Cheney of Heart, on some things

Amazing how once someone gets out of power they finally gain a conscience – well on some things anyway.

Dick Cheney yesterday appeared at a luncheon in Washington where he said that he supports gay marriage.

“I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. And I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don’t have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that,”

Did he do anything to support this when he had a chance? I think not. In fact, wasn’t the Bush administration pushing for a change to the federal constitution to stop any gay marriages?

But if you read on in the article that he is still trying to defend the Bush administration’s stance on prisioners at Gitmo, and he still wants to link Iraq to nuclear weapons. Even though there was no program in Iraq.

(hat tip to Daphon for the original link)

Advertisements

434 Responses

  1. Luckily Obama’s in the White House now. Naturally he’d be for gay marriage, wouldn’t he?

  2. Why is it no surprise that Tony throws in a red herring?

    “Quick, let’s get the subject away from a terrible administration I supported and onto the current one I don’t.”

  3. Why does Obama’s POV matter? This is about how Cheney spoke his mind when he left the White House.

  4. Not at all, Adrian. It’s just that the current administration’s attitude to same-sex-marriage doesn’t rate a mention here, and yet a statement by Cheney on the subject does.

  5. Joni,

    And yet you talk about why Cheney didn’t do anything when he had the chance. Obama’s now got the chance.

    (Just about to board a plane so will continue in a few hours.)

  6. # and he still wants to link Iraq to nuclear weapons.

    I wonder how many countries that participated in this war if asked today, would they have still have done the same thing?

    Also i hear the war is won in Iraq.

    More soldiers died today in a bombing.
    What a sad blunder that continues.

  7. Aquaman

    But they never actually defined what “winning” in Iraq was. From Bob Woodwards book “The War Within” it seems that Bush was asked on many occasions and he never answered what it meant.

    And that (from what the military guys say in the book) was one of the real problems with the war.

  8. Thats shocking.

  9. Might find out in Bush’s new library

  10. Which will be full of picture books. hehe

  11. A complete cop out from Cheney of course..it’s up to individual States.

    And this is the same as Australia in that all birth, death and marriage registrations are State records and not national records.

  12. A complete cop out from Cheney of course..it’s up to individual States.

    Funnily enough, this is an argument coming from both sides of the debate at the moment because they are not sure which way the Supreme Court will lean when pressed for a decision on the issue.

    For the record, I’m for “gay marriage” or, alternatively, making all marriages “civil unions” so as to remove the word marriage from the debate. The religious nuts use “marriage” as an emotional keyword to drum up support. I’d like to see it removed from the debate so they opponents of single-sex unions have to fight on the merits of their case rather than the religious upbringing of the voting population.

  13. Tol..you are spot on. That the anti’s use the word ‘marriage’ in order to suggest that religious organisations will be dragged before the pulpit and forced to marry gay persons…who would obviously be doing tongue-ies in front of the blessed sacrements.

    Since 1856 the British Commonwealth (which includes Australia) has had something called Civil Registration. That is, one can go to the Court House and get a licence. And one doesn’t even have to go for a driving test 🙂

  14. I half heard on ABC radio (I was half listening) that Cheney has a gay daughter. This would explain a lot.

  15. Yes, Cheney’s daughter is lesbian. This has been a favourite bashing point for the pro-marriage contingent. After all, how heartless must you be to deny your own daughter married bliss?

    My guess is that Cheney is following his heart on all the issues he is becoming outspoken on. He truly believes that torture is the way to go for America and he wants his daughter to be able to marry a partner of her choice. Strange that such extremes can be in the same person sometimes isn’t it?

  16. Strange that such extremes can be in the same person sometimes isn’t it?

    We have a name for such people. Hypocrites.

  17. Take a look at this ad from the US’s National Organization for Marriage (all actors by the way) and see how ridiculous the opponents of s-s marriage can be:

  18. Gay marriage should of been passed years ago, not just being discussed now. one step forward, two steps back

  19. Yeah, but the ad was just ripe for parody…
    Colbert’s opinion
    Others get in on the act

  20. Daphon..this suggests that if (imaginary) you and partner have a marriage aka a civil union that my 34yr marriage to hubby will be threatened or downgraded in some way?

    Can’t remember where I read it..that a marriage was between a man and a woman.

    Call me naive but I always thought that marriage was between people who loved one another and wanted to the best of their ability to make a life long commitment.

  21. We have a name for such people. Hypocrites.

    In this case, not quite. Cheney’s support for torturing foreigners is not really related to whether or not single-sex partners can get married. No, Cheney can be called a hypocrite based on the fact he didn’t speak out when Vice President on the single-sex union issue. Or the fact that only foreigners can be tortured, not Americans. 🙂

  22. Ben

    If Cheney supports torture for foreigners, then he would allow gay marriage for foreigners then…. hehe.

  23. An amusing thing is that the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (i.e. Mormons) are a major funds contributor in this battle… You know, the ones that believe marriage is between a man and three to four women.

    Yes, they officially stopped it in 1904; but it is a fundamental concept of their religion still; just not one talked about or practised directly.

  24. Tell him gay marriage is torture and he will jump right into passing it

  25. If Cheney supports torture for foreigners, then he would allow gay marriage for foreigners then

    *laugh* Well, my marriage doesn’t fit the bill – but I know others that ask why only heterosexual couples must go through the pain of marriage – why not spread the misery around? 😛

    Personally, I think this is a religious battle and only the fact that religion was mostly kept out of the US Constitution gives it a chance over there. Unfortunately, we don’t have such a fundamental document to protect the concept here in Australia. It is legally possible for one government to grant gay marriage rights only to have the next close them down 😦 Hell, the ACT were going to give same-sex couples the right to marriage-equivalent unions only to be slapped down by Rudd.

  26. Tol..might you have a link for this. What Rudd was referring to was federal legislation aka The Marriage Act..which unfortunately states specifically man and woman (if it had said people, then a different ball park). Therefore even though the ACT state/territories might permit gay marriage that it requires an amendment to Federal legislation to make this practical.

    And the likelihood that an amendment to the Marriage Act to allow same sex marriage getting through the current Senate and past Family First is…???

