March 29, 2013

Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: "This issue is lost."

Fascinating to hear it phrased that way by Rush Limbaugh, who for years — for mockery purposes — has played the audio clip of Harry Reid saying "This war is lost."

The Reid clip works as mockery because Reid was so wrong, wrong about the war being lost and wrong to express the demoralizing opinion. So in Rush's statement yesterday I hear a little nudge, a little cue that the issue isn't lost. Rush is answering an email from someone who feels that Rush has never expressed his opinion on gay marriage, and Rush begins with "Is my position on this really not known?"

This is a great teaser, keeping us listening at the end of the third hour of the show, which has already been full of talk about gay marriage. We're brought up short: Do we really not know what Rush thinks on the subject? He shifts away from that topic to a reverie about a conversation with a friend about "the left" and "the language game." We're looking at the show transcript here, but as a subscriber to the website, I'm hearing the audio as well, and it's slow and drawn out, like he's going to circle around before he gets to answering that emailed question, which nags me: I find myself assuming that Rush doesn't really care what gay people do in their private lives. He's not bound enough to tradition to have kept his own marriage vows, having divorced 3 times, and he hasn't put his life's energy into raising children. If gay people want to commit to monogamy, let them have their go at it. Good luck being better at it than I've been. That's what I think he thinks.

But I've got to listen to this disquisition on the left and language, which right away reminds me of how lefties are always whining that the right wins through "framing" — calling the estate tax the "death tax" and so forth. Both sides do things with language, and Rush is a master at pulling apart the other side's language (which, of course, entails substituting preferred language).
The language game, the left really excels at changing the language to benefit them politically, and they do it in such a way that a lot of people on our side have no idea what's happened until it's too late and the issue is already lost, which this issue is. This issue is lost. I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable -- and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this. I mentioned the other day that I've heard people talk about "opposite-sex marriage," or you might have had heard people say "traditional marriage."

You might have heard people say "hetero-marriage." I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word "marriage" to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it, because marriage is one thing....
The social conservatives were playing a corresponding language game the whole time. They were relying — much too heavily — on the assertion that marriage has a fixed definition restricting it to one man and one woman.  If anything, the social conservatives insisted on framing the argument with the definition of the word marriage. "Opposite-sex marriage" is a retronym, like "snail mail." The existence/acceptance of the retronym proves the meaning of the root word has changed. Rush speaks in terms of "allowing" something like this to happen, but you can't control the evolution of the language that way.

The anti-gay-marriage side needed much more than a language argument. It lost not because the pro side did something with language. The pro side developed arguments about fairness, equality, and privacy. The traditional marriage people kept talking about the definition of marriage, which made it look more and more as though they had no good argument on the underlying substance. That's why they lost. Would they have lost even more quickly if they'd been less dictionary-focused and had concentrated on fairness, equality, and privacy? Either they were shallow or they were smart. That is, either they didn't know how to delve into the underlying principles at stake or they knew they'd get into trouble venturing beyond the definition-of-marriage argument.

Rush goes on to assert that the idea the marriage is between a man and a woman "was not established on the basis of discrimination."
It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. "Marriage" is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way. 
No. That's not the pro-gay-marriage argument. No one thinks marriage was designed for the purpose of excluding gay people. The argument is only that there is an exclusion that we are now able to see. If someone points out that you're standing on his foot, you'd say I'm sorry and move your foot. You wouldn't say It's not as if I deliberately stomped on your foot and then keep standing on his foot. The continued behavior is mean. That's the meanness "the left" — along with many moderates and righties — has made many people believe. It has become mean. I believe that, and not just because Rush and others have "allowed the left to have people believe." Allowed!

Rush continues:
I would go so far as to say that there are some people who think marriage is an evil Republican idea, simply because they're the ones that want to hold on to it. 
That's hard to understand because he's using the restricted definition of "marriage." I almost wrote Huh? No one seems to be saying marriage is evil anymore.
So far as I'm concerned, once we started talking about "gay marriage," "traditional marriage," "opposite-sex marriage," "same-sex marriage," "hetero-marriage," we lost.  It was over.  It was just a matter of time.  This is the point a friend of mine sent me a note about.

"Once you decide to modify the word 'marriage,' then the other side has won, or at least they're 90% of the way home.  The best thing that 'marriage' had going for it was basically what they teach you the first day in law school: 'If you hang a sign on a horse that says "cow," it does not make it a cow,' although today it might."  That's where we are: 5 + 5 could = 11, if it works for the Democrats.  A cow could be a horse, if it works for the Democrats. 
Yes, the best argument was the words-have-meaning argument, but law school doesn't end on the first day, and the meaning of words is a complex topic. It's not like adding 5 + 5. I know there are a lot of jokes about lawyers like the client asking what's 5 + 5 and the lawyer answering "What do you want it to be?" In fact, I think I heard that joke on my first day in law school. But law isn't arithmetic, and people's lives are not numbers, and the question of what is right and wrong can't be done on a calculator. In fact, it's morally wrong to treat human beings as if they are numbers that can be added and subtracted mechanically.

Back to Rush:
The thing is, discrimination has never been a part of marriage.

It evolved as the best way to unite men and women in raising a family and in cohabitating a life.  It's not perfect.  The divorce rate's what it is.  But it evolved with a purpose.  It was not a creation of a bunch of elitists wanting to deny people a good time.  It was not created as something to deny people "benefits," but it became that once we started bastardizing the definition.  But discrimination is not an issue, and it never was.  No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits.
Right. No one sensible.... See how he's conceding there's no legitimate reason for the discrimination? In law — this is something you learn after the first day of law school — discrimination between classes of persons must be supported by a legitimate government interest. That's always an issue. You can't say that we didn't originally notice this discrimination. It must be justified. This is called the "rational basis" test, and it's the question right now before the Supreme Court. Rush has conceded the irrationality: No one sensible would deny gay people what government makes depend on being married.
There's nobody that wants to deny them that.  The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition.  By definition -- solely, by definition -- same-sex people cannot be married.  So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been.
So he's in my "smart" category. He knows the definition-of-marriage argument is the only good argument. There is no other argument. Once that is lost, the game is lost. For the social conservatives — in this view — the only game was the language game.

At this point in the monologue, it becomes comical with a far-fetched analogy to someone who complains that they want the money and fame that someone else has. "I want to be an Obama... It's not fair that I can't be an Obama.... They're discriminating against me!" Rush is stretching for time now and retreating to the familiar ground of Obama and the redistribution of wealth, which is far from the problem of inequality enforced by law. This silly stuff goes on and on up to the commercial break, after which he says he's "just illustrating absurdity by being absurd." But he didn't illustrate absurdity. He ran from his own realization that the definition-of-marriage argument wasn't good enough and that in the end it was not a language game. It was real life.

And now he's out of time:
Just trying to point out what happens if we lose definitions, which is why we are where we are here.  People refuse to stand fast on the definition of something. 
But the anti-gay-marriage people did stand fast. They stood on the only decent ground they had, and they fought there, and they lost not because of words, but because of moral feelings that developed on a deeper level, a level where the antis chose — wisely! — not to go.

And did you notice? Rush never answered the question asked! He mentioned law school: When I — a law professor — grade exams, I only give credit for answering the question asked. He got on a riff and filled the page, but I haven't forgotten the question: "Is my position on this really not known?"

But this isn't a law school exam. It's a radio show. And the riff was great radio, and he's got everyone talking about it this morning, including me, a law professor. What was the question anyway? He posed it himself! It was: "Is my position on this really not known?"

I'll answer that question. The answer is: No!

260 comments:

1 – 200 of 260   Newer›   Newest»
Will Cate said...

Yes. I had the same impression listening to his show yesterday.

Astro said...

I though Megan McArdle's blog about the issue the other day was very on-point. That society has almost gone through the complete arc from free love and anti-materialism and no one getting married in the early 1970s, to now gays demanding the 'right' to be married so they can secure their finances. I remember a time when the intelligentsia scoffed at the notion of marriage; it's so odd to hear them completely flipped on the issue.

carrie said...

But the key is whether monogamy will be part of gay marriage. No one talks about the morals of a gay marriage because they are afraid of having a public conversation on that issue. People who don't know any gays have a view of gay marriage as being the same a heterosexual marriage. I have a lot of gay friends and I know that you should not simply assume that that will be the case.

m11_9 said...

Isn't 'marriage' more a legal construct of the last couple hundred years, which before was socially enforced? Its "of the era" of expanding government control into our lives, IMO.

I guess I just don't care about the legal definition of marriage, and personally don't believe it has a deep heritage to preserve.

Young people are voting with their feet by largely bypassing marriage. Why do gays want it?

It should be a church event, recorded like a baptism. Not even recorded in a government office at all.

jr565 said...

The anti-gay-marriage side needed much more than a language argument. It lost not because the pro side did something with language. The pro side developed arguments about fairness, equality, and privacy. The traditional marriage people kept talking about the definition of marriage, which made it look more and more as though they had no good argument on the underlying substance. That's why they lost. Would they have lost even more quickly if they'd been less dictionary-focused and had concentrated on fairness, equality, and privacy? Either they were shallow or they were smart. That is, either they didn't know how to delve into the underlying principles at stake or they knew they'd get into trouble venturing beyond the definition-of-marriage argument.


Marriage has moved from society prmoting a relationship that is promoted because it furthers society to one that must be fair, equal and values privacy.
So, althouse. You said you were against incest and polygamy ans society could offer up alternative reasons why such things should be restricted.

Are those reasons more important than equality, fairness and those that value privacy?
So it may not be in society's intersect to promote incest or to validate incest, but is it equal not to? Is it fair to to? Is it in the interest of privacy not to?
You literally have zero arguments to restrict any marriage at this point.

Guimo said...

Rush is wrong. Homosexual "marriage" will never succeed. It is contrary to the laws of nature. It makes no difference how many men and women in black robes say otherwise. If approved by plebiscite state by state,there will ultimately be an uprising by society against homosexuality, and homosexuals will be treated the way they were 200 years ago.

Ann Althouse said...

@Carrie Monogamy -- or what I think you mean, not committing adultery -- is a cultural norm, but the government is doing nothing to enforce it. It's not imposed (by government) on hetero-married people, so I don't see how you can argue that gay people will degrade marriage by not sufficiently upholding the monogamy norm.

I didn't see anyone in the Supreme Court cases taking the position that excluding gay people served the legitimate interest in fighting adultery. If gays can marry and if they commit adultery more than heterosexuals do, then marriage is less effective at controlling adultery?

Actually, Cooper got close to saying something like that at oral argument, as I blogged here.

Crimso said...

As someone who "supports" SSM by not opposing it (I don't give a damn who anybody marries; what does it matter to me?), I guess this post is as a good a place as any among the avalanche of SSM posts of late to ask what I feel is a critical question.

Do the supporters of SSM (particularly the mixed race couples who have signs pointing out their marriages used to be illegal), upon scaling the walls, intend to pull the ladders up after them? Or will they do the right and intellectually consistent thing and reach their hands down to help the polygamists across? Because at that point the SSM couples can hold up signs as well saying that their marriages used to be illegal. The polygamists have to hold up signs saying their marriages are STILL illegal. How is that fair? Particularly when polygamy has a MUCH longer and well-established role throughout human history.

Not that I would practice polygamy were it legal. I have no desire to practice SSM either. I am a disinterested observer who gets suspicious when I see people vigorously pushing for something but being intellectually inconsistent in their reasoning.

campy said...

Every issue is lost for the Gone Obsolete Party.

bpm4532 said...

Given the high divorce rate which should equate either to the failure of marriage as an institution or the low esteem it's practitioners hold of it's vows, shouldn't gay people be aiming for something a bit, higher?

Why don't they establish their own commitment ceremony, terminology and track record of success and hold it up as something better?

This is why I think at the core, this is not about civil rights, but retribution and reparations, just like in other "civil rights" efforts today.

Shouting Thomas said...

The problem is precisely that this issue has landed in the laps of lawyers. The power of lawyers has to be broken. It's already being undermined in certain ways by economic reality, i.e., the recession.

Tradition is precisely the reason to fight off this attack on marriage.

We've endured a multi-generational attack on tradition. It started with the assumption that tradition should be critiqued, and has now advanced to the notion that tradition should be assumed to be false and arbitrary.

