Althouse: A few more faces from the counter-demonstration.

July 28, 2010

A few more faces from the counter-demonstration.

(Background and photography here and here.)

248 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248

Revenant said...: I'm not going to accept your conclusion because I've seen other data on the web stating that 40-50% in the younger generation probably will end in divorce.

If you want to believe that divorce is getting more common, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It is a fact that it is getting less common, and has been for nearly thirty years now.; 7/28/10, 9:35 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Kirstin: Or just more in absolute numbers?

Absolute numbers. Gays aren't going to set a precedence on this issue.; 7/28/10, 9:37 PM
jr565 said...: John, "the left" WAS the counter-protest. The protesters were the right wing, demanding discrimination and prejudice

THere's a difference between gay marriage and hetero marriage. One involves a man and a woman the other involves two men or two women. ANd even gay have to acknowledge this difference by adding the word "gay" to marriage. Now, whatever the merits are for gay marriage, the fact of the matter is that since it's founding marriage has meant one thing and it didn't involve gays. Around the world it's the same way. You might go further in your cause if you don't accuse more than half the country and the rest of the world as bigots simply because they don't immediately change their time honored traditions to suit you simply because you feel that it's right to marry your bf and want validation.

Also, it's not like interracial marriage because interracial marriage doens't actually definitionally change marriage. It's still a man and a woman, so there is little reason to deny men and women from marrying since it's already in the rules (and there really is no such thing as separate races - we're all one race). Whereas, allowing men to marry men fundamentally changes what marriage means.; 7/28/10, 9:39 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Milwaukie Guy: Me and my buddy Phil are going to get married as soon as Oregon allows. We will get marvelous tax and health bennies. We're not gonna fuck, however, cause we like the babes and government should stay the hell out of the bedroom.

A marriage of convenience. Plenty of the traditional marriages religious people swoon over were like that, historically.; 7/28/10, 9:43 PM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: Now we have some black intellectuals talking about the positive aspects of segregation.

I would not be surprised if sometime from now we will have Gays waxing about the good old days when they were free from the bonds and obligations of matrimony.; 7/28/10, 9:43 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: jr565: Now, whatever the merits are for gay marriage, the fact of the matter is that since it's founding marriage has meant one thing and it didn't involve gays.

You are mistaken of the facts.; 7/28/10, 9:45 PM
Eric said...: Congratulations Obama and Biden. You are to the right of Dick Cheney on marriage equality! Remember him? Pathetic.

Dick Cheney is done running for office, so he can support or oppose any position as conscience dictates. The American people are against gay marriage, and as active politicians Obama and Biden have to be cognizant of that fact.; 7/28/10, 10:10 PM
jr565 said...: Gabriel Hana wrote:
Restrictions on marriage cannot all be civil rights issues, can they?

The consanguinity ban, we all think, has something to do with retard babies. Except that we don't require ANYONE to be tested for nasty recessive genes, do we? And we let people like Sarah Palin give birth even though women in their forties are more likely yo have Down syndrome babies, so it seems clear to me that restrictions based on consanguinity are nothing more than expressions of bigotry and prejudice--right?

One couple in Germany, a brother-sister couple, sued in 2007 to marry on civil rights grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

You have to explain why, if gay marriage is about civil rights, why all the other restrictions on marriage are not.

That is the fundamental point. The whole gay marriage is an absolute right and discriminatory so therefore must be allowed discounts the fact that there are plenty of other restrictions that I assume should still be in place. So it fundamentlaly requires one to ask, if we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy, or why not allow marriages between family members? Everytime the conversation goes that way gays always get mad and say it's simply about gay marriage and noone is suggesting people be able to marry their father. Yet, if you aren't allowed to discriminate in any way in marriage then why not? And if they say they are for gay marriage but against polygamy then aren't they as bigoted as those who are against gay marriage for example?
How they frame the argument is fundamentally dishonest.
My personal opinion, is go for civil unions, since that is actually what a gay marriage is. And it's already been allowed in multiple states. And it doesn't require people who don't want a definitional change or don't want to be forced to marry people they don't think should be married to get involved. Simply improve the benefits that civil unions can acrue so that they fall in line, roughly with marriage.

