equal in terms of child-rearing when compared to heterosexual marriages.

    It kind of depends on who’s doing/evaluating the research.
    Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties.

    Cameron P, Cameron K.

    There is nothing supporting the arguments against same-sex marriage here but argument from tradition, with is logical fallacy.

    Baloney. Even if homosexual couples made better parents than heterosexual couples, the legal ramifications of mix ‘n match parenting (the typical result when homosexuals elect to have children) are considerable. Society has an interest in minimizing the types of legal conflicts that will tend to result.

    That’s not an argument from tradition, is it?

  37. It kind of depends on who’s doing/evaluating the research.
    Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties.

    Cameron P, Cameron K.

    Jesus Christ – you’re citing Paul Cameron?

    PAUL CAMERON?

  38. Jesus Christ – you’re citing Paul Cameron?

    There’s no support for stupidity otherwise, as I’m sure at least Sharon knows, but she herself is a complete bigot. Bryan, however, I have not had the pleasure to come across…

    And Sharon, the court’s needing to foment and spread bigotry is no reason to spread bigotry. It seems to be simply a bigoted aspect of your own stupidity, something you seem to want to hang onto. I can sort of understand, from what I know about you, but seriously, hurting the lives of other people for your own stupidity is not okay, despite your stupidity.

  39. So, when I talk about the historical bases for marriage

    Which is argument from tradition…a FALLACY

    I realize stupidity is modus operandi for you, but seriously, are you that dumb? Don’t you have some sort of law degree. That in itself is horrific to me.

  40. Ooh, you people have got nine hundred ways to make the same slippery slope argument and blatantly ignore every case I make for specificity!

    I certainly won’t have time tonight for all that, but by tomorrow I should be able to answer questions like “Why don’t I regard a dissenting opinion by a SC justice who rejects the 9th amendment as binding?”

  41. Bryan: Here’s a tip…NEVER, ever cite Paul Cameron and expect to be regarded seriously. You go enjoy yourself in Christianist junk science land and quit bothering other people, now.

  42. Jeromy wrote:

    Bryan: Here’s a tip…NEVER, ever cite Paul Cameron and expect to be regarded seriously. You go enjoy yourself in Christianist junk science land and quit bothering other people, now.

    If Cameron cannot be taken seriously, then why are papers such as the above published in peer-reviewed journals?

    And that aside, how would would flaws in Cameron’s work affect my point that that conclusions of research depend on who’s doing the research?

    Notice how quickly your side repeated with me the ad hominem style that it first applied to Sharon?

    You can’t deal with the arguments that are presented, so you distract, attack, and make things up.

  43. Sure, Bryan, if you get discredited pathological liars like Cameron to do your research, you can come up with any result you like. You

    I didn’t see any link in your citation, btw.

    And honestly, if I hear another rightwinger soak a handkerchief with his tears over some coarse language, I’m going to take up violin lessons so I can accompany them. Good God, how is it you folks are supposed to be the tough guys?

    And I’ve long understood the childlike “If you call me a bigot I’m just going to get madder!” stance from the right. I’d suggest knocking off the bigotry. You really only fool yourselves. Blacks, gays, and now Hispanics are well aware of the absence of warm fuzzies coming from the Republican party. It ain’t an accident, folks. “I don’t hate gays, but let me tell you how they’re inherently bad parents who should really drop it all and marry the right way…p.s. They’re sinners!” just doesn’t hold water.

    You guys have turned into the party of rural, white, paternalistic, fundamentalist Christians with lingering resentments over the 1963 voting rights act. Do you sense your base shrinking?

  44. And Sharon, the court’s needing to foment and spread bigotry is no reason to spread bigotry. It seems to be simply a bigoted aspect of your own stupidity, something you seem to want to hang onto. I can sort of understand, from what I know about you, but seriously, hurting the lives of other people for your own stupidity is not okay, despite your stupidity.

    So, Jack, did someone tell you that if you keep calling someone stupid and bigoted that you win an argument? I mean, that seems to be your whole technique, regardless of which issue it is.