The feminist assault on the patriarchy is to blame, and the solution is the re-assertion of the patriarchy.

You are the worst possible person to consult on these issues, Althouse, because your thinking is totally corrupted with this assault on tradition and intellectual legalism. The power that you and your lawyer colleagues posses needs to be broken.

It's a mess that will only get worse. The vanity of your ego over your intellect is approaching the size of the universe.

Now, I will go enjoy my day and forget about this shit. I still honor the wisdom and traditions of my father and his father. You've only been here on this earth a short time, Althouse. Your desire for intellectual novelty has lead you astray.

You're a very interesting woman, Althouse, and you're completely wrong. You are suffering the Temptation of Eve, but you fancy that you are experiencing something entirely original. I quit the employment at my lifetime job at a hugely powerful corporate law firm precisely to negate the influence that women like you had over my life.

Freder Frederson said...

Gee, finally figuring out that Rush is an intellectually lazy no-nothing who can't articulate a reasonable argument?

Freder Frederson said...

I though Megan McArdle's blog about the issue the other day was very on-point.

McArdle made no sense either.

Erika said...

My concern with all of this continues to be--if we legalize it so we can ST everlovin' FU about it already--does gay marriage as an institution become open to criticism and analysis and disagreement, or will it be illegal and discriminatory for me to hold and articulate the belief that gay marriage (and poly marriage, which you know is coming next) is negative for society and especially for children?

I suspect that it is going to be like it is with Obama, wherein electing the mofo wasn't enough to prove that America isn't generally racist, but we still have to hear that any opposition or disagreement with the man is because he's half black and we're haters. America may have become OK with gays and gay marriage in a stunningly short amount of time, and even people who are opposed to recognition of gay marriage would almost without exception never dream of harming gay people or interfere with their private sex lives and legal arrangements--but we will get no credit for that--any reservations anyone expresses about the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle will be hate speech according to the grievancemongers.

Freder Frederson said...

I suspect that it is going to be like it is with Obama, wherein electing the mofo wasn't enough to prove that America isn't generally racist

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are not a racist asshole when you call the president of the United States a mother fucker?

Dante said...

The state has a legitimate interest in encouraging and fostering the next generation, does it not? That's the primary purpose of marriage, is create a good environment to procreate. And so, government has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples as their marriage is very highly likely to produce offspring.

There is your argument that you claim doesn't exist, Ann. Or you keep ignoring it. I'm not sure.

Shouting Thomas said...

What we have here, I repeat in short form, is the problem of too many lawyers with too much influence over our lives.

Oso Negro said...

bpm4532 - This is not about reparations and retribution, nor is it about creating a gay institution that is more fabulous than the straight edition. It is simply a step in a general effort to mainstream homosexual culture and homosexual practices. If you think that a Supreme Court establishing homosexual marriage is going to cause gay activists to simply meld into the fabric of American society, you will be wrong. There will be a continued assault on hetero-normative language, institutions, and social practices.

Renee said...

Seriously, when I would mention everyone has a mother and father, hence we have relationship to stabilize the needs of children I was scoffed at.


People just don't care about marriage, so they don't care if it is redefined. They wouldn't care if we called everything civil unions, either. That's all. If I bring up father absence and the data, I've even been told to 'f*ck off' that it's not their problem. It has nothing to do with equality, freedom, or privacy.

Early as 2006, fatherlessness costs the federal government alone almost 100 billions dollars.

"The Federal Government spent at least $99.8 billion providing assistance to father-absent homes in 2006.
This is a conservative estimate; it does not include federal benefit programs for communities, indirect costs related to poor outcomes of children from father-absent homes, and long-term costs in reduced tax income from low-earning single-parent families"

Otherwise, a friend posted on Facebook of an image listing all the companies the support marriage equality.

But isn't liberals that teach us not to trust corporations. What I see is representation of the 1%. Corporations care about one thing and that is money. They don't care about marriage or broken homes. BFor instance Amazon was neutral until the marriage vote in Washington State, until they were bullied into giving 2 million dollars for the campaign. What is this the mob?

Gay marriage didn't win on reason or logic, just social media pressure not to be cool. The marketing of cool, has been apart of corporate strategy on young adults for decades, they did it with a political agenda. Campaigning isn't about making a thoughtful decision, it is about selling yourself hoping they vote for you in the same manner corporations want a consumer to purchase their product.

Some of my progressive friends, who live in a distressed urban areas like myself have a better understanding of my argument then married moms in suburbia where no one is a single parent and just think I'm homophobic.



If you see the defenders of marriage, it is the the religious within the minority urban communities,

"“They are not suffering what we suffered, and I sympathize with people who face discrimination. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, but what they’re going through does not compare to what we went through,” Owens said.

“There is no comparison, and for many years, the African-American family and community have been under assault from all sides – abortion, single family households, poverty and a failing education system,” he added.

Owens said for the gay community to try to change the definition of marriage will be “devastating to all of our families.”

“Perhaps, you were not old enough to be with me in the civil rights movement in the late 50s or the early 60s, but I’m marching again, and this time I’m marching to defend marriage between a man and a woman,” he concluded."

----------

Minorities and poor people have no money, so we don't get a say in public policy.

Ann Althouse said...

"Do the supporters of SSM (particularly the mixed race couples who have signs pointing out their marriages used to be illegal), upon scaling the walls, intend to pull the ladders up after them? Or will they do the right and intellectually consistent thing and reach their hands down to help the polygamists across? Because at that point the SSM couples can hold up signs as well saying that their marriages used to be illegal. The polygamists have to hold up signs saying their marriages are STILL illegal. How is that fair? Particularly when polygamy has a MUCH longer and well-established role throughout human history."

1. Are you talking about allowing polygamists to register multiple marriages for legal purposes (taxes, benefits, etc.) or only talking about the way there are sometimes actual criminal prosecutions against groups of persons who live together and call themselves married (or do religious ceremonies in which they say things using marriage words)?

2. The fact that there is a long tradition of using the word "marriage" to refer to plural marriages, including much talk in the Bible, severely undercuts the language argument about the stable definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

3. I don't think the definition of marriage argument is the basis of including gay people in marriage. The reasons are substantive: fairness, equality, privacy.

DADvocate said...

The SSM issue is overblown. I'm wondering what percentage of gays will ever marry. As Carrie addresses, are they really that interested in monogamy? It's a red herring.

Obama and the lefties pretend to be interested in increasing gay rights while robbing/denying us of 2nd amendment rights, privacy, equal treatment under the law, and more. Allowing greater sexual freedom serves as a diversion to the oppression they otherwise impose.

Oso Negro said...

Erika - Yes, you will be compelled to pretend that the pathology of homosexuality is a social good. In all likelihood this will be the gateway perversion for a well-stocked shop of future horrors.

Erika said...

Freder, "mofo" is vulgar slang for "guy," which has no racial meaning at all.

And thank you for proving my point.

Ann Althouse said...

"does gay marriage as an institution become open to criticism and analysis and disagreement, or will it be illegal and discriminatory for me to hold and articulate the belief that gay marriage (and poly marriage, which you know is coming next) is negative for society and especially for children?"

Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you.

You could get into legal trouble expressing these opinions in the workplace, however. It could be characterized as harassment, but that's already a risk in the law.

DavidD said...

So how long before the Catholic Church loses a lawsuit for refusing to marry homosexuals?

Balfegor said...

You can't say that we didn't originally notice this discrimination. It must be justified. This is called the "rational basis" test, and it's the question right now before the Supreme Court.

Well, how does rational basis work? If there's a legitimate government interest served by promoting normal marriage that is not served by promoting same-sex marriage, isn't that sufficient rational basis for promoting traditional marriage (through benefits, protections against adultery, etc.) but not promoting gay marriage?

Freder Frederson said...

government has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples as their marriage is very highly likely to produce offspring.

Except you ignore the fact that the government provides the same benefits to married couples who have no intention or ability to have children.

jr565 said...

Gay marriages reinforces the idea that marriage isn't there for the raising of children but just a relationship to be in. As we see, a lot of people are forgoing marriage anyway, but if marriage loses its primary purpose then people will find alternative ways to raise kids. Ie cohabitation or raising kids as single parents. These arent as good as marriage.

THis has occured in Norway and Sweden to a large degree, with the advent of gay marriage.

To become successful in this country you generally need to do three things. Go to school. Get a job and hold it for a period of time. And get married.(on average, there are exceptions to every rule).

If more and more people ar shaving their kids out of wedlock, long term it will not be beneficial for the parents or the kids. Marriage is supposed to be there as THE relationship you go to so as to raise kids. Being a bastard is not something you are supposed to promote, as a society. Gay marriage undermines this.

As I already said, I'm for civil unions that give gay people the rights they would have if they married. Br it shouldn't come t the expense of undermining the institution itself.

And all the arguments about fairness don't change the fact that the purpose for society to promote marriage is because of its traditional role and not simply because society wants to be match makers.

At the end of the day, what wil the percentage be of gays who end up even marrying?

Shouting Thomas said...

I got to get away from this shit and go enjoy the day.

The real struggle for freedom right now is to topple the fiefdom of lawyers. Althouse is a priestess of the cult.

I've stayed one step ahead of the cult by always having a hard technical skill. Hiring a quota baby doesn't cut it when you have real work to do. Now that I have a secure retirement, I can thumb my nose with impunity at the cult.

Althouse, I've made you and your lawyer cult irrelevant to my life. I don't have to kowtow to awful feminist women. It's wonderful. Thank you, Myrna, for directing me down this road.

Off on my bicycle ride.

Freder Frederson said...

Freder, "mofo" is vulgar slang for "guy," which has no racial meaning at all.

Bullshit.

And you seem to think freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom from criticism. They are not the same.

Freder Frederson said...

So how long before the Catholic Church loses a lawsuit for refusing to marry homosexuals?

About the same time it loses a lawsuit for refusing to ordain women. In other words, never.

wyo sis said...

"no nothing"
Not a typo.

MadisonMan said...

So how long before the Catholic Church loses a lawsuit for refusing to marry homosexuals?

That would be when the First Amendment of the Constitution is not enforced.

Dante said...

1. Are you talking about allowing polygamists to register multiple marriages for legal purposes (taxes, benefits, etc.) or only talking about the way there are sometimes actual criminal prosecutions against groups of persons who live together and call themselves married (or do religious ceremonies in which they say things using marriage words)?

In my view, polygamists are being discriminated against, since they are almost certainly doing the polygamy thing to have more kids. Not so with male homosexuals.

Russ said...

Re: polygamy

I assume he's referring to the US federal government cracking down on the mormon religion when Utah was a territory and it's requirements of outlawing polygamy as a condition of Utah being admitted to the union.

Personally, the federal government should remove "marriage" from the books entirely. If there's a compelling state interest in favoring long term relationships for the furtherance of society, then have them give those benefits to 'family units', of which a religious marriage, or a non-religious civil union is part of.

Otherwise it seems like its beginning to impinge upon the realm of religion, of which 'marriage' has deep meanings traditionally.

But that isn't good enough for the activists. It isn't about equal rights; it's about mandating approval. Otherwise the whole civil union (with equal rights) thing would have shut them up.

Icepick said...

But law isn't arithmetic....

Correct. In mathematics definitions are precise. In law definitions mean nothing. It's entirely an exercise in sophistry.

It's a tax, except when we're trying to pass the law when it's a mandate, except that then it IS a tax again when we're trying to get the lawyer assholes on the Supreme Court to legalize it, but we are not permitted to discuss it as a tax afterwards because that wouldn't be popular.

We're for due process, except when the President is a Democrat, and then we're for assassinating people indiscriminately, especially citizens and children, but the man giving the orders has a Peace Prize, so he's the greatest humanitarian on Earth. (Nothing's more peaceful than being dead, I suppose.) And of course lawyers that condemned another President for lesser crimes are now struggling mightily to claim that the current President doing the most moral and legal thing possible by pointing to names on a list and saying, "Kill that mofo, and all his fuckin' peeps, too." Not different lawyers, the exact same lawyers. (And of course I mean the most moral and legal thing possible other than fucking another man in the ass, which is at the apex of what is moral and just these days. Sorry all you carpet-munching ladies out there, how all-lady-sex sells (at least as long as all parties look about as good as Kate Upton) but it just isn't as moral as getting man-shit all over your wick. Still, you get the really HOT cover on TIME, so it isn't a total loss.)