Some of the restrictions by the way should be removed even if gay marriage isn't allowed, For example gays complain about not being able to visit loved ones in hospitals because they aren't family. That isn't really a marriage issue and can be resolved simply by having hospitals allow patients to put the name of people they want to allow to visist be they friends, family or lovers. I can certainly agree with the notion that you shouldn't be denied the visitors of your choice at a hospital, but I will note that people who aren't married and who don't have immediate family are similarly denied.; 7/28/10, 10:12 PM
sunsong said...: Me:”Well that was my point :-) You are supporting collectivist control. And yet, rail against collectivist control being the result of the decline of civilization :-) "

If we were truly free, I could kill or steal from anyone I please. But for you meddling collectivists, I cannot!

Perhaps that is your deepest desire – to kill others or steal from them?

It is amusing to me that your argument seems to be unless society does what you want – we’re all doomed – and if not doomed – everyone will begin killing each other. What is different between your dooms day rantings and Al Gores?

I also find it amusing that you rail against collectivism while also promoting it. Perhaps the irony is lost on you. As I say – you have a lot in common with the far left. It seems to me both extremes believe humanity and human beings are wretched and evil creatures that need to be controlled and baby sat by big government. The Nanny State mentality.

Likening the freedom to marry to being free to murder is absurd and tells me that we may have reached limit of what we have to say to one another. Your extreme example has nothing to do with people having greater freedom and self-determination, with responsibility.

The idea of “the government that governs least, governs best” – may frighten you. That’s your choice. But I think it is clearly what America has been about - As has the idea of correcting wrongs and moving in the direction of more and more equality under the law.; 7/28/10, 10:35 PM
Carolyn said...: Peter Hoh:

"Not being satisfied" with civil unions in California was an understatement.

If it had a chance of working, we could call a federal civil union compromise the Rush Limbaugh-Elton John Compromise.; 7/28/10, 10:41 PM
Paul said...: Question...

If gay mariage is ok, then what about polygyny or polyandry.. or children?

Or humans marrying animals? Trees?

So where do you stop?; 7/28/10, 10:49 PM
jr565 said...: sunsong wrote:
I also find it amusing that you rail against collectivism while also promoting it. Perhaps the irony is lost on you. As I say – you have a lot in common with the far left. It seems to me both extremes believe humanity and human beings are wretched and evil creatures that need to be controlled and baby sat by big government. The Nanny State mentality.

Likening the freedom to marry to being free to murder is absurd and tells me that we may have reached limit of what we have to say to one another. Your extreme example has nothing to do with people having greater freedom and self-determination, with responsibility.

The idea of “the government that governs least, governs best” – may frighten you. That’s your choice. But I think it is clearly what America has been about - As has the idea of correcting wrongs and moving in the direction of more and more equality under the law.

Yet it is gays demanding that the government give them benefits and defenitionally change marriage for them. So for gays it's not a "the government that governs least governs best argumetn" unless you are suggesting that the govt shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. In which case that's a separate argument.
As someone else stated, you can marry whoever you want now. It's only when you get the govt involved that it becomes legal or not legal.
And while I certainly agree that a state can become a nanny state and exert too much control,it's similarly wrong for a govt to exert no control. Because that's anarchy.
But if it's an issue of govt control that bugs people, don't petition the govt demanding rights. Marriage is just a piece of paper. People can have relationships that don't involve the govts involvement.; 7/28/10, 10:52 PM
Milwaukie guy said...: The people, in their wisdom, are for civil union. This would immediately pass so many states it would make your head spin, up to 45-state acceptance in 18 months.

What I would like to know, because I'm old and my memory is bad, when was it exactly my gay friends stopped kidding me about being a breeder and how marriage was a bourgeois/fascist institution to wanting marriage and wanting it NOW? Early to mid-90s?; 7/28/10, 11:13 PM
Joe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/28/10, 11:13 PM
Joe said...: Or humans marrying animals? Trees?

So where do you stop?