    Let me put it to you simply: pointing out the historical bases for marriage is neither bigoted, stupid nor a fallacy. It’s just a fact. And disagreeing with gay marriage doesn’t make me bigoted, any more than disagreeing with the Catholic church (since I’m a Protestant) makes me hate Catholics. It shows how bankrupt your philosophy is that these are your lines of attack.

    And Jeromy, I’m still waiting for your brilliant arguments that supposedly knock out the state’s longheld right to determine marriage criteria. Seems you’re as bad as Jack, just a sheep who bleats “slippery slope” to any argument you dislike. Found that case law supporting your interpretation of the 9th Amendment yet?

    And yeah, yeah, yeah, we’re all bigots, homophobes, etc. Again, you think calling people names is a terrific technique. What’s new for your side? Why not just go back to your blog and cry to Jes about what you fantasize is my position on gay marriage?

  45. Mr Goff wrote:

    Homosexual relationships are equal in terms of child-rearing when compared to heterosexual marriages.

    Equal in what terms, Mr Goff, and studied in what manner?

    Open homosexual relationships in which child rearing is occurring is a very recent innovation; thirty years ago, the courts took children away from homosexuals in divorce actions, and twenty years ago homosexuals simply could not adopt. Any studies on child rearing within homosexual couples are going to suffer from the paucity of data over time.

    Child rearing is not a short-term “project.” Our older daughter is a few months short of her nineteenth birthday, and she’s still under our roof; we’re just now nearing the “end” of child rearing with her. To study the effectiveness of homosexual couples engaged in child rearing, you’re going to have to start with situations which began eighteen to twenty years ago, because child rearing isn’t a snapshot view — and the number of homosexual couples who started out with an infant, and remained together with the same child for that entire period is simply small.

  46. BTW, Jeromy, if it seems that some of us point out the never-ending name-calling of the trolls here, it’s because y’all follow a certain pattern.

    1. Your first comment tends to contain some argument regarding the post. I counter that argument.

    2. Your second comment tries to bring in other arguments in support of the first one. This one almost always also contains some subtle put-down or name-calling, rather than just commenting. I counter those arguments.

    3. By the third or fourth comment, a pattern sets in: reiteration of your first or second point, followed by ever more strident accusations of moral failings on my part, whether it’s sexism, bigotry, homophobia, racism, fascism, etc. By this point, your original argument has lost any credibility because of the name-calling. The loop continues until you decide to go to some other topic or the thread gets closed.

    I use “you” in the generic sense, as in “trolls.”

    And, of course, if you were Jes, you would start out with some ridiculous argument that no one could take seriously and then just repeat it endlessly. Example: “You support the right of protestors to free speech? You must support people who issue death threats, then!”

    In your case, you seem to be hung up on this idea that any argument which compares gay marriage with polygamy (just to simplify things) is a “slippery slope.” Then you try to distinguish gay marriage from polygamy by saying polygamy is “unworkable.” But when it is pointed out to you that polygamy has been workable for centuries, you then argue about the “slippery slope” again.

    Why not agree that states have the right to determine the criteria for marriage? It’s not like this is a novel idea. And what you may consider bigoted–in that allowing states to set their own marriage criteria bars homosexuals from it–also works to keep out other groups that you find unacceptable for marriage.

    It’s understandable that you want to reject the traditional reasons for one man-one woman marriage. And it’s understandable that you want to compare bars on homosexual marriage with anti-miscegenation laws. But just because you want those things doesn’t make arguments from those perspectives less valid.

    You also rejected actually reading Scalia’s dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case. I suppose actually having to consider what a well-recognized, highly intelligent judge says about an issue you are very emotional about, but you would come to a greater understanding of the implications of these rulings if you did.

    Finally, you seem to think your 9th Amendment argument is some brilliant legal reasoning. But it seems to me you are giving that Amendment too much credit. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/, where the Founding Fathers expressed some concern about enumerating certain rights as basic while not including others. Again, it sounds to me like you are arguing that gay marriage is a fundamental right, but you’ve already stated that that is not your intent. It’s difficult to see how your 9th Amendment analysis holds up without this conclusion.