And now marriage means something completely different than it did yesterday. All in the guise of stating that two men fucking each other in the ass has exactly the same consequences (from a LEGAL standpoint) as the more traditional kind of fucking. This follows naturally from children having two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father, and various other combinations that just aren't actually possible in Nature but are permitted in law. But hey, that Mother Nature isn't fair, so fuck her. (Preferably in the ass, of course, as we wouldn't want to offend anyone by postulating any other kind of fucking.)

Tomorrow two will mean "some number greater than one", and that will also be about fairness. Eventually some joker is going to try and marry him/herself. (If we're lucky it will be some transgender hermaphrodite type actually capable of fucking themselves with multiple sets of genitalia - expect film at eleven, or at least a reality show on MTV.) And then two will also mean one, because we shouldn't deny an individual the right to marry his/herself.

Face it, lawyers have become the instruments of the destruction of meaning.

Freder Frederson said...

"no nothing"

Typing too fast.

Bob Ellison said...

Another word that will have to change is one's own last (family) name. In practice, women have been able to freely jump back and forth between their birth (maiden) and married (adopted) last names forever, without much question. Banks, government, and society recognizes that Hillary Rodham is Hillary Clinton is Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's very useful to refer to "the Smiths", and it's awkward if one spouse doesn't change names. What are the kids? (Iceland has a nice solution, BTW.)

But Robert Ellison cannot be anything but just that.

How will instituting SSM change the situation? I would guess that banks, government, and the like will tend to become more strict on which name you adopt and use, and maintaining separate last names will become more common. This will tend to degrade the sense of the nuclear family. That's another cultural argument.

MadisonMan said...


And you seem to think freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom from criticism. They are not the same.

FWIW (nothing), I also read it as Mother Fucker. Curiously, however, I ascribe no race to that general term (although since it was applied to a black man...). How is using a general term to describe a black President racist?

Freder, I find your criticism, crying RACIST!!!!!!! whenever someone criticizes the President laughable.

Icepick said...

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are not a racist asshole when you call the president of the United States a mother fucker?

Calling someone a mother fucker is racist? Wow, all you lefties that keep calling everyone and anyone that isn't to the left of Stalin (or even Mao) a mother fucker must be racist too.

Hey, another case of a word losing all meaning! Out-fucking-standing!

creeley23 said...

I don't listen to Limbaugh as a rule, but I followed the link from Instapundit last night and listened. I too was unimpressed by Limbaugh's arguments.

No, the problem is not that conservatives allowed liberals to "bastardize" the word "marriage." Neither side gets to demand that language be frozen for their benefit, just as traditional physicists should not have been able to stop Einstein from theorizing about "space-time."

There is no way to discuss the possibility of gay marriage or same-sex marriage without using language like that, and in a free society we should be able to discuss it.

The anti-gay marriage position does depend on the traditional definition and it's a far more powerful argument than Althouse makes out. It's based on bedrock biological realities and social realities, while gay marriage is based on abstract ideas, emotions, and fashion.

In my view the traditional strictures against homosexuality are based on bottom-line survival concerns of past societies. If a tribe wandering in the desert a few thousand years ago was to survive into the future, it had to focus its sexual energies on procreation.

Even today in India it's a very big deal if your child is gay because that means no grandchildren from that child, which puts your retirement in jeopardy as well as your family line.

In the US we are prosperous enough that we can surive gay marriage but there will still be costs -- as with all liberal social engineering -- that the current debate refuses to reckon with and I don't believe will be offset by whatever gains gay marriage offers.

Erika said...

Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you.

Is it new information to anyone that this gay-rights circus has worked to create an army of self-righteous moralists whose primary purpose seems to express personal loathing of those who disagree with them?

You could get into legal trouble expressing these opinions in the workplace, however. It could be characterized as harassment, but that's already a risk in the law.

I don't talk politics at work, because I'm not a moron, but if I did, I wonder if expressing the view that the Catholic church is a disgusting corrupt institution that harbors pedophiles and oppresses women would be greeted with the same ferocity as expressing the view that gay parenting is unfortunate because a child needs both a mother and a father.

Icepick said...

People just don't care about marriage, so they don't care if it is redefined. They wouldn't care if we called everything civil unions, either. That's all. If I bring up father absence and the data, I've even been told to 'f*ck off' that it's not their problem. It has nothing to do with equality, freedom, or privacy.

Well you know, Renee, that it's all about protecting the children - except when it's inconvenient of course.

chickelit said...

The real struggle for freedom right now is to topple the fiefdom of lawyers. Althouse is a priestess of the cult.

When paying students stop enrolling or seek alternatives, this will happen. It's market-driven, thankfully.

jr565 said...

Freder wrote:
Except you ignore the fact that the government provides the same benefits to married couples who have no intention or ability in producing children.

how does society know that people have no intention of having kids? how could they even possibly test that?

Just because that is the reason to have marriages structured that way doesn't mean that every married couple must have kids.
Just to disprove your idiotic argument I'll offer another point.

One of the arguments for legalizing gay marriage is to domesticate gays and make them less promiscuous. Right?

Yet we all know that many gays (and many straights) will not be faithful. And yet society will still provide benefits to even the unfaithful ones. So,what does that mean?

should society ONLY provide benefits to faithful gays, or should society prove ahead of time that any gays going into marriage will remain faithful and not have an open marriage?

You are allowed to marry even if you are going to immediately go out and cheat on your spouse. Your marriage might dissolve because your spouse can't live with such infidelity, but its not societies job to test how faithful you will be ahed of time. Do you meet the requirements? If yes, you can marry. If not, you can't marry.

Society could rule that older heterosexual should not be able to marry, because they likely won't raise kids, but it seems awfully capricious. I'm not aware of too many rights you lose because you become old. Like can you not vote because you're senile? You may not be able to vote but society usually doesn't step in and say old people will likely be senile therefore we should remove the ability to vote. Any age requirements are situated on whether you are old enough to do something, not whether you are too old.

chickelit said...

That would be when the First Amendment of the Constitution is not enforced.

Challenges to the second amendment are out there right now--I wouldn't pretend for a second that blatant challenges to the first will follow. It seems inevitable.

DADvocate said...

Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you.

What about freedom of association? Gay activiists constantly assail private groups (Boy Scouts, priesthood) that exclude gays. Yet freedom of association is constitutionally guaranteed. We have the exclusionary Black Caucas in Congress and many other groups that exclude based on race and gender. Why do homosexuals get so much sympathy when there are other groups that suffer more discrimination?

Could it be that smoke screen of sexual freedom covering a multitude of totalitarian policies that I spoke of earlier?

Icepick said...

Freder, I find your criticism, crying RACIST!!!!!!! whenever someone criticizes the President laughable.

It's both an effort to shut down criticism and an effort to destroy the meaning of words. At least one mission goal gets accomplished.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How is using a general term to describe a black President racist?"

-- I don't see mofo as being racist either, but people sometimes read racism into tagging along with certain phrases.

See what I did there?

CEO-MMP said...

okay...just cuz I feel that way today...when did motherfucker or even mofo become a synonym for nigger?


And: Rush has been fairly clear on the issue. Like abortion, he believes it's a state's rights issue, not something a gang of barely qualified but exalted lawyers should force down our throats.

But whatever. Ann Althouse is so much smarter than everyone else on the entire planet (except Jesus, according to Meade) that she even knows--while admitting she doesn't know--what Rush was saying.

Projecting much?

jr565 said...

Freder wrote:

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are not a racist asshole when you call the president of the United States a mother fucker?


did no lefties call Bush a mofo? Why is that Instant grounds to call someone a racist?

CEO-MMP said...

"How is using a general term to describe a black President racist?"

-- I don't see mofo as being racist either, but people sometimes read racism into tagging along with certain phrases.

See what I did there?


I for one appreciate it--but fear it loses something when you call attention to your own cleverness.
;)

Let me help?

Hey! I see what you did there!

Icepick said...

I don't talk politics at work, because I'm not a moron, but if I did, I wonder if expressing the view that the Catholic church is a disgusting corrupt institution that harbors pedophiles and oppresses women would be greeted with the same ferocity as expressing the view that gay parenting is unfortunate because a child needs both a mother and a father.

Hey, if you really want to catch Hell, express the opinion that the Church's problem is that it won't allow married straight priests, because a good deal of their pedophilia problem is really gay males bird-dogging on barely pubescent boys. That will manage to offend everyone.

CEO-MMP said...

jr565 said...

Freder wrote:

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are not a racist asshole when you call the president of the United States a mother fucker?

did no lefties call Bush a mofo? Why is that Instant grounds to call someone a racist?


In a world where mentioning Obama the Magnificent is from (more or less) Chicago can be racist, certainly mofo can be.

How about we just get together and make a list of acceptable speech. Our lives will be so much easier. Then the liberals and the lawyers won't call us racists and bigots and say that their friends think they shouldn't let us speak.


Andy R. said...

I think one of the reasons that people assume that the opponents of marriage equality are bigots (besides, of course, all the bigoted things that they say), is how incredibly dumb their arguments are.

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary, it's obvious you're going to lose. And if it's obvious you're going to lose with that argument, it means whatever other reasons you're opposed to marriage equality would be viewed as somehow worse than being dumb. And one thing worse than being dumb is being a bigot.

So, people assume that the bigots can't make their bigoted arguments, so they retreat to the dumb arguments instead.

CEO-MMP said...

http://www.mofo.com/

A law firm, believe it or not.

"Imagine lawyers who are as interested in what you do as you are. This is MoFo"

Are they racist, you think?

Guimo said...

We worship our federal appellate judges. We talk about our Supreme Court justices as if they were movie stars or famous athletes when basically they are over-educated, clueless nerd-balls, who have never had a real job. We allow our courts to poke their noses into matters that society canhandle best. Trial lawyers can sue anybody for anything. (Hint: If we were back in 1900, the airplane would never have been invented. Too dangerous.) We have too many laws, most of which are never enforced except taxes. Believe me...we are headed for anarchy.

wyo sis said...

The idea that the definition of marriage is the only foundation from which to argue for real marriage is very convenient. (See what I did there.) After dishonestly removing all the real and honest reasons marriage must remain between one and one woman now we get to hear another one about how words can say whatever we want them to say.
So they can, but truth is not so easily manipulated. Saying a thing is not what it is doesn't change that thing.
Marriage is the foundation of the family and family is the foundation of society. No civilization has embraced deviance and survived for long after that.

CEO-MMP said...

Andy R. said...

I think one of the reasons that people assume that the opponents of marriage equality are bigots (besides, of course, all the bigoted things that they say), is how incredibly dumb their arguments are.

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary, it's obvious you're going to lose. And if it's obvious you're going to lose with that argument, it means whatever other reasons you're opposed to marriage equality would be viewed as somehow worse than being dumb. And one thing worse than being dumb is being a bigot.

So, people assume that the bigots can't make their bigoted arguments, so they retreat to the dumb arguments instead.


You forgot to say "tits".

Icepick said...

when did motherfucker or even mofo become a synonym for nigger?

When it became a convenient expedient to call anyone a racist for criticizing a Democrat.

Erika said...

when did motherfucker or even mofo become a synonym for nigger

I've never heard it used that way (it means the same thing as "sumbitch" or even "dude" in my neck of the woods, and often has an affectionate vibe). Urban Dictionary gives several definitions, none of which have any mention of racial connotations. Freder apparently has a definition of it in his mind that is not universal.

Matthew Sablan said...

See, Andy, bigot loses a lot of power if you change it simlpy to mean "person who disagrees with me." You rob a powerful word of meaning because, for example, when you call someone a bigot, it carries no weight for me. It doesn't mean the same thing as if I were to call someone that, or someone who has yet to devalue the word did so.

Sort of like when I was an RA, I could break up fights by simply telling everyone to shut the -bleep- up and sit the -bleep- down, because I practically never swore, so the words still had weight. Devaluing words is bad.

Dante said...

You could get into legal trouble expressing these opinions in the workplace, however. It could be characterized as harassment, but that's already a risk in the law.

So, protected groups are protected in the workplace, except Gays have tried to shut down those opposed to SSM, particularly here in CA, where they obtained the data for those who contributed to "Yes on 8", went to their places of business, and tried to shut them down. It hardly seems fair for the government to "protect" certain groups, but to allow them the power to cause the same effect by railing against individually held positions.