Where one or both sides can't legally consent to a contract.; 7/28/10, 11:14 PM
reader_iam said...: Haven't read comment one on this thread. Not here to comment on that (the thread or why I haven't bothered to read even comment one).

What I am dipping in to say, since no café was posted at which it would have been more appropriate, is this :

In advance Happy 1st Anniversary wishes to you both! I hope your scarcity means you're embarking on, or at least planning, travel or whatever to mark the date, just days away.; 7/28/10, 11:40 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Where one or both sides can't legally consent to a contract.

Why are you so bigoted man? Who's to say that both sides need to consent? Isn't that consent requirement yet another example of the nanny state? Take the example of pets. Do I need a dogs consent to adopt him? Do I need a cows consent to eat him? Do dolphins give consent when they are performing tricks at sea world? There are a whole host of interactions with animals that humans are involved in and they never need consent to do so. So why could't someone marry their pet? Surely it's out of the bounds of mormalcy, but who's to say what is ultimately right when it comes to a relationship. So long as noone gets hurt. The govt should get out of the marriage business or stop imposing it'a outdated morality on those who like their animals.
Also, you've heard of people leaving all of their belongings to their pets and it's considered legal. If they can do that, why not marriage as well?; 7/29/10, 12:26 AM
sunsong said...: But if it's an issue of govt control that bugs people, don't petition the govt demanding rights. Marriage is just a piece of paper. People can have relationships that don't involve the govts involvement.

When you come to this thread, the first picture you see has someone holding up a sign that reads:

“Equality for all people”

My view is that gays aren’t demanding rights. They already have the same *rights* as everyone else. They are asking for equality under the law. Meaning that they want the same liberties as everyone else enjoys. And that means, since government recognizes heterosexual marriages, that government also recognize homosexual marriages. If you don’t want government involved in marriage – I’m fine with that. But that is not the case now – nor do I see any effort to change it.

Soooo, that means, to me, that gays will continue to point out that they are not afforded the same liberties as everyone else. This really isn’t difficult to understand, I don’t think. I think the resistance is that so many people have judged homosexuality as a *sin* - and something they desire to condemn – so the whole idea of it being considered “different but equal” to them absolutely appalls them.

However, they are not honest enough to say that :-)

So we get all these absurd arguments like “it’s always been this way” – “gays marrying is going to lead to people marrying dogs” or polygamy or whatever alarmist ideas they can come up with.

Change is the one constant, right? :-)

Things change. People who can’t adapt – or people who hold deep-seated prejudices – resist change.

It seems to me that the far right does not really believe in Love. They seem convinced that if gays marry - the entire populace will become degenerate or worse. What that tells me is that they have a very low opinion of humanity and of themselves, sadly. That view, such a fearful belief system, deserves compassion, surely. I feel compassion for people who are fearful and distrusting of their fellow human beings. But I certainly don’t want them in charge of anything. Fearful people become vicious and punitive. I prefer seeing us move toward greater freedom and self-determination. And that means, imo, more and more an attitude of live and let live.

We are a country of over 300,000,000. Over three-hundred million people! We don’t all believe the same things :-) We aren’t going to all agree :-) So, I like moving toward a society that allows the greatest freedom and self-determination (with responsibility) and the least government possible. And I think that means coming to peace with the idea that there are people who live their lives in ways that I don’t agree with or even approve of. And that they are truly free to do that. It’s not my place to tell them how to live their lives. And it’s not your place to tell me how to live mine.; 7/29/10, 12:28 AM
sunsong said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/29/10, 12:29 AM
jr565 said...: sunsong wrote:
When you come to this thread, the first picture you see has someone holding up a sign that reads:

“Equality for all people”

Again though you're hitting on the very problem with the gay marriage argument. You or the sign is saying Equality for ALL people, which again implies there should be no restrictions placed on marriage for anyone. Because is there equality for a polygamist now? Is there equality for a father who wants to marry his daughter now? Or someone who wants to marry his dog? Do proponents of gay marriage REALLY want ALL relationships to be equal?