  27. “The Marriage Act..which unfortunately states specifically man and woman”

    Thanks to John Howard in 2004:

    “Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others’.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

  28. Daphon..What the stuff hey. A marriage is in the eyes of the beholders. Marriage is all about love, and who can say whose love is the superior. Mind you, I can’t lodge a person’s formal certificate at the court house but I can throw on a good vegan smorgasbord. And I have TWO chopping boards..one vegan and one for the carnivores, and at each ends of the kitchen.

  29. @Min:
    Check out the Civil Unions Act 2008 section in Wikipedia’s Civil Unions Act 2006 page. Basically, the act was shafted and cut down to a “register” (i.e. nothing like what they were after) because Robert Mcclellan (i.e. Rudd’s Attorney General) wouldn’t allow it because it allowed ceremonies to be performed as a part if instantiating the union. That is, the Christian Lobby thought it too much like “marriage” to be allowed and put pressure on Labor (probably thru Fielding’s Senate position) to veto it.

    Federal veto forces ACT backdown on gay unions

    The opposition to the concept is clear from Robert Mcclellan’s quote “What we don’t support is legal measures that create a relationship that is akin to marriage.

  30. @Daphon:
    You proved my point. It is possible (though bloody unlikely) that Rudd could change that law should he win House & Senate next election. Then someone could change it back when they get in and so forth.

    What is needed is a foundation that cannot be changed except by the people through a referendum. Not likely to happen unless/until we become a republic as the current situation suits the politicians better (they have the power rather than the people).

  31. What is it with so many Christians and their fascination and focus on homosexuality/same-sex marriage almost to the exclusion of things that should be of interest to them such as poverty, homelessness etc.

    “The Salt Shakers, a Christian fundamentalist group, have called on the owners of Marquette Turner Luxury Homes to retract their support for same-sex marriage on the Australian Marriage Equality (AME) website because same-sex marriage is against Australian law.”

    http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/06/02/salt-shakers-call-for-retraction/13505

    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/

  32. A marriage should only be entered into by any party on condition that both participants abstain from sexual relations unless for the purpose of procreation. Procreation means babies and we must have more babies. More babies for everyone. We will also need some storks to bring the babies and drop them off home. More storks please. And some cabbage patches. With cabbages in them. And four hard boiled eggs.

    Otherwise the world will die and Satan will poke us with his pink bit till we blister in awkward places and it hurts to pee.

    It’s well known that gay people give storks the raving ab-dabs and they can’t grow cabbages and couldn’t boil an egg to save their lives, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

    See? It’s just a simple process of logic to win this argument.

  33. Ross, the church used to preach that people should remain virgins. Procreation was accepted only as it lead to the birth of more virgins.

    WTF!

  34. Thats virgin on the ridiculous!

  35. Hmmm..many things to think about there Ross.

    I was especially interested in your comment that gays give storks the raving ab-dabs and as a result they can’t grow cabbages..

    And as we all know babies come from under cabbage leaves. It’s all beginning to make sense.

  36. And what’s the problem with a gay male couple having kids: Jesus had two fathers, didn’t he?

  37. This is worth the download to listen to, and tells why torture is wrong which means Cheney is wrong.

    Torture and Democracy: What Now?

    Who would have thought that the innovator for torture is democracy.

  38. Jesus had two fathers, didn’t he?

    And a virgin mother.

  39. And a prostitute friend.

  40. And he turned out OK, didn’t he? Worshipped for 2,000 years by millions of people!

  41. Cheney’s pulling the oldest neo con trick in the book. Paying lip service to the women’s movement and gay rights activists means these arrogant flat earthers can spuriously claim to be progressive and minimise PR ‘issues’, while they continue wrecking our societies with beggar thy neighbour economics and the ’10 losers for every winner’ philosophy they hold so dear.

    A question for you all. Why is discriminating against people on grounds of economic status still acceptable in the 21st Century?

  42. While Cheney is in the focus:

    “You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it.”

    — Dick Cheney, on Richard Clarke

    Seems like Cheney nailed it. Except for the Emails apparently:

    “Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (5/3/01)

    “Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (5/26/01)

    “Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (6/23/01)

    “Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (6/25/01)

    “Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (6/30/01)

    “Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (7/02/01)

    — Subject lines of Richard Clarke emails to Bush Administration prior to 9/11/01

    Isn’t history and its documentation a wonderful thing. Lol.

  43. “Already his reversal of the Mexico City policy, a decision to renew foreign aid to organizations promoting and performing abortions overseas, promises to increase the worldwide death toll from abortion.”

    Yeah, reducing global population is very worrying; there aren’t nearly enough humans on the planet!!

    Well, NOM has set me straight (snicker). I didn’t realise that my freedom will be in peril if gays are allowed to marry or that storks could be out of a job and cabbages will wither and die, although there’s a fair proportion of kids who probably think the latter could only be a good thing.

    “We are concerned at your agreement with this stance promoted by the homosexual lobby, Australian Marriage Equality, and ask that you retract it.” or there will be a gathering storm with clouds and a rainbow and everything.

  44. Cheney’s also still repeating the lie everywhere he can that Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda.

  45. I still wonder how what the anti-gay marriage forces (“marriage is between one man and one woman”) want to do about intersex people, including those with androgen insensitivity disorder, XXY chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia, and the like. Some look like one sex but are “chromosomally” the other; some don’t fit the chromosomal definition of either sex; some do except their genitals don’t really match. And we haven’t even discussed gender reassignment surgery cases yet.

    So who gets to decide whether these people are “man”, “woman” or something else?

    Is this opposition based on how people look – seeing or imagining an apparent “man” and “man” as married, or “woman” and “woman” married, is … unacceptable? Or do they have some chromosomal purity test in mind, in which case they can expect some legitimate married couples to appear in public as if they are “man” and “man” or “woman” and “woman”? (And in that case, chromosomal testing would be mandatory before marriage – and frankly, we should test all married couples and dissolve those who are unaware that they don’t fit the legal definition…)

    I pushed these questions on an awfully long thread back at Tim’s blog a couple of years ago, but very few were willing to address them.

  46. Interesting video commentary on the California vote to remove gay marriage – And now you have bastards. Bye bye.

  47. Meanwhile another US State (Nevada) now has domestic partnerships – the legislature had enough votes to override a governor’s veto.