Balfegor said...

Re: Freder:

Except you ignore the fact that the government provides the same benefits to married couples who have no intention or ability to have children.

The point (for a government) is to provide a form and incentivise heterosexuals to use that form so that if children are born they are born into that form. The advantage of having the form, from the government's perspective, is that children born into two parent families are in general advantaged over children born out of wedlock, so they are on average more productive and cost the public less. The form is established by creating benefits for remaining in the form, and making it burdensome to leave the form (divorce) or engage in sexual activity outside the form (adultery), so it will, on the margin, be more stable than cohabitation as people who otherwise would be splitting up are incentivised to stick together.

Now, it's true there are sterile people who use the form, but we're talking rational basis here, not perfect tailoring. And whether you're sterile or have any intention of having children is none of the state's business.

Matthew Sablan said...

Which has nothing to do with the marriage debate, where the marriage being debated is the state-definition there-of, which is different than within the private sphere.

CEO-MMP said...

Andy R. said...

I think one of the reasons that people assume that the opponents of marriage equality are bigots (besides, of course, all the bigoted things that they say), is how incredibly dumb their arguments are.

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary, it's obvious you're going to lose. And if it's obvious you're going to lose with that argument, it means whatever other reasons you're opposed to marriage equality would be viewed as somehow worse than being dumb. And one thing worse than being dumb is being a bigot.

So, people assume that the bigots can't make their bigoted arguments, so they retreat to the dumb arguments instead.


Seriously though: why do you (and others) have to automatically go towards "the bigoted things they say"?

Sure, there are anti-gay bigots in the straight community. There are a few in the gay community too, just as there are anti-straight bigots in the gay community.

Simply not agreeing with something doesn't make anyone a bigot. At some point we have to circle back and realize that strongly held personal beliefs are exactly that.

A guy who holds some chair or other at Heritage was on with Piers and Suze Orman. Now--presumably he's a smart fella. I bet he's even got a PhD. Suze immediately went off on him being dumb and stupid and so forth--simply because he offered his belief that marriage is a man and a woman, and the federal government doesn't need to regulate or approve love.

Howling bigot every time you disagree with someone makes you...what?

wyo sis said...

mofo is a way of saying the "coolest president eva!"

Tank said...

Icepick said...
when did motherfucker or even mofo become a synonym for nigger?

When it became a convenient expedient to call anyone a racist for criticizing a Democrat.


My Dad was very active politically in the McGovern/McCarthy "very liberal" wing of the Dem party.

After years of riding the subway to work from the GWB down to 59th street, he began calling the black people who rode with him "the muddafuckers" because they could not speak more than one sentence without using that word.

This is a guy who worshipped MLK, cried when he was shot, marched in civil rights marches, etc, classic modern liberal.

So, I'm not sure what that word says about people.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
3. I don't think the definition of marriage argument is the basis of including gay people in marriage. The reasons are substantive: fairness, equality, privacy.

with that standard though, what restrictions could society ever place on marriage? Any restriction could be deemed unfair, unequal and against privacy for those who are restricted from the practice?
Polygamy is unequal under the eyes of the law to traditional marriage. But is that fair? Is that equal? Is that not against privacy? If you ask polygamists they'll say its inherently unfair.

A but then you'll say society can offer other reasons to restrict polygamy. What reasons that would not override fair, equal and private?
Having a relationship there to raise kids and not force society to do so doesn't meet your rational basis test. What could you possibly offer vis a vis polygamy that would be as good a reason to deny the practice.
That if too many people are in polygamous unions it will lead to other people,being unable to marry? Well, a lot of people aren't marrying anyway. That it would be detrimental to women? that assumes that a woman couldn't have a union where she marries a bunch of men, that could be legal too. And even if you think it treats women as subservient, who are you to tell them what relationship they can or cannot enter into? Do any of those objections beat "equal, fair and private?" As a reason to allow something?

edutcher said...

If Rush thinks this is lost, he gives up way too easily and is too easily swayed by skewed polls.

Freder Frederson said...

Gee, finally figuring out that Rush is an intellectually lazy no-nothing who can't articulate a reasonable argument?

He certainly know how to tie people like Freder in knots, doesn't he?

And the expression is Know Nothing.

Erika said...

Freder, "mofo" is vulgar slang for "guy," which has no racial meaning at all.

It kills me to say this, but Freder's right, at least as far as it is a contraction of motherf***er.

That said, black people call each other that, often in a jocular way, all the time.

And, yes, Choom is, and, no, it's not racist.

You're just outraged at what the half-white mofo is doing to this country.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What could you possibly offer vis a vis polygamy that would be as good a reason to deny the practice."

-- More than two is not two. That's where the line will be drawn if it comes to that; that marriage contracts are uniquely exclusionary (you can only have one such contract at a time due the special nature of the legal benefits provided.)

CEO-MMP said...

edutcher said...


Freder, "mofo" is vulgar slang for "guy," which has no racial meaning at all.

It kills me to say this, but Freder's right, at least as far as it is a contraction of motherf***er.


once again, ed demonstrates his absolute lack of knowledge on any subject he comments on.

Mofo is not racist slang. Mofo is a way to say motherfucker in polite society. Just because black people sometimes say it doesn't make it a black thing.

Jesus Christ, save us from little minds.


Bob Ellison said...

Matthew Sablan said "More than two is not two. That's where the line will be drawn if it comes to that; that marriage contracts are uniquely exclusionary (you can only have one such contract at a time due the special nature of the legal benefits provided.)"

But that's not the argument being made. The argument is that deploring SSM is bigotry and violent to equal protection. Why should not one man be able to make a contract with three women, a gerbil, and a goat?

This is the slippery slope that might finally kill the stupid pedantry that says there's no such thing as a slippery slope. Either this, or new gun laws.

Dante said...

The reason the pro-SSMrs are stupid, is they want special "have your cake and eat it too."

In this scenario, the traditional reasons for marriage, to have a family, are not applicable, leaving the homosexual gay couple to marry or not based on whether it will provide a more financially beneficial situation for them.

Never mind that homosexual males, in a logical world, do not procreate. That they do not expend the same financial, emotional, and time resources towards creating the next generation of taxpayers, the ones who will have to pay off the profligate spending of today's leftists.

Homosexuals already have the benefits of relying on other people's progeny to take care of them in their old age, and the extra energy they have shows up in their paychecks, with Gays making more than the average person.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Why should not one man be able to make a contract with three women, a gerbil, and a goat?"

Gerbils and goats cannot consent; a man can make a contract with three women; but it cannot be a marriage contract that confers specific benefits onto a specific pair of people.

Bob Ellison said...

Matthew Sablan said "Why should not one man be able to make a contract with three women, a gerbil, and a goat?"

Gerbils and goats cannot consent; a man can make a contract with three women; but it cannot be a marriage contract that confers specific benefits onto a specific pair of people.


Yes on the gerbil and the goats, though I'd point out that goats can be pretty opinionated.

But anyway, you say we'll restrict things to "a specific pair of people" and leave it at that. I doubt that.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
3. I don't think the definition of marriage argument is the basis of including gay people in marriage. The reasons are substantive: fairness, equality, privacy.

with that standard though, what restrictions could society ever place on marriage? Any restriction could be deemed unfair, unequal and against privacy for those who are restricted from the practice?
Polygamy is unequal under the eyes of the law to traditional marriage. But is that fair? Is that equal? Is that not against privacy? If you ask polygamists they'll say its inherently unfair.

MnMark said...

Rush may not have answered Ms. Althouse's question, but I don't recall ever seeing her mention in her advocacy of homosexual "marriage" the effect it is going to have on the adoption of children.

I don't think that a reasonable person can claim that, all things being equal, a pair of homosexuals provide an equally good environment for raising children as a married couple.

Children need to see normal sexuality modeled for them. They need to learn the normal gender cues modeled for them by the most important people in their lives, their parents. They do not get that from a pair of homosexual adoptive parents, no matter how well-meaning those parents are.

You could make the argument that adoption should still take into account the homosexuality of the prospective adopting couple, and give preference to normal married couples, but that would be making an unprincipled exception to this idea that there is nothing different about homosexuals couples from heterosexual couples.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Rush should have stayed away from the "____ is lost" formulation. Unless he wants to be the star of a Downfall-based parody.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But anyway, you say we'll restrict things to "a specific pair of people" and leave it at that. I doubt that."

-- It will have to be for certain things (automatic inheiratance, for example.) We could, conceivably, chunk marriage out into uniquely exclusionary contracts like that, and more general benefits that would be done away with as part of the marriage package (note, again, using marriage in the civil, legal sense.)

creeley23 said...

Gay marriage is similar to transsexualism.

Yes, modern society and technology can support a guy who wants to be a girl and vice-versa. After a fashion.

That's not how the biology works or how society is set up to support the sexes, but sure we can do that and it's a fair and equal thing to do, and we feel good about being fair and equal.

So never mind the costs and disruption to society to make someone's dreams of being the opposite sex come true. Never mind if it actually makes that person happy in the long run -- it often doesn't for transsexuals.

But on paper transsexualism sounds good and it feels good to be all about the fairness and equality.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I don't care about this issue from an religious perspective, I've never been married, so it doesn't affect me in that way either. I just think it's encoding into law something that is clearly untrue, and unmanageable going forward legally. It essentially unties the end of a string that will unravel the whole idea that has worked so well to organize humans more compassionately and responsibly.

I have many gays friends that are very close to me, most with long term relationships that are every bit, if not more impressive, than most straight couples. The girl I raised as a daughter from 4 years old is gay, and I love her, and want her to be "married". I want all these people to have that, but I don't see how establishing this new line can be accomplished without letting the whole institution become a legal mist with nothing to grab hold of and without any sustainable tenets.

I want it too, but I want a lot of things I know are not good in the long run. If someone could convince me that the value of marriage could be retained after this, I'd be in favor of SSM in a second.

Let's hear it.

bagoh20 said...

I agree with Rush; the issue is lost, but not only in the political sense, but in the value of marriage sense. It will fall apart now, and it had already been badly weakened.

edutcher said...

CEO-MMP said...

It kills me to say this, but Freder's right, at least as far as it is a contraction of motherf***er.

once again, ed demonstrates his absolute lack of knowledge on any subject he comments on.

Mofo is not racist slang. Mofo is a way to say motherfucker in polite society. Just because black people sometimes say it doesn't make it a black thing.


It's a black thing, jerk. I used to commute into West Philly for several years and I heard all the expressions.

Some white people, mostly Lefties, I'd guess, may use it trying to sound cool, in the same way they think Choom is cool, but you don't say, "mofo", in polite society, either.

Maybe in what you think is polite society, but no one else's.

Jesus Christ, save us from little minds.

You're the one that has one.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Rush should have stayed away from the "____ is lost" formulation. Unless he wants to be the star of a Downfall-based parody.

Nice point.

Shouting Thomas said...

None of you are quite ready to face the reality. The fact that this issue even exists is a symptom of too many lawyers with too much power.

The oppressor is Ann Althouse and her colleagues.

Time to tear down the Temple of the Lawyers.

jr565 said...

Andy R wrote:
I think one of the reasons that people assume that the opponents of marriage equality are bigots (besides, of course, all the bigoted things that they say), is how incredibly dumb their arguments are.

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary, it's obvious you're going to lose. And if it's obvious you're going to lose with that argument, it means whatever other reasons you're opposed to marriage equality would be viewed as somehow worse than being dumb. And one thing worse than being dumb is being a bigot.

So, people assume that the bigots can't make their bigoted arguments, so they retreat to the dumb arguments instead.

its your arguments for equality absent definitions that are dumb. What does marriage equality mean to you definitionally? That all things must equal marriage?

That society cannot promote marriage along certain lines that benefits society because that would cause inequality to all the restricted marriages?

If society promotes the idea that marriages are there for biological purposes, to have a structure there for parents to raise kids,and we as society want to promote that union over others, then a union that on its own doesn't produce kids wont be equal, but that is a biological inequality. You won't find equality there unless you redefine marriage to mean something it hasn't.
Is THAT fair?
Many states have already offered civil unions (which are what gay marriages are) that offer most if not all the benefits of marriage. Why is that not enough?

chickelit said...

Astro said...
I though Megan McArdle's blog about the issue the other day was very on-point.