Societies value certain relationships over others for the simple reason that those relationships are deemed important for promoting societies interests. IN the case of hetero marriage the simple case is it's men and women that have babies therfore there sould be a relationship that encourages the family to raise the child (and not have the state do it). The state doesn't care about love. People care about love. But it's not in the interest of the state to promote relationships where fathers have sex with their daughters (though it is done). Usually a father will wind up in jail though if he has sex with his daughter.
Do you really think that HIS relationship should be sanctioned? If not then the suggestion that "Equality for All People" is a lie.If you do, then frankly people should reject your argument because it's an argument that undermines society itself and doesn't just effect gay miarraige at all.
Gays should be honest and not resort to this bogus argument. And they should accept the fact that because their relationship is a different relationship than a marriage (and you can determine this simply by looking at what a marriage is - there's a bride and a groom, it's a husband and a wife etc.) it should be one that is defined on it's own terms. Which is why the civil union is probably the better way to go. Who cares if a bigot wont marry two men in a church. It should'n't be gay peoples motive to force that bigot to not be a bigot that drives their zeal for marriage. Rather, they should simply accept that theirs is a different type of relationship, with different vocabulary assigned to it, that may not be sanctioned by churches but that could be sanctioned by govt as what it is a civil union. And then strengthen the civil unions so that their rights coincide with that of marriage.

Saying that more than half the country is bigoted only alienates more than half the country. Because they, and you should know that when the institution was setup in this country it wasn't the intent to exclude gays out of malice.; 7/29/10, 1:25 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/29/10, 1:29 AM
Revenant said...: Why are you so bigoted man? Who's to say that both sides need to consent?

If you don't understand why consent is important, there's no point in bothering to explain it to you.

Some people just have no morals.; 7/29/10, 2:40 AM
Fen said...: It seems to me that the far right does not really believe in Love.

No, you're just ignornant.

If you're going to preach tolerance, start by trying to understand why the other side doesn't agree with you.

hint: its not because they hate gays or hate love.; 7/29/10, 5:16 AM
Fen said...: Where one or both sides can't legally consent to a contract.

So an adult female wants to marry her father. Whats the problem?; 7/29/10, 5:18 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: jr565: Societies value certain relationships over others for the simple reason that those relationships are deemed important for promoting societies interests.

That's such a bull shit argument.

Marriage, and the accompanying symbols--a party in front of the community, the wearing of some visual marker such as a ring--lets the community know that the couple is "a couple" and that wooing of any of the parties involved will not be appreciated. It keeps people from killing each other.

Who cares if a bigot wont marry two men in a church.

Many people would make their decision on which church to go to based on that decision. And when THE STATE wont marry two men and THE STATE is a bigot, everyone should help to stop it.; 7/29/10, 5:39 AM
Methadras said...: James said...

The point in my analogy is that yes, you can say there is a demand to discriminate or to be prejudicial, even if all you are doing is "making the argument that the status quo be left in place," if the status quo is discriminatory or prejudicial.

Good lord, didn't think that would be so hard to understand. Perhaps instead of George Wallace, I should have used supporters of the bans on interracial marriage at issue in Loving v. Virgina. I guess I just didn't figure my point would so easily go over your head. So with that, a hearty "fuck you" to you too.

And I say to you, that again your analogy is moronic and here is why. Twice now you've invoked the imagery of race, one with Wallace and segregation and now with Loving v. Virginia. Both were race based. Homosexual marriage is not race based at all. Unless you are going tell me that race/ethnicity equals homosexuality or sexual orientation and if you do, then you are a bigger dumbfuck than I thought. Stop fixating on moral equivalencies based on the color of skin. It cheapens your argument and only makes you look like a race obsessive. I don't see color, I see content and merit of character. You and your kind however...; 7/29/10, 11:06 AM
Methadras said...: peter hoh said...

methadras, yes, I know Brian Brown doesn't speak for you. I thought you would be amused/chagrined to hear that he was laying claim to the very thing you were decrying.

Point taken. I'm actually both amused and chagrined that this is the tact that would be taken. Arguments like these have to stand on their own merits, not have them glommed onto prior issues as moral equivalencies. That annoys me more than anything. Let the issue stand on it's own and fight it from that POV.; 7/29/10, 11:13 AM
Methadras said...: Paul said...