  48. “I still wonder how what the anti-gay marriage forces (”marriage is between one man and one woman”) want to do about intersex people, including those with androgen insensitivity disorder, XXY chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia, and the like.”

    I think we should give all groups special “benefits”. We can allow people to marry animals, allow those who live and identify more with another gender/culture/race claim whatever they would like, that way they can benefit from affirmative action policies, benefits etcetera….I mean, let’s just remove all standards or semblance of stability in the name of what makes us FEEL good….brilliant, as always……By the way, I proposed such a reality once we allowed gay marriage, many times before and Tim always called it a “red herring”……LOL….

    Now Muslims/Mormons and Hollywood are pushing polygamy, the next phony “civil rights” argument but hey, once you open the door to one alternative lifestyle, there simply is no way to prevent other alternative lifestyles from taking root without violating their “purported rights” as well……

  49. What the problem that the religious ones have with polygamy? After all, it is in the bible – and I thought it was the word.

  50. “We can allow people to marry animals,”

    The usual chestnut. You forgot to add it might lead to legalised paedophilia too.

    The difference with those things is that they are not between consenting adults.

    And you know that as I’ve seen it pointed out to you before.

  51. Daphon

    That was my next point – how does an animal give consent?

    And yes – these same issues are pointed out again and again to sparta, but alas, he keeps coming back to the same red herrings.

  52. This guy makes me sick to the core. He’s a bit like Turdball and the coalition rabble, he takes a position he thinks is popular. His torture program is akin to Sadam at his height, he takes advantage of the idiots who cry when god bless america, lets ring the liberty bell, liberty justice chord is siung from a hymnbook written by rednecks, and then turns his back on basic Human rights. During his reign there was no Liberty for all, no justice for all nothing at all fair during his tenure. To try to convince anybody he has changed is taking it a bit far, and is totally unbelievable.

  53. Just trying to catch up..but Loth, I’ll give it a try. The conditions you described are medical abnormalities. For example, there is nothing to suggest that a person with XXY chromosomes will be gay, their problem relates to body growth and infertility. Ambiguity of genitalia means that yes a nurse or doctor might ‘assign’ a child to the wrong sex. Often the parents are given a choice, do you want the child registered as a boy or as a girl. If the penis is small, many parents choose to have the child bought up as a girl rather than the potential difficulties of a boy being extremely ‘small’. However, this is a rare condition.

    But this gets us back to the basis of the whole thing, and which causes so much debate. Is homosexuality nature or nurture?

  54. And now Cheney has come out saying that there was not a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You know – the link he implied on numerous occasions was there.

    As the article says, in 2003 Cheney said:

    …the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack…We’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know…

    Notice his get-out-of-gaol-card!

    But now he admits that there was no link. But he was quite prepared to let people think there was a link to gain support for the war. This is just another attempt by Cheney to try and rescue his reputation by blaming others. Typical.

  55. Funny thing about Sparta’s red herrings… their utter bullshit. The Mormon faith is not pushing for polygamy to become accepted or law because they are trying to become more mainstream. Their religion might still have it as a core principle, but they’ll not stand against the rest of Christian America on it. Last time they took a stand on something like that – they capitulated and (shock!) had to stop discriminating against black people. Apparently it was a new “revelation from God”, but funny thing – they would have lost their Tax Exempt status had God decided to continue his “Curse of Cain” on African-Americans. Funny how God is so fickle when it comes to taxing his tithing!

  56. Sparta

    Please tell me why polygamy is so bad if it is accepted in the bible?

    Exodus 21:10 says that it is allowed. So please tell me why you object.

  57. The conditions you described are medical abnormalities.

    Yes, they are. But we live in the real world where they occur much more often than most people are aware, and we can’t just pretend that these issues don’t exist. Furthermore, these conditions are useful to illuminate the thinking people have on the issues, and whether they’ve really thought through the consequences of their position.

    So, given that these intersex/ambiguous conditions exist, if people have objections to gay marriage – defined as two partners of the same sex – they first need to address the question of what the definition of a person’s sex is for the purpose of preventing certain potential marriages. Following that they can explain on what principle they assert that adult humans of the same sex as defined by their rules shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    IIRC, I pushed for quite a long time on the old thread at Tim’s blog on these questions. One person stuck around for quite a long time and their ultimate answer once you stripped away all the ill-considered reasons raised as a shield by patiently pointing out how they didn’t make sense
    was that they had a personal enmity for gay people based on an unfortunate history suffered by a close relative. I thought that was a brave and honest admission. Even then, someone else pointed out that the unfortunate outcome may have been avoided if gay marriage were mainstream, and this person allowed that might be a better state of affairs than today’s prohibitions.

    IIRC others basically weren’t prepared to argue their position, were comfortable merely expressing it as prejudice, or asserted that their position was based on “morality” but were unable to explain this on any valid basis for lawmaking in a liberal secular democracy (i.e. “The Bible says so” doesn’t count). There were also the usual bunch of simplistic objections that don’t make sense when you think about them, and the usual strawmen…

  58. Joni,

    “Please tell me why polygamy is so bad if it is accepted in the bible?”

    In my opinion, the “gay marriage” debate or “polygamy” being accepted and references to the bible are irrelevant. I for one am not a religious man but do have a respect for the law and the critical service it renders in society. Frankly marriage in my opinion is not a right, like some seem to profess, but a benefit or arrangement that has government endorsement. This is in theory lends itself to a more “stable” society. This theory has held true for my country until the moronic baby-boomers started putting personal needs/wants ahead of the family. When we start trying to conflate “rights” and “benefits” we lose sight of what it as at the heart of my objection or that of many others with no religious stake in this discussion. Polygamy is an institution that is rife with the potential for abuse and I am not just talking about physical…..After all, we are talking about what is the best environment to bring children up in, are we not? Claims are always made to suggest that there is no difference yet we have no “long term” data to support this and won’t for some time……Is this not what it really boils down to?