I agree. She's become very cogent and on point. But her commentariat? Reading them, I see how Andy R must feel here. Those are some nasty-ass gay mofos over there.

garage mahal said...

If someone could convince me that the value of marriage could be retained after this, I'd be in favor of SSM in a second.

Newt Gingrich hasn't divorced anyone since SSM became legal in a state. Your second is up.

Hagar said...

What bagoh20 said.

rhhardin said...

[Those on the right] were relying — much too heavily — on the assertion that marriage has a fixed definition restricting it to one man and one woman.

It doesn't have to do with dictionary definition.

Consult the thrice mentioned piece by Cavell on chair pp70-73

You'd think a love of language would find how it places dictionary definition interesting enough to consider.

bagoh20 said...

" The fact that this issue even exists is a symptom of too many lawyers with too much power.


Well yea, that goes without saying. Lawyers are the root of all evil in our nation, and I'm serious about that. Look at any serious modern problem, and especially modern injustices, and you will find lawyers at the conception, birth and nurturing of it all along. Of course some lawyers are great people and do wonderful good, but that's true of every profession.

creeley23 said...

Gay marriage is also like the welfare state.

Yes, modern society and technology can support millions of people who are having a hard time or think they are having a hard time with money, which may not solve their problems, but helps a bit.

It feels good to help these people, it's fair and equal because who knows, you or I, could be in trouble and need a handout someday.

And those who are against such handouts or so many handouts, they are mean, just like Althouse says.

So never mind the long-term effects on society as fewer people work and fewer people feel inclined to work hard to create the wealth that it now feels so good, so fair and equal, to share.

chickelit said...

Garage, aren't you the guy who been married twice?

Hagar said...

Except I will never be for SSM or any other variations.

"Marriage" will just be lost to any meaning except for tax purposes, etc.

chickelit said...

@garage: I don't mean to go all "bitchtits" on you but for all we know you're a serial monogamizer too.

bagoh20 said...

"Your second is up."

C'mon Garage. Give it a serious go. I can be turned around by you, if you got anything. I'm ready to flip. Show us your stuff.

MnMark said...

Are those reasons more important than equality, fairness and those that value privacy?
So it may not be in society's intersect to promote incest or to validate incest, but is it equal not to? Is it fair to to? Is it in the interest of privacy not to?
You literally have zero arguments to restrict any marriage at this point.


This is true and there is no reason at all that someone who wants to marry their sister or their father or wants to marry five people should not be able to do so, according to the "equality and fairness" logic of homosexual marriage advocates. Even someone who wants to marry their horse or dog! Or someone who wants to marry a dead body because their particular sexual deviation is being sexually attracted to dead bodies.

Homosexuals have always been free to marry - to marry someone of the opposite sex, not closely related to them, who is alive, and human, and is one person. But they have a sexual disorder that makes them sexually attracted to the same gender. We are told we must respect that out of fairness and let them "marry" the object of their sexual desire. But perhaps people who are sexually attracted to family members, animals, dead bodies, multiple people, children, etc deserve the same "respect" and equality for their sexual deviancies. After all, the fact that someone is attracted to little children or to their sister may be because of something beyond their control, just as we are told is the case with homosexuals.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

I think one of the reasons that people assume that the opponents of marriage equality are bigots (besides, of course, all the bigoted things that they say), is how incredibly dumb their arguments are.

No, moron, you use the word, "bigot", because you were told to.

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary, it's obvious you're going to lose.

You're the only one who sees marriage as being about "rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness", mostly because you were again told to.

The rest of us see it as a method of advancing the nuclear family.

And if it's obvious you're going to lose with that argument, it means whatever other reasons you're opposed to marriage equality would be viewed as somehow worse than being dumb. And one thing worse than being dumb is being a bigot.

no, you want us to fight on your ground and we won't do it, so that makes you the dummy.

As usual.

james conrad said...

Has grown weary of listening to "gay issues", is this all you guys are interested in?

F a bunch of gay issues!

garage mahal said...

C'mon Garage. Give it a serious go. I can be turned around by you, if you got anything. I'm ready to flip. Show us your stuff.

SSM takes nothing from you and therefore you shouldn't care.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

Great post.

jr565 said...

Fundamentally there is the argument "can society promote one marriage standard above others that best promotes social values that society wants to promote".

All this talk,of equality and poo poohing the fundamental reason for society actually promoting marriage as we know it, and suggesting that marriage must be ordered along the lines of love instead suggests that gay marriage advocates think that society cannot make such a determination.

Inga keeps making this argument over and over. Althouse makes this argument. Yet both are also saying we can restrict polygamy.

Yet, if society can't make decisions about promoting certain relationships and not others because to do so would mean inequality, then on what basis would society say ban Incest

Incest is a relationship that meets the requirements of marriage, save for the fact that in the relationship are blood relatives.

Society clearly doesn't want to promote incest, or normalize incest or remain neutral on incest, and so restricts the practice and certainly doesn't provide a marriage license for it, but that means that such relationships are unequal. And we can't have any inequality in marriage. Under what arguments would Althouse and or Andy R restrict incest as a marriage?

A reason was given why society promotes traditional marriage - it furthers society. It enforces biology. It makes those who give birth to kids the structure to raise those kids,so society doesn't have to. But that means inequality. Whatever argument could be offered as to why incest (or polygamy or bigamy or underage marriages) should be restricted would also produce inequality. So on what basis are we restricting marriage at all? If you restrict marriage then any marriage so restricted is unequal.

If you agree with the premise that society CAN promote a certain type of marriage above others (and even gays seem to be suggesting they can since they are currently arguing only for same sex couples and not same sex polygamy) based on furthering social good arguments, then you can't also argue equality grounds. All you can do is disagree with the specific restriction but not that society can't make that restriction. Yet that's what Andy's argument is essentially saying.

Libertarians think govt should be out of the marriage business. I disagree with this. Therefore they have to accept incest as allowable. But people like Inga and Althouse, and many gay marriage advocates seem to think that they can argue the libertarian argument but only in relation to gay marriage. And that's just stupid.

DADvocate said...

If your leading argument in a debate about rights and responsibilities and justice and equality and fairness is talk to about the definition of a word in a dictionary,

Because having a common, mutually agreed upon meaning for a word impedes left wing arguments. Lefties want words to mean whatever they want it to mean depending on circumstances. This makes for fluid, transformable words that can be twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean and mean something different 2 weeks from now.

William said...

Whether or not the postal service will make deliveries on Saturday will have a far more dramatic effect on my life than how the issue of gay marriage is resolved.....I suppose there are several thousand gays who will get married in an uncynical way and find that marriage gives them a measure of happiness. Well, good for them. I can't see any compelling reason not to allow it, but I'm pretty sure that the gays will find something else to nag us all about after it is granted.

jr565 said...

Garage mahal wrote:
SSM takes nothing from you and therefore you shouldn't care.

neither does underage marriage, unless its my kid of course being married. Neither does bigamy. Neither do polygamous relationships. And if a man married his dog that would take nothing from me either. If your father married you it would take nothing from me either.

So, if that's your logic why should society restrict those marriages either?

chickelit said...

SSM takes nothing from you and therefore you shouldn't care.

If nothing else, it corrupts the meaning of a word. I care about words, so yeah, it takes something from me.

Also, the premise that: M + M = M + F is just silly. I recall reading a vagina obsessed gay blogger several years ago (when he was worthwhile and entertaining) in which he spent an entire blog post comparing and contrasting the nature of the epithelial cells of a vagina and a rectum and lamented that they had different permeabilities. Still, he fights the inequality.

MnMark said...

The standard of "fairness, equality, privacy" does not apply to something that is not equal to something else in the first place.

Homosexuality is not equal to normal sexuality. Homosexuality is an abnormality, a deviancy, an unfortunate condition. I hope we will find the cause for it and eliminate that cause so that everyone in the future can live a life with a normal human sexuality.

Saying that homosexuals are entitled to marry because they must be given equal rights to those normal couples enjoy assumes that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality.

It would similar to a young child saying that they should have an right to get a drivers license just as adults can. But a little child is not equal to an adult in the sphere of driving abilities. And a homosexual is not equal to a heterosexual in the sphere of marriage: conceiving and raising their biological children with the person who is the other biological parent. For children to be able to do their best, they need to be raised by their married mother and father.

Equality is not an argument for something that is not equal in the first place.

bagoh20 said...

"SSM takes nothing from you and therefore you shouldn't care."

If a guy steals your car, it doesn't take anything from me either, but I still would oppose it being legally recognized as your loving gift to a stranger?

But in fact the loss of marriage as a defining principle, would affect me. It joins the different sexes because they are different, and need something to make that union more responsible to support children. It would affect me, and the whole society far into the future. And if it lowers their taxes in any way, it definitely takes away from me. I pay the tax burden for a bus load of people, so any reduction in taxes for anyone disproportionately affects me.

Balfegor said...

Re: garage:

SSM takes nothing from you and therefore you shouldn't care.

This is basically the only reason I support gay marriage (albeit very mildly). I see no positive reason to support it -- certainly not "equality" or "fairness" -- other than that my fellow citizens seem to want it very badly and it's basically harmless. Even if there were a mechanism for it to effect broader harm, it's only a tiny, tiny population that will ever make use of gay marriage, so the degree of harm would be trivial.

That said, that's a reason for legislators to enact gay marriage. Not for judges to mandate it. The rational basis test isn't satisfied by "it's probably not going to hurt anyone so what the hey!"

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MnMark said...

A root problem for the homosexual "marriage" supporters is that they are trying to portray a sexual deviance as if it is the moral and social equivalent of normal sexuality. That means they have no logical grounds for denying other sexual deviants the same "marriage" rights that the homosexuals claim.

As someone else pointed out, if it was just about fairness in hospital visiting rights, benefits, etc, a civil union would have satisfied them. What they want is to lay claim to the word "marriage" and to thus try to normalize themselves and make their deviance into a normality.

Yet at the same time they recognize that there is a moral repulsiveness about extending the concept logically to those who want to normalize incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and any other sexual deviance.

There's nothing special about the sexual deviancy of "homosexuality" that makes it somehow morally better than any other deviancy and somehow entitled to be sanctified with the word "marriage" when those others aren't extended that social sanctification.

Erika said...

Homosexuality is not equal to normal sexuality. Homosexuality is an abnormality, a deviancy, an unfortunate condition. I hope we will find the cause for it and eliminate that cause so that everyone in the future can live a life with a normal human sexuality.

This is the kind of viewpoint I was talking about in my first comment. (Hope you don't mind me pulling your words as an example, MnMark). I am concerned that there are people who would like to make these words legally actionable as hate speech, not just in the workplace. Am I off the mark in being concerned about this?

edutcher said...

james conrad said...

Has grown weary of listening to "gay issues", is this all you guys are interested in?

F a bunch of gay issues!


Have to agree.

GDP last quarter was .4%, ObamaTax premiums are going to kill everybody, foreign policy is a worse joke than it was under Bucketmouth, the flouting of law and the Constitution by this Administration is dangerous beyond belief, the RINOs are about to cave on amnesty (when the trend seems to be back to Jalisco), the state of race relations in this country in horrendous, and we're still spending beyond our means.

I think destroying marriage, rather than trying to save it - and the media has been destroying it for 65 years, is an important issue, but ignoring everything else (and, yes, Ann, you're at fault, too*) this is just a way of yelling, "SQUIRREL!!!!!.

There are a lot bigger issues.

* I know, your blog, your rules, and the Constitutional stuff is your bread and butter, as well as an interest, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em.

AllenS said...

AA said...
The social conservatives were playing a corresponding language game the whole time. They were relying — much too heavily — on the assertion that marriage has a fixed definition restricting it to one man and one woman.

That's what it says in my dictionary. Language game? You're the one playing a language game.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
creeley23 said...

The [pro-gay-marriage] argument is only that there is an exclusion that we are now able to see. If someone points out that you're standing on his foot, you'd say I'm sorry and move your foot. You wouldn't say It's not as if I deliberately stomped on your foot and then keep standing on his foot. The continued behavior is mean. That's the meanness "the left" — along with many moderates and righties — has made many people believe. It has become mean. I believe that, and not just because Rush and others have "allowed the left to have people believe."