Question...

If gay mariage is ok, then what about polygyny or polyandry.. or children?

Or humans marrying animals? Trees?

So where do you stop?

Well, some guy in Korea married his pillow, so I guess, to some degree, maybe homosexuals can hold out hope after all.; 7/29/10, 11:14 AM
Geoff Matthews said...: Methadras,

Some woman married the Eiffel Tower.

Jason,

Fidelity among male homosexuals is a fringe, in practice and in value. Fidelity among male-female couples is the norm, if not in practice then in value. Granted it has been about 10 years since I've read the research, but studies among male homosexual partners found no instances where long-term couples practiced monogamy (no sex outside of the partnership). While open-relationships are increasing among male-female couples, it is a fringe movement. Monogamy among homosexual males is a fringe movement.; 7/29/10, 12:30 PM
Revenant said...: So an adult female wants to marry her father. Whats the problem?

I would say that there isn't one. If they want to have children, though, I think there's a good case for government intervention due to the harm it might cause the child.; 7/29/10, 12:46 PM
Revenant said...: Fidelity among male homosexuals is a fringe, in practice and in value. Fidelity among male-female couples is the norm, if not in practice then in value.

So using your mind-reading powers, you have determined that while hetero men routinely cheat, deep down THEY want to be loyal, whereas those dastardly homosexuals don't even want to be loyal in the first place?

What a bunch of weasel-worded nonsense.; 7/29/10, 12:56 PM
Methadras said...: Jason (the commenter) said...

That's such a bull shit argument.

No more than the one where you are fearing for your life from some imaginary homophobe lurking and lying in wait to jump out of the bushes to murder you in your dockers, dinner jacket, and ascot. I made that last part up because I needed ridiculous imagery to go with your ridiculous assertions.

wv = iclacu = something an asian homophobe will say to Jason before giving him sepiku. RUN JASON!!! RUN!!!; 7/29/10, 1:28 PM
Geoff Matthews said...: Revanant,

I'd invite you to read the research on male homosexual relationships. For instance, try googling gay monogamy. Or browse google scholar.

I admit that men are more promiscuous than men. That aint rocket science. But the women equation tends to steer men towards monogamy. I LIKE that norm. That's a norm that is missing with male homosexuals.; 7/29/10, 4:41 PM
jr565 said...: Jason the commentor wrote:
Marriage, and the accompanying symbols--a party in front of the community, the wearing of some visual marker such as a ring--lets the community know that the couple is "a couple" and that wooing of any of the parties involved will not be appreciated. It keeps people from killing each other.

Right, society promotes marriage not because it deems it beneficial but because it likes ceremonies? Then wouldnt society promote gay marriages since gays usually have the best parties?
What you are desribing is what people like about marriages, not what societies value about it. And actually you could argue that society doesnt' want people to murder each other therefore it promotes a relationship that prevents that murder, but that doesn't invalidate the main reason society values marriage. It's the natural relationship found in humans. A male and a female which produce babies, babies that the society doesn't want to take care of. So it promotes the relationship that best provides that model and which allows for the continuance of society (absent third parties, gays and lesbians will not do so, hence society is ambivalent about promoting said relationships).
But if you're right, then perhaps the way gays can get gay marriage approved is for gays to start killing one another over their relationships. Then society will say "Whoah, if we don't legalize marriage for gays, they're all going to kill each other".
If it sounds ludicrous, then that's beause it probably is. And anyway, why would society need to provide benefits to married couples to stop the from killing each other. Couldn't people do that on their own. They could have ceremonies and provide rings and don't need the govts approval to tell people they are bethrothed and not to pick the fruit from that particular tree. And if someone kills a bride or groom, there are laws on the books to deal with that too. Laws against murder for example.; 7/29/10, 5:40 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Geoff, would it be okay with you if we just let the lesbians marry?

And what would you propose we do with straight men who have poor track records when it comes to monogamy?; 7/29/10, 5:50 PM
Blue@9 said...: @DBQ:
I couldn't get a priest or rabbi to officiate my marriage because my wife and I are atheists.