    Besides, can you imagine the legal pitfalls awaiting our legal system? Besides, in past discussions Tim declared polygamy a Red Herring but oddly, it is now becoming a reality. Just look to Canada…..All because of the obsessive push by gay marriage militants to get benefits that are not denied to them but benefits they are not taking advantage of. Even with support for “civil unions” it isn’t enough for some, they push for a “title” in some delusional quest that they think will give them some image of normalcy. I am sorry, genetically, biologically, it isn’t “normal” but I respect your privacy to do as you will in your own bedroom. Until you can provide evidence that homosexuality is not simply a behavior why should we treat it as anything else?

    Now don’t freak out but there are many people that have particular sexual interests outside of the norm, should we rewrite are laws for everyone of these groups? What about bisexuals? Are they being denied benefits, well yes because the law cannot be all things to everybody? We cannot rewrite our entire legal system to accommodate every want or need by every group that purports to being denied “rights/benefits”….……

    An analogy, suppose I suddenly come out and professed that I identify more with the African American and hence feel I am black more so then White. Do I declare my rights are being denied if I am still unable to use the affirmative action policies granted to minority groups and not Whites? The pro-gay marriage lobby demonizes those that makes such arguments without considering the context of our disagreement. I have no doubt you will do the same…….

  59. My apology for the poor grammer…….

  60. I am sorry, genetically, biologically, it isn’t “normal” but I respect your privacy to do as you will in your own bedroom.

    So the nub of Sparta’s position, when you strip away all the ancillary fears about polygamy and what not, is apparently this. (Yes, that’s an implicit request to clarify any misconception.)

    Sparta, and others like Sparta get to decide that gay attraction and/or gay sexual behaviour is “not biologically normal”, and is therefore a choice, and therefore does not count in the ways that hetero attraction and sexual behaviour does.

    I guess he doesn’t want to acknowledge Kinsey, or any of the other experiments that measure subconscious attraction, or the masses of data on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

    I guess that also means he can tell us of the momentous day when he decided (assuming Sparta is male) that he preferred pussy to cock. Was it a difficult choice? It certainly must have been a memorable day!

  61. Lotharsson,

    That was just about the crudest comment I have encountered yet on this blog…….I realize you like to split hairs on just about every topic but try to rise above your temper….

    “Sparta, and others like Sparta get to decide that gay attraction and/or gay sexual behavior is “not biologically normal”,

    Not really, chromosomes do that for us and the resulting genitals/gonads…..Homosexual behavior is found in all species, so in that sense it is normal but trying to “breed” with someone of the same sex is neither productive nor serving any crucial role in society or nature.

    “therefore a choice, and therefore does not count in the ways that hetero attraction and sexual behaviour does.”

    Does not count? If the sole purpose of sex was pleasure, you might have a point but since hetero attraction and sexual behavior is kind of a must if we as a species are to persists, I would say they are different……The pleasure that comes from this act just happens to be there in order to encourage said behavior and hence a species survival…..However, it has nothing to do with “what counts” but what should receive government endorsement is my point……Governments don’t endorse a lot of causes and lifestyles dear to some hearts, doesn’t make it discriminatory…….Again, I am all for civil unions…..

    “I guess he doesn’t want to acknowledge Kinsey, or any of the other experiments that measure subconscious attraction, or the masses of data on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.”

    What does subconscious attraction have to do with this discussion? Some people are attracted to children or animals; should we establish a whole new series of laws to accommodate their lifestyle/attractions as well? Yes, well those in the animal kingdom also don’t procreate either, now do they; unless the animal kingdom has one the right to adopt, or implant without me knowing it? Thereby circumventing a biological reality/certainty…….

    “I guess that also means he can tell us of the momentous day when he decided (assuming Sparta is male) that he preferred pussy to cock. Was it a difficult choice? It certainly must have been a memorable day!”

    I suppose I was just fortunate enough to be “wired” in a way that was biologically and genetically compatible with procreation, the whole purpose of sexual intercourse despite a culture now that is obsessed with personal pleasure………Perhaps you can tell me when you first decided putting your penis in any “orifice” as normal behavior? Granted, you have a penis….LOL…..

  62. Sparta of Phoenix, AZ USA, on June 4th, 2009 at 1:49 am Said:

    Not really, chromosomes do that for us and the resulting genitals/gonads…..Homosexual behavior is found in all species, so in that sense it is normal but trying to “breed” with someone of the same sex is neither productive nor serving any crucial role in society or nature.

    Sorry Sparta you got that one wrong. There are several species in nature that use sex, and that includes homosexual sex, as a crucial role in their societies, this is especially true for Rhesus monkeys and some other species of monkeys as well.

    Carpenter. C. R. Sexual behavior in free ranging rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). I. Specimens, procedures and behavioral characteristics of estrus II. Periodicity of estrus, homosexual, autoerotic, and non-conformist behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 1942;33:113–162.

    This from your NIH: (highlight mine)

    Human female sexuality is as flexible as that seen in nonhuman primates. Ovarian hormones do not control whether sex can occur, but do increase the likelihood that sex will occur more often when women are fertile than when they are not. The lack of strict hormonal control of female sexuality results in a variety of nonhormonal factors—such as type of contraception or pregnancy avoidance, or even the day of the week (Palmer, Udry, & Morris, 1982)—influencing the occurrence of sexual behavior as much as do ovarian hormones. This flexibility allows sex to serve important social purposes, including affiliation in human couples. The consistency of this pattern across a wide range of primate species suggests that these nonreproductive functions of sex may have been as important to primate evolution as were its reproductive functions. The nonreproductive functions of sex remain a poorly investigated area of sexuality that deserves greater consideration and may provide important insight into the evolution of human sexuality.

  63. Adrian,

    The Rhesus monkey “reproduces” via homsexual encounters? Are you kidding me? This is the best you can do is refer to the “behavior” of some monkeys? How is it essential to their survival as a species?I have seen it all now……. The NIH clip is discussing human female sexuality mate, not reproductive capabilities, “sexuality having nothing to do with my post…..Nonreproductive functions of sex? Are you kidding me? Geez……

  64. Daphon,

    Now that is funny; if they could only produce the egg to begin with……..

  65. God how to get something so wrong Sparta.

    You stated:

    Homosexual behavior is found in all species, so in that sense it is normal but trying to “breed” with someone of the same sex is neither productive nor serving any crucial role in society or nature.

    Note the bit I highlighted, not serving any crucial role in society or nature.