    As I stated previously, none of this is to say that the Supreme Court won’t suddenly discover a fundamental right to gay marriage, just as they discovered a right to abortion, Miranda warnings, quotas for law school, and homosexual sodomy. But in doing so, it would quite possibly undermine much current family law.

    The best way to solve the issue is for citizens to lobby their legislatures to change the law. Even Justice Thomas said the Texas sodomy law was “silly.”

  47. Sharon wrote:

    The best way to solve the issue is for citizens to lobby their legislatures to change the law.

    I’d guess that many of the supporters of same-sex marriage think that’s a terrible way to do it, because:

    1. They know they will fail in most states;
    2. They know in many states that it is now the state constitution which must be changed, not just a statute; and, most importantly,
    3. By pursuing the goal via appeals to the legislature, they are tacitly admitting that same-sex marriage is a legitimate choice for the legislature to take, and not a fundamental right.

    If they can make the case that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, they sweep away the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and force all of the states to accept same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the people approve.

  48. Equal in what terms, Mr Goff, and studied in what manner?

    Equal in terms of ability to produce well-adjusted children. Go to the APA site I linked to. Psychological studies done have repeatedly shown that the slight differences between children of same-sex couples and those of mixed-sex couples can be universally attributed to a bigoted worldview of the people around them and society, and not psychological problems stemming from how they were raised. You might learn something about arguing from a bigoted standpoint if you tried.

    And sharon, “bigot” isn’t name-calling, it’s a fact. Get over it or stop being a bigot. ;-)

  49. universally attributed to a bigoted worldview of the people around them and society

    That should read:

    universally attributed to the bigoted worldview of the people around them and society

  50. And sharon, “bigot” isn’t name-calling, it’s a fact. Get over it or stop being a bigot.

    Well, actually, it is name-calling. You obviously don’t think your arguments stand up on their own or you wouldn’t need to do it.

    Again, you can disagree with some view or opinion without being a bigot. But then again, I suppose if you have nothing else to argue then name-calling looks like a winner.

  51. Why not agree that states have the right to determine the criteria for marriage?

    Legally, yes, insofar as states have taken that right by creating legislation about it that they have the right to enact. Nothing has prevented them to do so, but I’m no legal positivist. Whether this legislation is based on bigoted stupidity or not is a question you don’t want to deal with, because it hurts your fee-fees to think you might be a bigot. Have you ever meet a same-sex couple with children, Sharon? Or are you trying to be a dispassionate observer, because that way lies “absolute truth”? “Historical bases” for marriage implies that historically, we have not been a bigoted society against homosexual couples, and if that’s an argument you want to make, fine. Don’t feel bad when you get called a bigot for not caring about stopping bigotry.

  52. But then again, I suppose if you have nothing else to argue then name-calling looks like a winner.

    My argument is that there is no difference between children produced by same-sex couples and by hetero couples. I produced scientific research to prove it. You have not countered it, except with an appeal to tradition. When I said as much, you said “Nyuh uh! ‘S historical fact!” And so is bigotry agains same-sex couples, but that’s okay, because that’s how it’s supposed to be, right Sharon? If the bigotry does not jump out at you, ask yourself why. Then again, you don’t really care.

  53. Jeromy wrote:
    Sure, Bryan, if you get discredited pathological liars like Cameron to do your research, you can come up with any result you like. You

    And get it published in a journal, apparently. Jeromy doesn’t appear ready to register the point.

    [quote]I didn’t see any link in your citation, btw.[/quote]

    Shall I explain to you how to take the title of the work and enter the information into a search-engine window?

    [quote]And honestly, if I hear another rightwinger soak a handkerchief with his tears over some coarse language, I’m going to take up violin lessons so I can accompany them. Good God, how is it you folks are supposed to be the tough guys?[/quote]

    You’re missing the point, Jeromy. You and others have been trying to make a big deal about the other side’s fallacies. It’s disingenuous to complain about the other side’s fallacies yet give yourself a pass for committing fallacies. You can call me any name you like–but don’t expect me to fail to take advantage of your rhetorical failings.
    It’s incongruous to paint yourself as dispassionate and then use the rhetoric of personal attack.
    The funny thing is, that’s what you were called on, and how do you react? With another personal attack (calling the other side “weak” for supposedly cowering before your hate-speech).