If you are atheists, why would you try to have a religious wedding?

Why would you care. And more to the point, why should the church or synagogue waste their time on you if you were not going to convert to their religion.

Up until this point, I was on your side....no I just think you are a selfish asshole.

Wow, way to miss the point. I *didn't* try to get a religious wedding. My point is that religious marriage and legal marriage are two separate animals. My marriage didn't require sanction by a religion, nor did my non-religious marriage do anything to harm any religion's definition of marriage. But great job on the reading comprehension.; 7/29/10, 5:52 PM
Blue@9 said...: "Question...

If gay mariage is ok, then what about polygyny or polyandry.. or children?

Or humans marrying animals? Trees?

So where do you stop?"

Easy. Marriage should be between two consenting adults. This removes the possibility of marrying trees, animals, or children.

As for polygamy, it's a practical problem. Our system is set up to handle two people in a relationship, but it gets significantly harder when you have more than two. It would certainly set up large amounts of fraud--why wouldn't you induce a bunch of poor people to marry you for the tax benefits? You'd also have to have additional contracts to deal with survivorship or custody rights. Simply letting two people of any sex marry doesn't introduce such issues.; 7/29/10, 5:57 PM
Blue@9 said...: @Pogo:
"No one is forcing churches to do anything."
Yet. Why do you think lawsuits wouldn't be immediately follow a state or federal law? And for a gummint that has little compunction about interfering in every other aspect of my life (due to our "living Constitution that says whatever the hell they want it to say), why you think the State would not interfere in that arena is a mystery.

Well, for one thing the First Amendment would certainly stand as a bar to gov't interference in religious doctrine. The gov't doesn't tell Jews whom they can accept for conversion, why would the gov't start telling them whom they must marry?

Again, we're talking about legal marriage, the kind where you go to city hall and fill out a marriage certificate.; 7/29/10, 6:02 PM
Revenant said...: Revanant, I'd invite you to read the research on male homosexual relationships.

I have, and I have encountered the claim that there are "no instances where long-term couples practiced monogamy". This claim is always based on the same handful of studies from twenty or thirty years ago, endlessly recycled by anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council.

But you went one better, and claimed that it isn't valued by more than a fringe. There's no research to back that claim. You can't even derive it from the relative frequency of hetero and homosexual promiscuity, because there are too many variables other than "values" that discourage promiscuity in heterosexuals and encourage it in homosexuals.; 7/29/10, 6:45 PM
jr565 said...: Blue@9 wrote;

Easy. Marriage should be between two consenting adults. This removes the possibility of marrying trees, animals, or children.

Do you think that denying 3 people from marriage is or isn't discrimination? IF it isn't explain why not, but if it is, then arent you as bigoted as those who are against gay marriage?; 7/29/10, 6:50 PM
Revenant said...: What you are desribing is what people like about marriages, not what societies value about it.

What does society value about marriage, and what is your evidence that it values those things and nothing more?

A male and a female which produce babies, babies that the society doesn't want to take care of. So it promotes the relationship that best provides that model and which allows for the continuance of society

First of all, you shouldn't treat "society" and "government" as if they meant the same thing. For example, our government places little or no income tax burden on the majority of the population and an overwhelming share of the income tax burden on the smartest and most productive workers. But would the statement "our society dislikes intelligence and productivity and values freeloading" really be accurate? It would be more accurate to say that we live in a democratic republic, and so legal recognition of marriage extends to cover a majority of the population's marriages. Because that's how they vote. "Society" has little to do with it, because there are countless marriages that "society" frowns on which are nevertheless completely legal.

Secondly, we allow couples that cannot reproduce to marry. We don't even require fertility tests or a stated intent to have children. In fact, both our society and our government recognize that a couple can legitimately enter into a "real marriage" with the stated intent of never, ever having any children at all. So any attempt to claim that our model for marriage is based on reproduction is obviously ridiculous. Reproduction is the biological reason why we, like many other animals, developed long-term male-female relationships. But society's reasons for marriage have little to do with crude biology.; 7/29/10, 7:07 PM
Methadras said...: peter hoh said...