Of course, this is circular reasoning and emotional thinking that depends on redefining marriage in the first place, then seeing an exclusion to that redefinition then deciding, as Althouse has, that the exclusion is a "meanness" and that people who oppose gay marriage are therefore "mean."

She is correct that that's how the pro-gay-marriage advocates won. They made conservatives look mean.

Plus they offered those who support gay marriage the chance to feel extraordinarily good -- standing up for fairness, tolerance and equality against the mean people. In America that's a winning combination.

But it's mostly about feeling good and not much of a real argument about what gay marriage means and what are its ramifications for society.

MnMark said...

@Balfegor: "This is basically the only reason I support gay marriage (albeit very mildly). I see no positive reason to support it -- certainly not "equality" or "fairness" -- other than that my fellow citizens seem to want it very badly and it's basically harmless."

I have read a number of accounts by people who were raised by a pair of homosexuals and they were harmed by it.

The children of homosexual couples do significantly worse than the children of normal couples. I'm too lazy to search for it, but I just read something about how some researchers went back and reviewed a study that purported to show no difference between the two, and found out that instead the study actually showed significantly worse outcomes for children raised by homosexual couples.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Althouse said...

But the anti-gay-marriage people did stand fast. They stood on the only decent ground they had, and they fought there, and they lost not because of words, but because of moral feelings that developed on a deeper level, a level where the antis chose — wisely! — not to go.

I've heard that Marriage is a bedrock... so I'm picturing a tunneling machine making very precise turns to avoid it.

All kidding aside... I guess is good to know we are tunneling for equality... we are on an equality quest... except, that sounds more like towards the heavens and Althouse is talking about something "deeper"... earthly... not heavenly.

Balfegor said...

re:MnMark:

The children of homosexual couples do significantly worse than the children of normal couples. I'm too lazy to search for it, but I just read something about how some researchers went back and reviewed a study that purported to show no difference between the two, and found out that instead the study actually showed significantly worse outcomes for children raised by homosexual couples.

That wouldn't surprise me. But homosexual couples are sterile, so that's just a reason for not letting homosexual couples adopt, or preferring heterosexual couples for adoption on the margin (my guess would be that if you could disambiguate by socio-economic status that along some measures, the best homosexual adopting couples would systematically produce better outcomes than the worst heterosexual adopting couples, even if ceteris paribus heterosexual adopting couples produce better outcomes on average than homosexual adopting couples).

So that's not a reason not to recognise gay and lesbian marriages. Children are at best incidental to homosexual marriage -- they don't arise from the marriage, and the marriage isn't set up for children either born or potentially to be born. You can mostly control whether or not children end up in homosexual marriages through child custody decisions, adoption decisions, etc.

jr565 said...

"The social conservatives were playing a corresponding language game the whole time. They were relying — much too heavily — on the assertion that marriage has a fixed definition restricting it to one man and one woman.

What about the language game of thinking that marriage applies to only two people. Are gay marriage advocates not using such a definition? Why are they clinging so close to the assertion that marriage is only two people and not, say, a trio?
And by the way, social conservatives also adhere to that definition too, that marriage is between couples and not trios. Perhaps they are clinging to that definition too closely as well and so are equally at fault for this definition. Interesting that the gay rights advocates and the social conservatives share that bigotry.

There are infinite ways to redefine marriage you know. Whichever way you redefine marriage by the way would still require a definition. If gay marriage was legalized for everyone then marriage would mean marriage between two people definitionally. Could we cling to THAT definition, or would that be too precise, and suggesting that marriage means THAT would be playing a language game?

Is there any time when we can actually say marriage means anything? Or are you a deconstructionist suggesting words essentially have no meaning. Careful there. Because you will respond with words. And we wouldn't want you playing any word games when trying to convey meaning. I'll assume your use of the word "the" and "and" are as meaningless as the word "marriage" (or any other words you might use for that matter).

dreams said...

A lot of people talk long enough so as to hide the fact that they haven't answered a particular question especially politicians. It seems to me that this isn't an issue that Russ feels that strongly about so he danced around the question rather than alienate any of his listeners.

jr565 said...

Erika wrote:
Homosexuality is not equal to normal sexuality. Homosexuality is an abnormality, a deviancy, an unfortunate condition. I hope we will find the cause for it and eliminate that cause so that everyone in the future can live a life with a normal human sexuality.

This is the kind of viewpoint I was talking about in my first comment. (Hope you don't mind me pulling your words as an example, MnMark). I am concerned that there are people who would like to make these words legally actionable as hate speech, not just in the workplace. Am I off the mark in being concerned about this?

no, many people on these boards are all but equating not,wanting to redefine marriage to hating gays.

garage mahal said...

But in fact the loss of marriage as a defining principle, would affect me

SSM is already legal in 9 states and I bet you didn't notice anything. Like, horses don't seem any sexier to you than before, and stuff like that.

jr565 said...

Mathew Sablan wrote:

"What could you possibly offer vis a vis polygamy that would be as good a reason to deny the practice."

-- More than two is not two. That's where the line will be drawn if it comes to that; that marriage contracts are uniquely exclusionary (you can only have one such contract at a time due the special nature of the legal benefits provided.)


What about incest where the people involved are a couple. If two is wo, ad love is love, then on what grounds does society ban the marriage?

jr565 said...

Grage mahal wrote:
SSM is already legal in 9 states and I bet you didn't notice anything. Like, horses don't seem any sexier to you than before, and stuff like that.

but ou cold make the same argument for any marriage that is restricted. If polygamy were legal it may not impact me directly in any way. But that is not a reason to allow polygamy.

Andy R. said...

I am concerned that there are people who would like to make these words legally actionable as hate speech, not just in the workplace. Am I off the mark in being concerned about this?

Yes. You are being silly and paranoid.

What people need to be concerned about is if they say bigoted things then people will think they are bigots.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

But in fact the loss of marriage as a defining principle, would affect me

SSM is already legal in 9 states and I bet you didn't notice anything. Like, horses don't seem any sexier to you than before, and stuff like that.


Yes, we did. We have to put up with this nonsense that because it's legal in some states, every state must follow suit.

And you wouldn't give a damn if it weren't the Democrat dogma du jour.

Rusty said...

Freder Frederson said...
Gee, finally figuring out that Rush is an intellectually lazy no-nothing who can't articulate a reasonable argument?

The very definition of irony.

jr565 said...

Who is defining bigoted speech? You Andy R.?

EMD said...

That they do not expend the same financial, emotional, and time resources towards creating the next generation of taxpayers, the ones who will have to pay off the profligate spending of today's leftists.

Unless they adopt a baby from a trouble single mother who would never be capable of expending the same financial, emotional and time resources towards creating the next generation of taxpayers.

creeley23 said...

So this is life in pro-gay-marriage America: issues will be settled by convincing enough people to call others who disagree bigots.

bagoh20 said...

"SSM is already legal in 9 states "

Your missing my whole position. SSM is not the problem, and I'd love it to be respected and legal, but what next? The left never asks that, because they don't want to imagine that there may be a good reason to not get what they want. It's what children do, and the irresponsible.

The left has a terrible record of missing unintended consequences, which they always handle with more of the same. It's time to grow up. Think ahead, be responsible. "It makes me feel good" is not enough.

EMD said...

The reason Rush believes the issue is lost is because Rush doesn't really believe in the issue.

However, a large contingency of his audience are social conservatives, so he has to at least appear interested in the issue from their POV.

Lem said...

In a perfect world, I would hold freedom as the organizing principle...
I'm developing a deep shadowy feeling of a time when "equality" will be held up as the organizing principle, at the expense of all others.

As the History of posts show, the price of freedom has been very high... I just hope that this new equality quest we are on, does not invalidate, sweeps aside, the very principle that has made "equality" possible to begin with.

Like "superiority" with the Nazis, "equality" can also be corrupted.

Inga said...

Ann, BRAVA!!

I know that term is used too often to express one's admiration of something done excellently. But I mean it, this is the very best blog post I have read in the two years I've been reading and commenting here.

It IS fairness, equality and privacy. It's abundantly clear to so many Americans. Do the opponents truly not see this truth? Is fear of change so blinding?

m11_9 said...

Missing unintended consequences = billable hours for attorneys. There is no concern about that when the guild owns the legislature.

mikeyes said...

Icepick sez:

"Hey, if you really want to catch Hell, express the opinion that the Church's problem is that it won't allow married straight priests.."

Just for the record, the Catholic Church has married priests, just not very many. The Roman Rite doesn't allow them but even they have Amglo-Catholic priests who are married and moved the the Catholics.

bagoh20 said...

"Like, horses don't seem any sexier to you than before, and stuff like that."

That's funny because when thinking about this, I always think about a long-term gay couple who are good friends. Big burly ex-military guys, who everyone loves, and who seem to have a near perfect relationship. They raise horses, beautiful Arabian horses, so when I think about this, yes, horses do get more sexy. And who doesn't think horses are sexy? I think women are sexy, but I don't want to marry one of those either. Both can kill when agitated.

creeley23 said...

Mark Regnerus is author of a study (Slate article here) which showed that children raised gay parents do significantly worse in life, even when adjusted for socioeconomic factors, than children raised by heterosexual parents.

You don't have to look far for accusations on the web that Regnerus is a "hateful bigot" (Slate article http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/don_t_let_criticism_of_the_new_gay_parents_study_become_a_war_on_science.html).

And it went beyond charges of bigotry to charges of scientific misconduct, for which Regnerus was eventually cleared.

Who wants to bet that discussion of gay marriage isn't being seriously chilled.

Erika is on the money with her concerns. Althouse, as usual, waves off the hard questions of this issue.

Rusty said...

Andy R. said...
I am concerned that there are people who would like to make these words legally actionable as hate speech, not just in the workplace. Am I off the mark in being concerned about this?

Yes. You are being silly and paranoid.

What people need to be concerned about is if they say bigoted things then people will think they are bigots.


Honest to god you're the most joyless person who posts on this site.
I'm all for SSM except for you.

bagoh20 said...

It IS fairness, equality and privacy."

I was going to agree until I thought about it, then I realized it's none of those things.

It's not fair to those who still can't marry, and often to those who simply choose not to. For the same reasons, it's not equal. And nothing involving government recognition, and the accompanying rights and responsibilities is private, as Obamacare is about to make painfully apparent to us all.

The left makes messy intrusive government, and then says it's unfair to not push everyone into it. It's basic leftism, drag everyone down where we can be equal - crabs in bucket.

creeley23 said...

But homosexual couples are sterile, so that's just a reason for not letting homosexual couples adopt, or preferring heterosexual couples for adoption...

Balfgegor: But if marriage is ultimately about the possibility of bearing and raising children, as it has been historically, what is the point of gay marriage?

Sure, it would make some people happy, for a while anyway, but it's something I would approach with caution, given the poor history of liberal social engineering.

JL said...

Operative definition of bigoted:

"obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions :"

The self-proclaimed decent people are bigots since they are bigoted. We are all bigoted, in varying degrees, towards our own opinions; unless we are indecisive squishy-heads. Bigotry, per se, is not a problem.

However, when bigots push the idea that their opponents are undesirables, repellant, "not one of us", "village idiots", then the concept that intelligent, decent people can respectfully disagree begins to die. That can be a problem.

Erika said...

Andy, I can live with you calling me a bigot, or Althouse possibly having called me 'personally loathsome' upthread. What I can't live with is my or others' thoughts and words, absent intentional and sustained harassment/stalking/intimidation, being illegal and subject to criminal penalties. Are you for or against that? Do you think a person should be fined, for example, for saying, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder and the people suffering from it need care and treatment?" I don't happen to believe that, but some do, and some others would make that illegal hate speech.

Is this more or less likely than Inga's concerns about wingers anxious to usher in aThe Handmaid's Tale theocratic future?

directorblue said...

The bedrock of Western Civilization is the family unit. That is, a man and a woman together forming a bond for the purposes of procreating and raising a family. The pairing of a man and a woman is the only way that the human species can perpetuate itself (various modern biotech and medical experimentation notwithstanding). And the notion that the law should provide formal recognition of this pairing is a concept that is centuries, if not millenia, old.

To insist that legal constructs recognize other types of unions -- based upon behavioral preference, religious belief, or genetic predisposition -- serves only to diminish the family unit. Once lawful status has been granted to same-sex marriage, where does this "right" end? Would polygamists someday lobby for their "civil rights"? Couples engaging in incestuous relationships? Perhaps progressives can outline for us the contours and limits on this new "right" as it pertains to marriage and the law.