    And I’ve long understood the childlike “If you call me a bigot I’m just going to get madder!” stance from the right. I’d suggest knocking off the bigotry. You really only fool yourselves.

    Eh–what bigotry, Mr. Dispassionate?

    [quote]Blacks, gays, and now Hispanics are well aware of the absence of warm fuzzies coming from the Republican party. It ain’t an accident, folks. “I don’t hate gays, but let me tell you how they’re inherently bad parents who should really drop it all and marry the right way…p.s. They’re sinners!” just doesn’t hold water.[/quote]

    Pretty much what we should expect from a straw man, if you know how to commit that fallacy correctly (and apparently you do).

    [quote]You guys have turned into the party of rural, white, paternalistic, fundamentalist Christians with lingering resentments over the 1963 voting rights act. Do you sense your base shrinking?[/quote]

    Do you feel yourself becoming increasingly passionate (read: not dispassionate) as you indulge in more and more fallacies?

    You make up your own argument, impute it to the other side, and then start calling them bigots based on the straw man. Is that cute or what?

  54. Sharon said…

    Again, you can disagree with some view or opinion without being a bigot. But then again, I suppose if you have nothing else to argue then name-calling looks like a winner.

    It seems correcting a person’s grammar works in a pinch too.

  55. All esle is simple bigotry, which is par for the course around here. Eric with his tweaking and Sharon with her complete devotion to stupidity. Dana, now, maybe you should be ashamed, but I doubt you ever will be. Whatever, you all have little shame for your idiocy and bigotry, so meh, I guess.

    Calling people names. Now there’s a logical way to “win” an argument [eye roll]

  56. Now there’s a logical way to “win” an argument [eye roll]

    Pithy nonsense and no substance, now there’s a true Eric comment.

  57. Whether this legislation is based on bigoted stupidity or not is a question you don’t want to deal with, because it hurts your fee-fees to think you might be a bigot.

    You’d have to try considerably harder to hurt my feelings, Jack. The problem is you are so emotionally invested in the issue that if someone tells you something has been true historically, you invest it with all sorts of moral convictions.

    To say that marriage was designed to suit a particular situation is not about bigotry. It’s just a historical fact, one that’s particularly inconvenient to you. To state that this was its purpose–and the reason the state bothered getting involved with what was originally a religious institution in the first place–has nothing to do with bigotry.

    What is bigoted is to constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with your view of things as being bigoted and narrow-minded. Believe it or not, it is possible to argue about the need or desire for particular legislation without stooping to such a level.

    BTW, your question about knowing same sex couples with children is ridiculous. If I tell you I do, you’ll either (a) call me a liar or (b) tell me that I’m still a bigot. If I tell you I don’t, then you’ll say that that PROVES I’m a bigot.

    For the record (not that it is any of your business), my best friend in law school was gay. I’ve been friends for about 10 years with both that woman and her partner. She was involved with all 3 of my children, knows all of us, and even represented me in my custody dispute with my ex-husband. Oh, and they have a little girl. So, yes, I do happen to know–quite well–same sex couples with children.

    But they aren’t the first or only couple I’ve known or knew and socialized with. It’s really not a big deal once you get to know them, Jack. They’re just people like you and me…well, like me, anyway.

    Again, if you want gay marriage, then work with legislatures and with the public to persuade people to that view. It’s really not that hard.

  58. I just remembered. That’s this Paul Cameron. Hilarious.

    Hilarious but irrelevant, that is.

    The APA, by the way, had a few things to say to this pseudo-scientist a while back.

    Do you think you know which part of the preamble Cameron supposedly violated? Or did you even bother to read it?

  59. You might learn something about arguing from a bigoted standpoint if you tried.

    Are you bigoted against polygamists? Jeromy certainly seems to be.