Geoff, would it be okay with you if we just let the lesbians marry?

And what would you propose we do with straight men who have poor track records when it comes to monogamy?

These arguments are getting ridiculous in the picking of nits. If you are going to go that far, then you might as well provide a test to any American that wants to get married to test their validity to be married. That would require making judgments again on who is fit and who is not. Oh no, more discrimination. Oh dear.; 7/29/10, 9:55 PM
Methadras said...: Revenant said...

Secondly, we allow couples that cannot reproduce to marry.

In reality, many couples that can't reproduce usually don't realize it until after the fact that they are married. Or they try to reproduce before and after marriage even to the point of failure or age. It's not the fact that they don't try, because biologically they can try whereas homosexuals in a 'marriage' can't even go that far within the 'marriage' due to their biology.

The argument could be made that homosexual adoption is a projection of the homosexual wanting to procreate and yet for whatever reason can't, won't, or chooses another way to obtain a child to love and nurture that needs it, which would or could further the argument even more about the real totality of homosexuality, procreation, and it's biological component.; 7/29/10, 10:02 PM
Peter Hoh said...: methadras, yes, I know that we've entered the silly stage in this debate.

I do wish we could have a national discussion and somehow put a civil union compromise on the table, but there's no vehicle for such a proposal.; 7/29/10, 11:50 PM
Revenant said...: In reality, many couples that can't reproduce usually don't realize it until after the fact that they are married.

Sure. But some know it -- and, more importantly, WE know it -- before they get married. For example, I know a couple in their 70s who got married a few years ago. Was it a real marriage? If you answer "yes" then you can't turn around and cite reproductive capacity as the basis for real marriage.

Oh, sorry. I forgot the scare quotes. Gotta be sure to put those scare quotes around the non-reproductive marriages!; 7/30/10, 2:36 AM
Blue@9 said...: Do you think that denying 3 people from marriage is or isn't discrimination? IF it isn't explain why not, but if it is, then arent you as bigoted as those who are against gay marriage?

I thought I explained it quite well. There are practical, nondiscriminatory reasons to limit it to two people. It's easy to deal with marriage between two individuals, but it gets way too complicated once you get to three, four, or more.

There's no practical reason why the gov't can't recognize two men or two women getting married, but if you have a man and three women getting married you're introducing a bunch of issues that the current system can't handle. Are the three women married to each other too? If it's a round robin marriage, what happens if two of the individuals want to divorce? (Say there are four people, A, B, C, and D. All are married to each other, but then A and D have a fight and get divorced. So A and D are married to two people and B and C are married to three--you see the potential problems here?) If one of the four dies, who has survivorship rights? Who gets custody of kids if one woman leaves? What's to prevent a person from getting tax benefits by approaching 100 homeless people and paying them each $20 to marry him?; 7/30/10, 4:50 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Hey, if there's anybody who is not totally sick of this topic, here's a great Fresh Air interview that touches on civil unions and related issues.

From the summary:

Cizik says that he still strongly believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to obtain civil unions.

"While I haven't come to a conclusion on [gay marriage], I am convinced that you can't deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation. It's wrong," he says. "It's even wrong, I think, as Christians to take that position. Because we should support human rights for all people even when they don't agree with us."; 7/30/10, 10:30 PM
Methadras said...: Revenant said...

Sure. But some know it -- and, more importantly, WE know it -- before they get married. For example, I know a couple in their 70s who got married a few years ago. Was it a real marriage? If you answer "yes" then you can't turn around and cite reproductive capacity as the basis for real marriage.

Oh, sorry. I forgot the scare quotes. Gotta be sure to put those scare quotes around the non-reproductive marriages!

First of all, the 'scare' quotes weren't intended to frighten, rather to mock the concept of marriage as it relates to homosexuals. As to the issue of calling 70 year old heterosexuals (I assume) getting married as a real marriage, not because they can't reproduce, but because in the 70's there is an assumption that they won't and shouldn't, which doesn't negate their marriage at all. Now, even under your criteria, I'd be for homosexual marriage if the couple was in their 70's. lol.; 7/31/10, 1:17 PM