    Well sorry Sparta, that is plainly wrong as non-reproductive sex, including homosexual sex, does play a crucial role in society and in nature.

  66. Ah yes sparta, my partners and my involvement in my nephews and nieces lives contritibute nothing to society. Apart from the fact that they are learning that people from different cultures are the same as us.

    I am very offended that you keep saying that I am not normal, because you are saying that I am abnormal.

  67. That was just about the crudest comment I have encountered yet on this blog

    I apologise for being crude, but it certainly wasn’t a product of “my temper”, and I felt it necessary to make the point. You probably find it literally inconceivable to imagine that you made such a choice. So do gay people.

    I suppose I was just fortunate enough to be “wired” in a way that was biologically and genetically compatible with procreation,

    So…others unfortunate enough NOT to be wired in that way…should not be allowed to marry those they are attracted to with their whole being? Why?

    At least I see now you’re in support of “civil unions”. Given that you say this is not a religious stance, what’s the difference?

  68. Not really, chromosomes do that for us and the resulting genitals/gonads

    So…is it chromosomes or genitals? What about the chromosomal male with androgen insensitivity disorder that develops to all appearances a fully female body. Would you prohibit them marrying a male or a female or both? And why?

    For someone who said whatever people get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business…you seem to be taking the genitals which only appear in the bedroom out into the realm of public policy. You’re saying that their genitals decide who they can marry. If the bedroom is private, why are you arguing two men or two women should not marry? Can they marry if they promise not to have sex?

  69. f the sole purpose of sex was pleasure, you might have a point but since hetero attraction and sexual behavior is kind of a must if we as a species are to persists,

    Same old strawmen.

    The only way homosexuality kills the species off is if EVERYONE becomes gay, and then we forget how to reproduce by all possible means.

    Gay people have been getting pregnant well before government insemination programs provided services to them.

  70. Perhaps you can tell me when you first decided putting your penis in any “orifice” as normal behavior?

    When I observed that the spectrum of sexual behaviours engaged in by hetero couples, gay male couples and gay female couples were almost entirely identical, save for the difference between prosthetic and organic genitalia. Basically anything you like to do or have done to you…is enjoyed by homosexual people too.

    So how do you define “normal” for the purpose of setting public policy?

  71. Loth..I think that I have this. Given the ‘assumption’ that marriage can only be between people of the opposite sex, then everyone should have to go through extensive testing to ensure that no ‘errors’ are made. A birth certificate would not be sufficient evidence. And where gender is indeterminate due to medical conditions, there is the potential that these persons would be unable to marry at all.

  72. Nonreproductive functions of sex? Are you kidding me?

    Are you SERIOUSLY ignorant enough to argue that sex has ONLY reproductive function? That just about takes the cake. I hope I’m misinterpreting you here.

  73. Some people are attracted to children or animals; should we establish a whole new series of laws to accommodate their lifestyle/attractions as well?

    No, we already dealt with that strawman. No-one is arguing for gay marriage purely on this principle. It is about relationships between adult human pairs only.

  74. Yes Min, Sparta is more or less talking Gattaca .

  75. Min, I think that’s basically the outcome of the position, but few are willing to argue for it. I would imagine a few ‘errors’ would be discovered and long-standing marriages would need to be dissolved because of…well, because them’s the rules.

  76. Sparta, you appear to be denying gay marriage because gay sex doesn’t lead to reproduction. Let’s ignore the public policy based on private bedroom activity – shouldn’t you be all for gay marriage given your concerns about the unsustainable population growth on this planet?

  77. Loth..re non reproductive reasons for sex. Isn’t this the Catholic argument against contraception..that one should not cast one’s you know what upon barren earth (umm, or similar). And over the centuries, the reason that annulment of marriage within the Catholic church was acceptable if the woman proved to be barren.

  78. “Well sorry Sparta, that is plainly wrong as non-reproductive sex, including homosexual sex, does play a crucial role in society and in nature.”

    And that crucial role in society is………..

  79. Sparta

    How about we just kill all homosexuals and those who cannot reproduce as they do not contribute to society?

  80. And that crucial role in society is………..

    Pay tax to support the breeders, but with less rights!!

  81. (No offence meant to Blogocrat heterosexual folk by the term “breeders” (I’m one of those! Breeder that is, but not hetero)).

  82. Sparta..the crucial role that all people have is: we are all part of the human race and all people have the basic right to respect, to love and to live their lives where ever destiny takes them.

    Sparta, my Mum is 85yrs old and has been widowed for only a short while (it seems so in the scheme of things). Neighbor 82yrs 4 doors down likewise lost his life’s partner..and so both my Mum and friend are now widow/ers and so at least twice a week knock on each others doors and bring each other jars of jam and home grown tomatoes.

    Whose love of partner is acceptable, and whose love of partner is not acceptable?

    The sad bit is that my mother’s neighbor wasn’t allowed to mourn as my mother was allowed to.

  83. That’s ok Daphon. I don’t mind being called a breeder. I should imagine that many gay people would love the opportunity to have children..so you are one of the fortunate ones where fate allowed this to happen.

  84. I posted the quote from your own NIH, and the fact that some group animals (especially primates) use sex as a societal tool, not just for procreation.

    Is rape about procreation or power?
    Is rape used by invading soldiers about procreation of subjugation?

    Are you saying sex has no societal role and it’s sole purpose is to procreate?

  85. Mobius..excellent as always. Rape is not about sex, it’s about power. Pedophilia is not about sex, it’s about power. Hence the reason why so many victims are not just penetrated but suffer mutilations.

  86. Oops, that should be “or subjugation”.

  87. Joni,

    “How about we just kill all homosexuals and those who cannot reproduce as they do not contribute to society?”

    How about we don’t Joni! This is about government endorsement for me, nothing more. I don’t wish to see you unhappy but in all honesty mate, how can we draw the line with just your lifestyle. Why are civil unions not good enough? Frankly, I have family members that are homosexual and most can understand where I coming from. Why does your lifestyle trump the polygamist, the bisexual etcetera? Are we to rewrite our laws every time a lifestyle decries “injustice”?

  88. Min,

    “Sparta..the crucial role that all people have is: we are all part of the human race and all people have the basic right to respect, to love and to live their lives where ever destiny takes them.”