  60. Pithy nonsense and no substance

    That’s a good description of your name-calling tactics.

  61. So, yes, I do happen to know–quite well–same sex couples with children.

    Yet this does not alter your stance that marriage exists to create an environment suitable to have children, despite the fact that you have been made aware that same-sex couples can have children, do exceptionally well raising those children, and provide loving relationships for those children. I would say that one of us is being bigoted. And sure, I’m intolerant of intolerance. If that’s bigoted, have at it.

    And Bryan, I know what he violated. I was just pointing out that he doesn’t really seem to need those ethical guidelines, so his devotion to an ethical pattern of research is suspect.

    And come on, you think a guy who acts that way with regard to gay people, or has such an asinine view of gay people, should ever be trusted to create dispassionate and scientific research on gay people? Please.

    They’re just people like you and me…well, like me, anyway.

    No, they aren’t Sharon, at least not according to you. They aren’t because you and other bigots like you support legislation that keeps them from having the same opportunities as heterosexual people. You want to make this about some slippery slope where if we give same-sex couples the right to marry, the door is open to polyamory and bestiality, when all people have been saying is that marriage should be defined as two consenting adults, period. I know that similar arguments based on opportunity can be made, but that implies that there isn’t a host of other problems relating to inequality and consent in terms of polygamy and such to be dealt with. This is not the case in same-sex relationships, or at least, no more so than heterosexual relationships.

  62. Are you bigoted against polygamists?

    Sure, I’m intolerant of a practice that has been used to subjugate women for millennia and is not based on any equal relationship as defined by any rational person. A man marrying multiple women, or even a woman marrying multiple men, or people marrying multiple people all carry with them a large amount of ethical problems that are nowhere present in same-sex relationships between two people. If the ethical concerns were able to be bridged, I would not have a problem with polyamory, but I get the feeling that that would be impossible legalistically.

    But none of this refutes the need to give same-sex couples the same opportunity in their relationship as heterosexual couples. You whine about getting called out for slippery sloping, but you’re still doing it.

  63. Yet this does not alter your stance that marriage exists to create an environment suitable to have children, despite the fact that you have been made aware that same-sex couples can have children, do exceptionally well raising those children, and provide loving relationships for those children. I would say that one of us is being bigoted. And sure, I’m intolerant of intolerance. If that’s bigoted, have at it.

    Jack, I stated that historically that’s what marriage has been for, why it is a legal institution. And saying that same sex couples can raise children doesn’t mean that is best for them. Grandparents can raise children. Single parents can raise children. Even strangers can raise children. And all those instances are preferable to no parents at all.

    I’m a divorced parent. I made the choice to do that because I thought it was best for me and for my child. But you know something? It’s not ideal. And if you asked my daughter, I bet she’d tell you she’d rather her dad & I stayed married. So, we raise children in circumstances that aren’t always ideal. But that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t endorse the best over other variations.

    They aren’t because you and other bigots like you support legislation that keeps them from having the same opportunities as heterosexual people. You want to make this about some slippery slope where if we give same-sex couples the right to marry, the door is open to polyamory and bestiality, when all people have been saying is that marriage should be defined as two consenting adults, period.

    But then you’re a bigot because you don’t accept that other people love each other. You’re narrow-minded for thinking only two people can love each other, or that only certain people in certain situations can love each other.

    You think it’s bigoted to point out that society gets to draw the line as to which situations it endorses and which ones it doesn’t. But what’s really bigoted and childish is to want to draw YOUR lines in YOUR places and then get all swelled up when you’re called on it.

    BTW, your arguments about the equality problems in polygamy could have been said about marriage less than 50 years ago. After all, in Texas, a married woman couldn’t buy property in her own name less than 40 years ago, so we aren’t talking ancient history there. In other words, it would be perfectly possible to create legal frameworks that protected the rights of all spouses in a multiple marriage. You just think they’re icky, so you don’t want to consider that.

  64. So, we raise children in circumstances that aren’t always ideal. But that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t endorse the best over other variations.