I can hear the critics now. "But, Doug," they might say, "That's ridiculous. You're conflating same-sex marriage with all sorts of other types of unions that no civilized society could endorse."

Perhaps so. But the state of California, just four years ago, voted overwhelmingly to reject same-sex marriage. Many observers say that it would pass today. In other words, societies morph. They change. But still they must operate under an existing legal framework.

Our framework, tattered though it may be by political infidelity, had its genesis in a moral certitude represented by the motto, "In God We Trust", which has appeared on United States coinage since the Civil War. To reject that framework is to reject the very principles that created our nation. The religious underpinning of this nation's founding is indisputable. And Judeo-Christian principles have, for the most part, rejected the sanctification of same-sex marriage.

Furthermore, to reject the legal protections offered only to the heterosexual family is to embrace collectivism. Simply put, arbitrary collections of individuals could claim to represent a family unit and demand such protections and benefits. Is this healthy for the civil society? Does it open the door to an ultimately destructive form of collectivism (e.g., "It takes a village")?

And for those who make the tangential claim that same-sex spouses deserve the health insurance benefits and other perquisites afforded their heterosexual counterparts, I argue simply that the federal government is responsible for the vagaries and distortions of our current health care system, not our concept of marriage. Every intrusive step taken by the government -- from employer-based coverage to Medicare's price controls -- has served only to make health insurance more expensive and treatment harder to find. In other words, just because the federal government broke the health insurance system doesn't mean that it can similarly deconstruct the family unit.

It truly is a case of "In God We Trust" versus "It Takes a Village". Which do you choose?

(sorry, this started as a comment, but ended up as an entire blog post).

Andy R. said...

Do you think a person should be fined, for example, for saying, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder and the people suffering from it need care and treatment?"

Of course not. You're being silly.

I've probably done more than most of you to fight for free speech rights (as protected under the First Amendment), and I will continue that fight, whether or not I agree with the opinions being expressed.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Bitchtits the Uneducated Bigoted Alimony Deadbeat said:

"Newt Gingrich hasn't divorced anyone since SSM became legal in a state. Your second is up."

Oh the irony, how it burns.

The chubby pale white divorced pot is calling the chubby pale white divorced kettle black.

Marvelous.

Baron Zemo said...

MadisonMan said...
So how long before the Catholic Church loses a lawsuit for refusing to marry homosexuals?

That would be when the First Amendment of the Constitution is not enforced.


Tell that to the guy who posted the Benghazi video. What makes you think that Obama, the execrable Inga, Freder Frederson and the Nutty Professor will stand up for freedom of religion.

They never did and they never will.

bagoh20 said...

"I've probably done more than most of you to fight for free speech rights...".

I bet your cock tastes like bile.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Gaystapo founding member Andy R. says:

"I've probably done more than most of you to fight for free speech rights (as protected under the First Amendment), and I will continue that fight, whether or not I agree with the opinions being expressed."

I'm sure you have, particularly the first amendment rights of the sky fairy worshippers.

I agree with the poster upthread, I am in favor of SSM for all except Andy R., who I am in favor of a state funded all expenses paid trip to Iran.

One way.

bagoh20 said...

It's FRIDAY!!!

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

It IS fairness, equality and privacy. It's abundantly clear to so many Americans. Do the opponents truly not see this truth? Is fear of change so blinding?


There you go again throwing the fear of change argument around and labeling people bigots for not wanting to redefine marriage the way you think we should redefine marriage.
To answer you, if the purpose of marriage that society is promoting is to promote a family structure consisting of a man and woman (since they would be the ones that actually produce the kids and society has an interest in those producing kids raising kids), then the fact that marriage equals a man and a woman is no more discrimination than saying a marriage is two people and not three people.

So the equality argument and fairness argument and privacy argument are irrelevant.

Le me ask you, do you think fairness equality and privacy should apply to incestual couples? (And lets not even get into incestual trios). That consists of two people. Right? So why should society restrict such a marriage of two people who love each other?

Or take polygamy. Why are you so wedded to the concept of two AND ONLY TWO people marrying, when clearly there are people in the world who want to marry more than two people and are being denied right this very minute to marry the people they love.

Your sole argument is equality, fairness and privacy, and love. Why don't you apply your own standard to polygamy? Or incest?

You're holding us to account, so want and answer from you. Why are you not a bigot?

Or do you think we should legalize polygamy and incest? Hey, it's not an inconceivable argument. But if that's your argument defend it. Don't just throw out the bullshit argument of intolerance and fear of change. It sounds like the only argument you have against polygamy would similarly be fear of change.

That's certainly what polygamists would argue about your position.

Dante said...

What people need to be concerned about is if they say bigoted things then people will think they are bigots.

And naturally you get to decide what is bigoted.

I think it is bigoted of gay homosexuals who want the same benefits as heterosexuals who expend the time, money, and emotional effort to raise the next generation to obtain those benefits. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what its all about.

And in case this isn't clear, I for one do not care about the word "marriage," though many people do. I care about more able bodied adults getting a free ride on my children. Aren't they burdened enough? It disgusts me.

I know, that makes me a bigot, for wanting to protect my children from insane leftists.

Inga said...

Jr.
Althouse said it so well upthread.

"Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you."

3/29/13, 8:45 AM
-------------------------------

GRW3 said...

My 25 yr old son asked me my opinion. I said, flippantly but not far from the truth "Why should they get out of it?" I suspect the total numbers will be a much smaller percentage of the gay population than the hetero but that's just idol speculation.

I think conservatives miss the boat on this. The opportunity here is to reign in license. The (real) need for equality allowed a structure of providing unmarried couples, gay and straight (in the name of equality, reversed), to have the same benefits as those legally committed. Now is the opportunity to reverse that.

Conservative should say "Look, the concept of commitment was so strong that even efforts to give the benefits could not overcome the desire for legal bonding. That being the case, we no longer need to provide these benefits to the casually intertwined. If you want marriage benefits from now on, get married - make the commitment!"

Balfegor said...

Re: creeley23:

Balfegor: But if marriage is ultimately about the possibility of bearing and raising children, as it has been historically, what is the point of gay marriage?

Oh, I consider it thoroughly pointless as a matter of public policy. It meets a passionate demand of the moment, and when the moment passes so will the demand. But some people really want it, and (despite all the media attention) it's such a marginal phenomenon that it's unlikely to bring much, if any, harm.

Furthermore, precisely because it doesn't serve much purpose, I expect it to wither away eventually. After all, I'm sure people have tried it numerous times in all the millenia of human history (we've all snickered over Nero, for example). That it never caught on before leads me to believe that it won't survive in the long run. Let people have their fun while they want to. In a century or two, society will move on.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Do you think a person should be fined, for example, for saying, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder and the people suffering from it need care and treatment?"

Of course not. You're being silly.


If anybody vindicates Dr Freud, it's Hatman.

Inga said...

Ann, BRAVA!!

I know that term is used too often to express one's admiration of something done excellently. But I mean it, this is the very best blog post I have read in the two years I've been reading and commenting here.

It IS fairness, equality and privacy. It's abundantly clear to so many Americans. Do the opponents truly not see this truth? Is fear of change so blinding?


Woofs the real poodle.

It's got nothing to do with fair or equal, it's got to do with protecting society, a principle to which the men who wrote the Constitution adhered.

Althouse said it so well upthread.

"Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you."


Sure, tell it to the guy doing 1 to 2 for "hate speech".

edutcher said...

PS A little tutorial on what the people who made this country thought.

garage mahal said...

Bitchtits the Uneducated Bigoted Alimony Deadbeat said:

I'm pretty sure I pay more child support than you make in a year. Because, as we all know, playing a fake attorney on the internet doesn't pay much.

Baron Zemo said...

Here's the deal. Any mook can call the Pope a child molester and not face a problem. He can say that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and use that blood to make matzo (read any of Cedarfords posts).
Say that you do not care for the practioner of indiscriminate promiscuous butt sex and HR will fire you.

That makes you "loathsome."


Balfegor said...

Re: jr565:

Or take polygamy. Why are you so wedded to the concept of two AND ONLY TWO people marrying, when clearly there are people in the world who want to marry more than two people and are being denied right this very minute to marry the people they love.

Really, what's love got to do with it? Once you demote marriage to a kind of couples ring for people who are in love, of course you end up with gay marriage.

It's nice to have love, sure, but the whole point of arranging legal benefits and burdens to promote marriage is so that people who have fallen out of love who otherwise would separate will nevertheless remain married in stable family units.

And in polygamous systems, while love does play a role, I don't think it has anywhere near the central, all-consuming role that it's assumed in the US today. It's probably closer to the role love plays in arranged marriages in most traditional cultures.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Color me completely unsurprised that a judge decided to deny custody to an overweight leftist idiot.

Thank goodness some members of the judiciary in Wisconsin think of the children.

However, I will take you at your word, and amend that to Bitchtits the Uneducated Bigot.

Never let it be said that I do not change my opinions based on new information coming to light.

Alex said...

shorter hatman - bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

Jr.
Althouse said it so well upthread.

"Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing towards you."


I get the principle and I don't deny you the right to speak you mind. So why you're posting this, as if there is some argument on the principle is beyond me.

In fact I'm asking you to defend you argument, so I am not stifling your response I'm asking you to expound on it.

Only, aside from calling people to task for not being open minded about gay marriage I don't think you really have much of an argument at all. Im saying your standard is bullshit, because you dont aoply it equally to "marriage" . Prove me wrong.

Alex said...

Rush is one to talk about the sanctity of marriage, having been divorced 4 times. What a fucking hypocrite!

edutcher said...

And, in equally important news, Shotgun Joe will take his 3rd vaca of the year in SC, while Sushi and Mongolia, having tired of the Bahamas, are off to Sun Valley.

It really sucks being black.

Baron Zemo said...

Here's the deal. Any mook can call the Pope a child molester and not face a problem. He can say that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and use that blood to make matzo (read any of Cedarfords posts).

Say that you do not care for the practioner of indiscriminate promiscuous butt sex and HR will fire you.

That makes you "loathsome."


You forgot what happens if you slander the Prophet (and well-known child molester) of Islam.

Balfegor said...

Re: Baron Zemo:

Here's the deal. Any mook can call the Pope a child molester and not face a problem. He can say that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and use that blood to make matzo (read any of Cedarfords posts).
Say that you do not care for the practioner of indiscriminate promiscuous butt sex and HR will fire you
.

My baron, I am pretty sure your HR department will discipline you if you go about saying that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and use them to make matzo balls. That's . . . I mean, unless you're a minority that can play the racism card, you're absolutely going to get in trouble for that.

Catholics are mostly fair game in the US, though.

Inga said...

Jr.

At some point when one has stated one's position on any matter many many times, it doesn't enhance their argument to continuously re argue their position ad nauseum. You know where I stand. I have even stated that yes indeed one day polygamy will come under question and may make a good argument for legal marriage.

Or did you not see that? You are so busy trying to prove your point of view, you don't read other's. Slow down, type clearly and read carefully.

jr565 said...

Balfegor wrote:
And in polygamous systems, while love does play a role, I don't think it has anywhere near the central, all-consuming role that it's assumed in the US today. It's probably closer to the role love plays in arranged marriages in most traditional cultures.

who cares though if it is an arranged marriage? Or that the degree of love may not be to the same degree of love as a couple. You could marry someone now and hate their guts. Society can't prove your love now. So saying we should order marriage around love simply means society shouldn't define marriage based on a social good. (Ie providing a srtructure to raise kids).
Instead its individuals who should decide what marriage means. Right?

Well to polygamists, marriage means three or more people, with whatever degree of love that goes into such an arrangement whatever anyone else thinks.
Even if you or Inga or Althouse don't like it should society tell them they can't enter into such a contract? It seems good enough for them, what's the problem?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"You know where I stand. I have even stated that yes indeed one day polygamy will come under question and may make a good argument for legal marriage."

Justice delayed is justice denied.

You bigot.

Balfegor said...

Re: jr565:

My point is that marriage and love are two different things, and the current conflation of love and marriage leads, in direct line, to legal recognition of gay marriage, and will probably eventually lead to relaxation of prohibitions on incest.