    I don’t disagree with that at all……However, I don’t think people have the “right” of government endorsement for their love and their way of life….Love is not exactly a criteria I want used in making law, with all due respect….Why can’t childless couples demand a baby bonus and when denied such a bonus is it not deemed discriminatory? What about the couple that can’t have children? Are they being discriminated against or is it simply that government is seeking to promote practices (child rearing in this case) that benefit their respective societies? The endorsement of heterosexual marriages is not much different in my opinion….

  89. Sparta re: Why are civil unions not good enough?

    And so civil unions are ok by you?

    Civil registration in Australia was circa 1856, that is all marriages had to be registered with the state. There was some conflab as the Catholic Church especially did not want their church records in the hands of the heathens (aka non Catholics). Some records were destroyed deliberately which is a big problem for family historians such as myself.

    I am certain that most gay people would be very very thrilled if they could be married via civil registration.

  90. “I posted the quote from your own NIH, and the fact that some group animals (especially primates) use sex as a societal tool, not just for procreation.”

    Yes, and what is that “crucial” use of sex again as a societal tool that without said tool would result in the species extinction again?

  91. Min and sparta,

    Absolutely we would be happy if we could have formal civil unions. But that is NOT what we are being given.

    For example, the ACT (I think) stops a formal ceromony from occuring!

    And it is not a f***ing “lifestyle” – you make it sound like I have (or even want) a choice. I DO NOT!

  92. “I am certain that most gay people would be very very thrilled if they could be married via civil registration.”

    Certainly, I don’t see an issue with granting homosexuals the right to visit a dying loved one, or issues pertaining to inheritance. However, we are still left with the legal limbo of having to do the same with all other “alternative relationships”, are we not? Does this not get a bit more complicated when we eventually deal with relationships involving more than two individuals? It will only be a matter of time……..

  93. “And it is not a f***ing “lifestyle” – you make it sound like I have (or even want) a choice. I DO NOT!”

    My apologies Joni, I feel like I am at a family reunion on the Cape now……..Anyhow, I am simply saying we cannot make an exception for homosexuals without doing so for all other relationships which are not between a man and a woman. I mean any relationship, bisexuals, polygamist. Why do you think government gives benefits to the hetero couple, for the hell of it or in the name of love?

  94. I can’t really say whether I agree with polygamy or not although I lean towards the latter, but what would worry me about it is that I think women would be the losers (I’ve never heard of a woman with multiple husbands).

    The argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality and paedophilia are red herrings and illogical. When you argue from this standpoint you put yourself in a line with a whole lot of nutcases (usually religious) like Pat Robertson.

    http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-bestiality-pedophilia-etc.html

    You don’t find reasonable people including religious ones using that line of argument because it’s silly and offensive.

  95. How the hell do bisexuals come into it, Sparta?

    If it’s man loving a man then they come under the gay umbrella (a lovely rainbow one I should hope). And if he loves a woman then he’s on the heterosexual road with all the rights and privileges denied him in the first example.

  96. Joni..you put me and sparta in the same sentence..

    Sparta, there is no problem with a civil registration. As I mentioned civil registrations have been around since 1856 in England and then to the colonies. Marriage as such comes under contract law (hence the term the contract of marriage). Therefore anyone over the age of 18yrs is legally able to enter into a contract.

    I cannot see any impediment why any people should not be able to enter into a contract of marriage as a civil registration. The reason that this is currently forbidden is more to do with religion than it has to do with civil law.

  97. “The argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality and paedophilia are red herrings and illogical.”

    I would agree that homosexual marriage leading to bestiality and pedophilia is way over the top but it is hardly a “red herring” to suggest polygamist would not have a case. It is a reality that is already unfolding in Canada and has unfolded in Britain mate. There is simply no reason why polygamist cannot use the same arguments the homosexual lobby uses. Hardly a “red herring”, simply a reality you don’t want to accept……Start with the last article for instance……

    http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070625_106285_106285

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23923768-601,00.html

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922968-28737,00.html

  98. Min,

    “Joni..you put me and sparta in the same sentence..”

    Oh the horror….LOL Relax Min, nobody here is under the impression you agree with me on anything….flipping hilarious……..

  99. Sparta of Phoenix, AZ USA, on June 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm Said:
    Love is not exactly a criteria I want used in making law, with all due respect….

    This is where I disagree, I think that love is the most important thing of all.

  100. In Australia religion doesn’t really even come into marriage except for the ceremonial part.

    A marriage celebrant, religious or otherwise, has to be licensed by the state. A religious (priest, pastor, rabbi, iman etc.) who is not licensed cannot legally marry anyone.

    The marriage certificate given by a religious organisation is simply a memento of the occasion: it is a not legally-recognised marriage document.

    The only official marriage certificate is the one issued by the various state registrars.

    I’ve never heard an argument by same-sex marriage advocates that churches be forced to marry s-s couples; that is something left for the church decide.

    The s-s marriage movement simply wants officially-recognised state-sanctioned marriage and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

    I, personally, will not settle for the term ‘civil union’ because it will always have the connotation of ‘same but not equal’. Niether the word nor the institution of marriage belong to religious organisations, historically or otherwise. A little research will bear that out.

  101. Sparta don’t worry I’ll cope..it was just a joke. You are probably right, I don’t much agree with you on much at all.

    What you are saying..it take an inch and they will take a mile. That homosexuality leads to beastiality.

    By the same criteria heterosexuality leads to promiscuity, pornography and prostitution.

  102. Whoops..minus the it.

  103. Sorry Min – I realised that after I pressed enter – I meant that I agreed on civil unions, but I was objecting to sparta’s “lifestyle” comment.

    I send lots of the squishy things as an apology.

  104. Sparta

    How does an animal or a child give consent to get married?

  105. And so you should joni..squishy hugs accepted.

    Thank you Daphon..this is what I was trying to drag out from the gay persons a while ago..blood out of a stone. Would a civil ceremony be ok?

    Given that so many people these days marry via civil celebrants then surely a civil celebration eg on the beach at Byron (as per daughter’s friends recently) is good.

    At present we have that you can marry via a civil ceremony but that this cannot be registered as a ‘marriage’. And minus the status of the legal definition of marriage then this impacts upon things such as children and inheritance.