    The APA has affirmed that there is no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in terms of giving opportunities for children and raising them. You have no substance to your opinion that heterosexual couples provide the “best over other variations”.

    Fine, then, though, I’m a bigot against polygamy. Sure. I accept that my definition of unequal carries with it a judgment, though I think if it could be made to be equal, polyamory would not be a problem for me. You don’t even care about the fact that your argument against same-sex marriage is based on tradition, while I will admit that my argument against equating plyamory and same-sex couples is based on my opinion that exactly 2 does not more than 2. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  65. Sure, I’m intolerant of a practice that has been used to subjugate women for millennia and is not based on any equal relationship as defined by any rational person. A man marrying multiple women, or even a woman marrying multiple men, or people marrying multiple people all carry with them a large amount of ethical problems that are nowhere present in same-sex relationships between two people. If the ethical concerns were able to be bridged, I would not have a problem with polyamory, but I get the feeling that that would be impossible legalistically.

    Right, but that’s just your prejudice speaking. You have not proved any rational reason for denying marriage rights to people who choose to live in a polygamous relationship. You may not approve of that choice, but it’s still their choice, not yours.

  66. BTW, your arguments about the equality problems in polygamy could have been said about marriage less than 50 years ago.

    I never said marriage was always equal, did I? I don’t live 50 years ago (thank God, though I’m sure there are a number of people who would just love to go back to that), but I’m hoping that such misogynistic laws are no longer in existence. Again, I’m no legal positivist, and just because it’s the law, that does make it inherently ethical or justified. Would you say such laws are okay and should be enacted, Sharon?

    If there was a system of laws that could be passed to ensure fair and legal equality in polyamorous marriages, I would have no problem with allowing them. As it is, no such laws are needed in the case of same-sex marriages. And by the way, saying “but that’s the way it’s always been” and acting like that qualifies as an ethical and reasoned argument sounds playground neener-neener to me, so glass houses, Sharon.

    You have not proved any rational reason for denying marriage rights to people who choose to live in a polygamous relationship.

    I don’t really have a rational reason why polyamourous relationships shouldn’t be okay, as long as it involves free, consenting adults with equal rights, who are cognizant of those rights and their legal obligations. Do you have any rational reason why polyamory is wrong, as long as it takes place within these confines? Polygamy, as it has been practiced, involves severe limitation of the rights of women and their subjugation to a patriarchal relationship. I’m drastically against people being placed in a position where they have less rights than other people. If there were a way to prevent this in polyamory, I would have no problem with allowing them to marry. I do not know, nor can I say, that children produced in such supposedly equal polyamorous marriages will have a harder time than in any other relationship, and neither can you.

    I can, however, tell you that heterosexual couples do not produce children or give them opportunities any better than same-sex couples. I cannot see how the argument that we might have to end up legalizing polyamory (with the caveats as listed above) negates anything about same-sex marriage, unless you yourself think that “polyamory, eww” is a reasoned argument.

  67. And Bryan, I know what he violated.

    Why didn’t you mention it specifically, then?

    I was just pointing out that he doesn’t really seem to need those ethical guidelines, so his devotion to an ethical pattern of research is suspect.

    We can throw out a great deal of science using a view like that … maybe most of it.

    And come on, you think a guy who acts that way with regard to gay people, or has such an asinine view of gay people, should ever be trusted to create dispassionate and scientific research on gay people? Please.

    “that way”? “such an asinine view”? What on earth are you talking about (aside from the implicit fallacious appeal to ridicule)?

    Nobody should be trusted to create dispassionate and scientific research on gay people.
    That’s what peer review is supposed to be about. Or hadn’t you heard?

  68. The APA has affirmed that there is no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in terms of giving opportunities for children and raising them. You have no substance to your opinion that heterosexual couples provide the “best over other variations”.

    Up until relatively recently, the APA also classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. It also classifies bratty behavior as a mental disorder (see Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Needless to say, I don’t really hold the APA in very high regard.

    I never said marriage was always equal, did I?