But we shouldn't let narrow modern prejudices colour our understanding of marriage overmuch. Historically, marriage has not been about love. Two of my great-grandparents married when they were 11 and 13. That wasn't a love match.

rhhardin said...

When Rush argues morality the audience leaves because he doesn't know the secular roots of morality.

Also because he can't do his larger than life self-deprecation when arguing morality.

Bad argument, bad entertainment, come back in two weeks when he's over it.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:

I have even stated that yes indeed one day polygamy will come under question and may make a good argument for legal marriage.

people are contesting the question of polygamy NOW. Why worry about what might happen one day and instead address your position to what is happening today. Today you are ok with denying these people the right to marry today.

You don't want to be on the wrong side of history do you?

edutcher said...

Inga said...

At some point when one has stated one's position on any matter many many times, it doesn't enhance their argument to continuously re argue their position ad nauseum. You know where I stand. I have even stated that yes indeed one day polygamy will come under question and may make a good argument for legal marriage.

And, given the elasticity of her positions - among many of her other anatomical peculiarities, the She Devil of the SS will one day find pederasty, bestiality, and incest will also "make a good argument for legal marriage", once the Lefties decide they need the votes.

Crimso said...

To reply to Althouse's 8:40 am question and comments (170 comments later; no doubt the discussion has long since gone way past them):

1) I'm not talking about prosecutions at all, and neither is anyone in favor of SSM. I'm talking about the legal right to marry more than one person at a time. How can someone in favor of SSM as a fairness issue deny that same fairness to polygamists? Is there some other basis for favoring SSM that would not also apply to polygamy?

2) I agree. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm making an oblique argument against SSM by dragging polygamy into the picture. I'm curious as to how many "enlightened" people are not as enlightened as they believe themselves to be.

3) All every bit as applicable to polygamy.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"How can someone in favor of SSM as a fairness issue deny that same fairness to polygamists?"

Perhaps because someones son desires one but not the other?

Just a thought.

Balfegor said...

Re: jr565:

people are contesting the question of polygamy NOW.

Other than by, I suppose, trying to fight bigamy convictions, they aren't really. There isn't (at the moment) much of an organised activist movement in favour of polygamy.

Polygamy has -- to my mind -- a much better claim to marriage "equality" than gay marriage, since it has a long history, it has been well established throughout the world, and there was explicit prejudice and animosity underpinning many of the steps taken to suppress polygamy in the US, e.g. the requirement that Utah ban polygamy before it could be admitted to the union. This wasn't remotely like the so-called "ban" on gay marriage, where the law didn't recognise gay marriage because no one responsible for writing the laws had even considered the possibility. They knew people wanted to have polygamous marriages and were determined to stop them.

But people don't feel particularly ashamed of the naked animosity and cultural chauvinism that underpins the polygamy ban. No one's embarrassed to admit it. Even though Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for generations, you still hear people justify their hatred of Mormons by pointing to their history of polygamy as though it were self-evidently disgusting. People still embrace the prejudice against polygamy, even as they -- bizarrely -- have abandoned traditional prejudices against sleeping around, siring bastards all over, etc.

So the prospects are dim for polygamy at the moment. The argument in favour of gay marriage isn't being won with logic and reason, or even just rhetoric about "equality" and "fairness." The main thing was to get people to stop seeing homosexual conduct as super-gross, and homosexual love as legitimate. Once they won the emotional argument, the fact that their logical arguments make no sense didn't matter.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What about incest where the people involved are a couple. If two is wo, ad love is love, then on what grounds does society ban the marriage?"

-- This is a much better argument than polygamy, because other than power issues/consent/abuse/resulting kids, it is harder to dismiss.

Balfegor said...

Sorry, "and start seeing homosexual love as legitimate" is what I meant to write.

Balfegor said...

Re: Crimso:

1) I'm not talking about prosecutions at all, and neither is anyone in favor of SSM. I'm talking about the legal right to marry more than one person at a time. How can someone in favor of SSM as a fairness issue deny that same fairness to polygamists? Is there some other basis for favoring SSM that would not also apply to polygamy?

I think the point is that polygamists are one step behind homosexuals, in that we still put polygamists in jail for polygamy.

MadisonMan said...

they are trying to portray a sexual deviance as if it is the moral and social equivalent of normal sexuality.

This is a poor argument for denying marriage to same-sex partners.

Unless you also advocate having the Govt monitor the sex lives of heterosexuals to make certain they are not deviant. What we don't need is a bunch of Govt Bureaucrats sitting around a Conference Table deciding what is and what is not sexually deviant.

Balfegor said...

I guess another point to make here, though in the slew of other posts on gay marriage this week, there was probably a better one to make this point --

I'm not sure the Supreme Court understands how insulting it would be to find no rational basis for traditional marriage. It gets into "Really? Are you playing dumb?" territory, which is a territory where I think the Court could damage its legitimacy considerably, probably worse than Roe v. Wade (unexpectedly) did.

If they're going to mandate gay marriage, I think they really have to do it by elevating sexual orientation to intermediate scrutiny. Which might provoke some outrage, but would be the intellectually honest thing to do since the logical argument devolves into word salad if you try to claim that traditional marriage doesn't meet rational basis. On the other hand, marriage as it evolved naturally over the centuries isn't particularly tailored to the government interests that support recognising it -- its a loose cultural tradition intersecting with some discrete government objectives -- so failing intermediate scrutiny for sexual orientation seems plausible to me.

jr565 said...

Madisonman wrote:
What we don't need is a bunch of Govt Bureaucrats sitting around a Conference Table deciding what is and what is not sexually deviant.

is incest sexually deviant? Not only does it seem that its been decided but marriage has already been restricted for such individuals who think incest isn't or shouldn't be deviant.

chickelit said...

Unless you also advocate having the Govt monitor the sex lives of heterosexuals to make certain they are not deviant

Not sure if that follows Madison Man. No one is giving heterosexuals a pass for deviant behavior. And as Althouse is fond of pointing (as for abortion) it's possible to believe something is wrong yet allow its legality. Inga believes that too, IIRC. But the SSM advocates (the loudmouths at least) are saying "it's wrong to think it's wrong."

I'll never forget the night here on Althouse when ZPS told Freeman Hunt "relax Freeman have you ever tried anal?" (I have the link). That's the kind of gay affront* I find offensive.
____________
*or is it aback?

JL said...

Your free speech rights are secure, but free speech also includes people talking back to you and expressing even personal loathing toward you.

You could get into legal trouble expressing these opinions in the workplace, however. It could be characterized as harassment, but that's already a risk in the law.


Yes; but today the response to offensive speech doesn't stop at just expressing personal loathing, or seeking to punish people for harassment. It includes hate-speech laws, campus censorship, and PC police spying on social networks looking to ruin people's careers. That's the concern.

Rusty said...

bagoh20 said...
It's FRIDAY!!!


No. It's GOOD Friday.

jr565 said...

Crimso wrote:
1) I'm not talking about prosecutions at all, and neither is anyone in favor of SSM. I'm talking about the legal right to marry more than one person at a time. How can someone in favor of SSM as a fairness issue deny that same fairness to polygamists? Is there some other basis for favoring SSM that would not also apply to polygamy?

hey, there's no reason why you couldn't have gay polygamy. I.e. group gay marriage. It could work in their favor.
I can give some benefits for polygamy, and also some drawbacks. But why should society make a distinction, as if society could only provide marriage licenses to relationships that they want to provide relationships for.

Other than the ick factor, what reason should society deny people a fundamental right to marriage and deprive them of a license.
And as someone up above mentioned, lets not get hung up on definitions of marriage, doesn't marriage mean whatever the people,engaged in it want it to mean?

Polygamists want it to mean marriages of more than one person, why can't we have it mean that?


If the issue is problems with the tax code, I don't see why that should stop us. Simply come up with rules for plural marriages, and then of people want to marry in a marriage with two people they can do that, if they want to marry in a relationship with more than two people let them do that.

It's not as if marriage means something specific.

jr565 said...

Balfegpr wrote:
Other than by, I suppose, trying to fight bigamy convictions, they aren't really. There isn't (at the moment) much of an organised activist movement in favour of polygamy.
<sure they are. A few years ago a case made its way to the Supreme Court,and the argument made was the exact same argument made for gay marriage.

In Canada now there is discussion about legalizing polygamy.

Lem said...

How can someone in favor of SSM as a fairness issue deny that same fairness to polygamists? Is there some other basis for favoring SSM that would not also apply to polygamy?

In theory we could have more "discrimination" in terms of sheer numbers by denying heterosexuals the right to marry as many women as they can... say provide for.

We don't want to set the bar/burden too high... and violate anybody's civil rights.

AReasonableMan said...

Exactly how many marriages has Rush had?

The answer is four marriages and no children.

Could there be a less effective advocate for traditional marriage?

creeley23 said...

Other than by, I suppose, trying to fight bigamy convictions, they aren't really. There isn't (at the moment) much of an organised activist movement in favour of polygamy.

There isn't much of a movement yet, but yes, there are current legal challenges to overthrow polygamy law as in this Mormon case. You can bet that Muslims will not be far behind and so far they are doing well with turning our legal system in their favor

I think jr565's posts on polygamy are reductio ad absurdums to pro-gay-marriage advocates, like Althouse, who never provide any substantive answers to why polygamy shouldn't be ratified for exactly the same arguments as gay marriage.

I agree that arguments for polygamous marriage are stronger than for gay marriage.

Lem said...

Say you can marry 1 or 2 a year... Or set the increase at the rate of inflation... or at the rate of growth... the year the economy grows at 3% you can marry 3 gays/straights.

Its the economy stupid?... The government would probably loose some revenue but that could easily be made up for by raining taxes on the miliionaresandbillionares.

BTW... I'm assuming women would want to have multiple husbands too... why should they be left out?

Its in line with the idea of "having it all" isn't it?

Lem said...

Why should I be limited to one wife or husband when I'm not limited in any other way, that way?

I can have more than one house, one child, one car... why only one marriage partner?

Its marriage warfare I tell you.

creeley23 said...

Balfegor: Furthermore, if the Supreme Court "blesses us" with the requisite rights for gay marriage, as Althouse desires, then a huge amount of the legal spadework is done for rights to polygamous marriage. It won't require the same full-court press in the political and cultural realms.

When civil rights for blacks opened in the sixites, other minorities and women filed through the same door with ease.

creeley23 said...

Exactly how many marriages has Rush had?

The answer is four marriages and no children.

Could there be a less effective advocate for traditional marriage?

from Wiki:
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says


AReasonableMan indeed. Could there be a less effective advocate for reason?

Lem said...

Is this Soviet Russia or Columnist China... were the state sets arbitrary rules as to how many children you can have?

Ridiculous...

I should be able to marry as many women as the women would allow.

I'm not hurting anybody.

creeley23 said...

Top three lines are from AReasonableMan.

jr565 said...

Matthew sablan wrote:

-- This is a much better argument than polygamy, because other than power issues/consent/abuse/resulting kids, it is harder to dismiss.

So,lets have that discussion. I think polygamy is like gay marriage in that allowing for it would similarly redefine marriage. Whereas lifting a restriction on incest would allow people to marry who could otherwise marry anyway (unless we're talking of gay Incest).

But it is true that incest involves two people who are prevented from marrying. On what basis is society doing so? Is that a valid basis?
Is it based on fairness equality or privacy?
Well clearly no. Incest is not considered equal to non incest. Is it fair? Well, if we are considering marriage to be about marrying the person you love, then. O because they can't do it. Is it based on privacy? Certainly not. Incest occurs in the home. If we found evidence of incest in the house, social workers would be all over the place trying to get kids out of a household.
Is it in society's interest to not promote incest? Gay marriage proponents I would think say yes, because every time I or someone like me compare incest to gay marriage, we get the standard "how dare you compare gay marriage to incestual marriage!!!!!!" complaints.


Either society can promote marriages it deems beneficial to society or it can't. If no, then we have a separate argument. And here libertarians would certainly lose. But if yes, then why couldn't society promote a marriage based on the principle that it wants to promote a family structure that has a man and a woman (which also by the way answers the question as to why we shouldn't have a plural marriage) who give birth to kids raising those kids? That is the social good that society wishes to promote. Society can restrict marriages it doesn't want to promote. Most gays will cede that point.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 260   Newer› Newest»