    Maybe there are family issues too where people feel that their relationship would be more worthy of respect given that they could be married.

  106. “At present we have that you can marry via a civil ceremony but that this cannot be registered as a ‘marriage’.”

    Do you mean for hetero couples, Min? If the celebrant is licensed then it’s a marriage. Celebrants are officially ‘marriage celebrants’ and non-religious marriages are still referred to as weddings.

    That’s the thing: religion does not come into marriage in Australia except as a ceremonial thing.

    The Marriage Celebrants Program was established in 1973. It enables the appointment of suitably qualified people to perform marriages and provides couples with a meaningful alternative to Registry Office and mainstream religious weddings.

    There are approximately 20,000 ministers of religion, appointed by State and Territory registering authorities, working as marriage celebrants for mainstream religious denominations.

    http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Marriage_Becomingacelebrant_Becomingacelebrant

  107. Daphon..yes indeed. All marriages via civil celebrants for opposite gender couples can be registered under The Marriage Act.

    However, if a commitment ceremony is performed by the same celebrant between same sex couples, this cannot be registered.

    Same civil celebrant..but it cannot be registered.

    I think that is where some people have become confused..that they think that marriage means gays walking up to the pulpit, grabbing the priest by the scruff of the neck and demanding that they be married..that is, an imposition on religious beliefs when the truth of the matter is that marriage has been a civil issue since 1856.

    The fact is that it’s just a slight alteration to civil law..that same sex ceremonies via civil celebrants be recognised.

    Perhaps I’ve been lucky in my life in that my 85yr old Mum’s best friend and neighbor age 82yrs is gay.

  108. You’ve got it to a t (or is that tee?), Min.

    It’s just so simple: a few word changes in the Marriage Act and that’s it, nothing more.

  109. Daphon..as a hetero and married for 34 years how can I possibly say that one love is somehow superior to another love. If there is something that these years of marriage have taught me is that love is the great equaliser.

    To somehow say that one love is less than another love is an extreme form of egotism.

    Agreed Daphon..it’s just so simple. In fact this has meant exclusionist legislation, even in some locales of the USA where ‘marriage’ of 12 yr old girls are permitted.

  110. Sparta, I go away for a few hours and you trot out several common strawman again (and don’t answer my questions – but then that’s kind of my point. Reconciling those questions with your position is rather tricky, and risks revelations that just wouldn’t do.)

    You can’t imagine – or can’t allow yourself to imagine – that homosexuality is inherent in a significant number of people, so you continue to lump it in with “lifestyle” choices and then invoke the fear of a slippery slope.

    So Sparta, when tens of millions of gay people around the world say that same-sex attraction and opposite-sex-non-attraction is who they are, not a choice – do you actually think they are lying? And when various studies confirm that (to risk being accused – the horror! – of crudity again) that blood flow to gay males’ penises increases when shown pictures with sexual overtones of attractive men, but NOT when shown pictures with sexual overtones of attractive women, that gay men have some new mechanism of conscious control over that arousal signal that straight men do not?

  111. Love is not exactly a criteria I want used in making law, with all due respect

    Well, love between pairs of consenting adults is a criteria I most definitely want used, thank you very much. Why do you want to exclude some expressions of such love and make it a “second class love”? What gains do you think this will bring – to the individuals involved, or to society as a whole?

    The point of gay marriage is that makes the right (and yes, it is a right – saying that it’s not doesn’t make it so) extend to whichever adult one chooses. That’s all.

    And that crucial role in society is………..

    No-one should have to tell you this, but sex’s crucial non-reproductive role in society binds long term adult relationships together, often doing so when other aspects of the relationship are not going so well. This makes for more stable family units, which is a societally beneficial outcome.

    NOT having gay marriage has the opposite effect – it allows relationships to dissolve more easily, making them less stable.

    And BTW, you REALLY don’t want to be arguing that only marriages with reproductive potential are valid. Otherwise you have to test fertility before each marriage (and the poor infertile people just aren’t allowed to marry – sorry). And post-menopausal women obviously can’t be allowed to marry. And maybe you want marriages to produce kids within (say) 5 years or they get dissolved, because they’re not meeting the criteria you have in mind.

  112. it is hardly a “red herring” to suggest polygamist would not have a case

    It is when we’re discussing gay marriage. You know, removing the sex-based restriction under the current law of which single other adult an adult can marry.

  113. I promised Tim that I would support marriage, same-sex or opposite-sex just the same. In part, that promise stems from an appreciation of the sensibility of a reasoning like Daphon’s: that there are a proportion of people in society who cannot or will not be capable of entertaining differences between relational types and the inherent equal worths of those relational types and the people within them at the same time. Being a Kinsey X, also, and from that perspective, most of the dichotomisation turning on ‘sex’ looks largely specious to me. Further, drawing on mine faith in a panentheistic Spirit operative in and through all, it also looks specious to me insofar as the fleshwares are to be understood as being held in common regard, among and between and of the same fundamental fabric, regardless of their apparent forms. That understanding will also mean that I am prepared to entertain other relational types, eg polygamy, as being a sound basis for consideration as marriages, where those relationships are based in free consent, solemnity of occasion, and integrity of relationship.

  114. (“Further, drawing on mine faith in a panentheistic Spirit operative in and through all, it also looks specious to me insofar as the fleshwares are to be understood as being held in common regard, among and between and of the same fundamental fabric, regardless of their apparent forms.”

    N.B. I can reach that exact same understanding on humanistic grounds sans the spiritual-religious gloss.)

  115. Another US state just granted equal rights to one of it’s minorities:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5526NV20090603

  116. Legion..you mean..love is good. And if it involves consenting adults who would like to make a commitment (which they would hope will be a life long one), then what is the problem..

    Marriage has always been a part of Contract Law and this has been recently reinforced by the fact that defacto relationships must now be registered via Centrelink.

    And so we have a situation where one can be in a defacto same sex relationship but that the persons cannot obtain legal status via a registered relationship aka a civil marriage…yet are legally defactos. Something a bit wrong with this in my opinion, that one is designated a defacto but is denied the status of marriage.