    You argue from both sides, unsurprisingly. First, you claim that same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage, then claim polygamous marriages aren’t (and imply that they are inherently unequal). No, marriage isn’t always equal, even in modern marriages. But my specific point was that marriage laws are subject to change…and that change should come legislatively.

    You want gay marriage legal? Get enough people to agree with you. After all, that’s what women had to do. It’s what minorities had to do. The problem is that liberals have become conditioned to using the courts to act as a super-legislature, a job they were never intended to perform.

    Do you have any rational reason why polyamory is wrong, as long as it takes place within these confines?

    Well, given that you don’t care about history, I suppose pointing out the inherent inequities of that system won’t do any good. But no, I don’t believe polygamy should be legalized, either, because, once again, polygamous situations aren’t as good for raising children as two-person marriage. Why? Because when you have multiple spouses, they all have needs and desires which sets up a conflict immediately for resources. Let’s just say we have a man and 3 wives. Each wife has a child. Each wife typically, will be more invested in the well-being of her child than in the well-being of the other children. If resources get scarce (whether it is the father’s time, family finances, space, schooling, or whatever), each wife will be concerned that her child get “his fair share.” Thus, there will be a conflict that is not beneficial for any of the children. This is not, btw, to say that wives in polygamous families are always fighting this way, but traditionally (oops! there’s that word again *giggle*) this is a big problem.

    But if the polygamists want to try to persuade enough people to legalize polygamy, I can live with that, too.

  69. That’s what peer review is supposed to be about.

    Paul Cameron is subject to peer review. The APA, his peers, have rejected his research as faulty and biased.

    Up until relatively recently, the APA also classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

    A definition it has admitted was not based on any credible scientific evidence. Numerous (peer-reviewed, paying attention Bryan?) studies back up that there is no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples when it comes to environment for children. You repeatedly have said that there is, without any evidence.

    And yeah, if you want to put me in the position of making an argument for the legalization of polyamory, then I have to end up making the argument I find most valid: that the practice is inherently unequal and laws should be made, if the practice were to be made legal, to ensure that it is an equitable situation for all involved. Until these laws are enacted, there is no way polyamory should be legal.

    That unequal laws have existed for marriage does not mean that I am arguing for marriage to be illegal. I want those inequitable laws repealed. How does this mean that I am “arguing for both sides”? I think marriage should be as equal an institution as possible, and where inequity exists, we should right it. But, typically, you still claim some inherent difference between same-sex marriage between two couples and heterosexual marriage, despite the evidence that each provides equal capacity to provide children with a good, loving home. Where, then, do you see this great divide in the two? I see a huge divide between polyamory and monogamy, namely that a person is able to marry more than one person. I do not see the social justice (people who want to be in a polyamorous marriage) aspect outweighing the ethical problems inherent to the practice. I said that I have no qualms with the practice if the logistical and ethical problems are solved to the benefit of those being married.

    So, yes, I know that the change will have to be legal, but it will also have to come from telling people who disagree that they have no real basis for this specific discrimination, as your repeated attempts to obfuscate have shown. Marriage being defined one way throughout history, when there is no rational reason why a slight redefinition, will hurt anyone or anything in our society, and will only benefit people who desperately want to marry.

    I don’t think the same argument can be made with respect to polyamory that no one will be harmed, as long as the inherent problems with the practice are unresolved. There is no inherent ethical problem with same-sex couples marrying. What specific evidence do you have where same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have been compared in the realm of child-raising where there was a difference between the two in terms of their ability to provide good homes for children? Where is the evidence from your side of the argument? You’ve once cited a study that says single-parent households fare worse that dual-parent households, but this is not evidence against dual parent same-sex households.

  70. Up until relatively recently, the APA also classified homosexuality as a mental disorder

    Indeed. And it removed that classification when it was shown that there was no neurosis or psychosis associated with the condition. It’s called “science”.

    Homosexuality is like being left handed or being green eyed – a minority condition which is of little concern, save that which society chooses to make out of it.

  71. Given the tiny number of homosexual households with children (approximately 326k, according to Census data from 2000), it’s a real stretch to say there’s “no difference” between heterosexual and homosexual households raising children.

    And while I know you will try to debunk any information coming from the Family Research Council, the information obtained was from other sources, which also included information about monogamy in relationships (much higher for heterosexual married couples) and health risks within couples.

    Now, if you want to somehow argue that these various factors do not affect children in a household, feel free. But again, you are talking about a huge difference in numbers of children (approx. 8% of the homosexual population vs. 46% of heterosexual married couples), so it seems to be rather difficult to say they are the same.

  72. I don’t really have a rational reason why polyamourous relationships shouldn’t be okay, as long as it involves free, consenting adults with equal rights, who are cognizant of those rights and their legal obligations.

    As long as they’re consenting adults, that’s all that should matter, right? The practice may seem bizarre to the rest of us, but then the same could be said for gay marriage. I think your argument for the latter seems to be “Just because we think it’s weird, doesn’t mean we should ban it”. I suppose the same could be said for the former as well. Polygamy DOES seem weird and bizarre, but that’s in part because we see its practicioners as being oddballs and out of the “Mainstream”, but if you want to look at it from a purely “rights” based POV, then there seems to be no justification for making it illegal. But yet most gay marriage advocates howl like stuck pigs whenever this is suggested, with an attitude that seems to smack of “Don’t discriminate against US, but let those weirdoes marry more than one person? Hell no!!”

  73. Indeed. And it removed that classification when it was shown that there was no neurosis or psychosis associated with the condition. It’s called “science”.

    I wouldn’t exactly call psychology a “science”, at least not when compared to real sciences, like physics. It’s more like part science, part art, with a fair amount of bullshit thrown in the mix.

  74. it’s a real stretch to say there’s “no difference” between heterosexual and homosexual households raising children.

    The number of households raising children says nothing about their ability to provide good homes.

    I wouldn’t exactly call psychology a “science”, at least not when compared to real sciences, like physics.

    And you would call vast pronouncements that same-sex households cannot provide as good a home to children as heterosexual households “science”?

    As long as they’re consenting adults, that’s all that should matter, right?

    “Consent” means a lot more than simply saying “hey, they consented!” There’s also a need for a understanding of legal rights and specifically what each person is entitled to from the relationship. If there was a legal way to establish the specifics for each person in a polyamorous marriage, educate them on what their rights are, to make sure their rights are equal, and that children produced in the marriage are taken care of, then I have no problem with polyamorous marriage. There is no need to have to do this in same-sex marriage, since as long as the same laws that apply to heterosexual marriage between couples apply here, then there is no inherent difference between the two practices. Again, this is not the case when there are more than two people marrying. That is why they are different.

    I know you will try to debunk any information coming from the Family Research Council

    No need to debunk anything. The data says nothing about same-sex household’s ability to provide for their children.

  75. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » That Slippery Slope Is Closer Than They Think

  76. But yes, you are right. The Family Research Council has little to no credibility in the scientific community, as they obviously are biased researchers with agendas that are highly suspect. But the APA is suspect to you because they use actual studies of people as opposed to correlative studies. Makes sense, I suppose.

  77. The data says nothing about same-sex household’s ability to provide for their children.

    The data shows that same sex households are more likely to participate in a variety of behaviors usually associated with an unhealthy lifestyle. But you’re right. There are so few households, there’s no direct correlation between, say, number of partners and ability to provide a good home.

  78. Married same-sex households who have children? Also, is it an “unhealthy lifestyle” or is it “eww, multiple sex partners”? Because I had a couple of friends who had swinger parents, obviously swinger parents, and they turned out well. I mean, as long as we aren’t talking science here.

  79. JackGoff wrote:

    Paul Cameron is subject to peer review. The APA, his peers, have rejected his research as faulty and biased.

    Make science a members-only club and you’re well on your way to politicizing it.
    The termination of Cameron’s organizational membership seems like it may well have been politically motivated.
    In any case, Cameron still gets published in peer-reviewed journals, so what is J-off trying to say?

Comments are closed.