  117. “…defacto relationships must now be registered via Centrelink

    And so we have a situation where one can be in a defacto same sex relationship but that the persons cannot obtain legal status via a registered relationship aka a civil marriage…”

    My local federal MP doesn’t (or doesn’t want to) see the hypocrisy of that.

  118. Daphon..my granny who passed a week short of her 103rd birthday used to say, Care about the people who matter, and forget about the people who don’t.

  119. Min, on June 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Legion..you mean..love is good.

    Yes. Or, in riffing off the attributed words of an historically acclaimed wise-man, “Which is greatest: the gold(en standard), the temple which makes the gold sacred, or the sanctity itself?”

  120. Legion..this sounds like one of Reb’s trick questions. I will go for sanctity because no one can define this as it is between a person and their conscience. To sanctify has been taken over by various religions but this is their ego.

  121. Lotharsson,

    “It is when we’re discussing gay marriage.”

    One more time, as you keep missing my point…..GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT of gay marriage given the argument by its proponents like yourself are applicable to all relationships that define themselves as homosexuals do (one of love etcetera) . My links of course are completely discounted….yes what a distraction to highlight the reality that this topic has created, which was my original contention from the get go…..Unfortunately what it boils down to is the ME, ME, ME syndrome. In all honesty, homosexuals could care less about the long term consequences of their push and its effect on our societies. Homosexual relationships per se aren’t the issue but the “box” they open in this pursuit are….Frankly, most her simply don’t grasp…. “stuck on stupid”………Regardless, you have presented no quandary mate, hate to deflate your ego…….Highlighting those we classify as having a “defect” (AIS) due to understood pathology with those that have none (homosexuals) is a ridiculous comparison…….However, by doing so you inadvertently give credence to the notion that homosexuality is a “defect” as well? Please, do try to actually take a position instead of classifying all those you cannot defend as “straw man” arguments. I seem to have no problem handling yours? (AIS case in point….)

  122. Sparta

    One more time – how can an animal or child give consent to a marriage?

    Please so try to actually take a position.

  123. Joni,

    What are you on about? See my comment (June 4th at 12:48 pm). My post that I think you refer to was just to highlight the ambiguity of defining relationships so broadly and the absurdity of demanding government recognition of said relationships based on this ambiguity….nothing more…It seems absurd to think “love” or “attraction” should be the determining factor in what does and doesn’t warrant government endorsement………

  124. No – you keep bringing up that bestiality and pedophiles will want recognition as well. And for them to have marriage they must give consent.

    You are the one who brings up those relationships to give backup to your position of deny my right to marry.

    (And cannot find your 12:48 post – but that may be a internet thingy)

  125. “No – you keep bringing up that bestiality and pedophiles will want recognition as well. And for them to have marriage they must give consent.”

    I have done no such thing? I have gone on about polygamists and bisexuals eventually seeking such benefits under the same arguments as homosexuals? There was a mention to “subconscious attractions” (which I didn’t bring up) and pedophiles etcetera but no comparison with homosexuals? I really think you are conflating more than one discussion…

    It is a danger whenever you get into an exchange with Lotharsson (or try to follow for that matter). He tends to split hairs and is usually all over the place. Ultimately he doesn’t even know what his original position was and you spend three days just trying to get back to his original contention. He would rather just argue the theoreticals he has thrown in along the way….LOL……

  126. GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT of gay marriage given the argument by its proponents like yourself are applicable to all relationships that define themselves as homosexuals do (one of love etcetera)

    Only in your fevered imagination.

    If you bother to read the articles you yourself posted on polygamy, you’ll find hardly anyone willing to seriously entertain it. It’s simply not going to happen in Australia or the US. You don’t see anyone pointing out that they are fundamentally polygamous or polyandrous and therefore have a NEED to have multiple spouses – and others pointing out that societies with those arrangements used to have very different ratios of males to females, and no social safety net.

    Regardless, you have presented no quandary mate, hate to deflate your ego

    You keep worrying about my ego. It does just fine without your endorsement – in fact, it generally does better without it than with it. But thanks for your concern.

  127. Highlighting those we classify as having a “defect” (AIS) due to understood pathology with those that have none (homosexuals) is a ridiculous comparison.

    I see some of your common tactics are on show here – ridicule and deflect to avoid answering. Funnily enough, you never manage to explain WHY you think something is ridiculous.

    The question is meant to probe for WHY you believe homosexuals should not be able to marry. You haven’t given any sort of stable reason for that yet. You referenced genitalia at one point, but also claimed what happened in the bedroom didn’t matter and you haven’t resolved that apparent contradiction. You mentioned chromosomes too, but haven’t explained WHY two people with the same type of chromosomes can’t marry. You don’t seem to be able to elaborate why chromosomes or genitalia lead to such marriages being prohibited, or even WHICH of the two should be used to detect prohibited pairings.

    You simply bring up your usual strawman that somehow it forces us to accept polygamy and who knows what else. And you only get there by falsely characterizing my position as the argument for gay marriage is based purely on a declaration of love, and therefore that I think all declarations of love no matter how structured should be “government endorsed”.

    Feel free to enlighten us as to whether it’s chromosomes or genitalia that you think should be used as the acid test for who can marry whom.

    However, by doing so you inadvertently give credence to the notion that homosexuality is a “defect” as well?

    Geez, LOL! What bizarre leap of logic led you to that belief?

  128. Please, do try to actually take a position…

    ROFL 🙂 I apologize – I do find condescension layered on top of blatant eyes-closed denial rather amusing. And once it starts it tends to continue, providing further value 😉

    My position is very clear. It was stated a number of times. Here it is again in very simple form:

    Adult humans have the right to marry one other adult human of their choice. Period.

    I’d better just make it explicit seeing you keep misinterpreting the connotations. You’ll note no mention of love; no mention of multiple spouses, no mention of anyone who hasn’t reached adulthood; no mention of animals or non-humans. Is that clear enough?

  129. “If you bother to read the articles you yourself posted on polygamy, you’ll find hardly anyone willing to seriously entertain it.”

    Yes, sounds like the proposition of homosexual marriage 30 years ago, imagine that…….I forgot, individuals like yourself can easily foresee global meltdown because of a computer model but it is a leap to suggest the scenario I present will ever become reality…Besides, it doesn’t matter what the people want, only a sympathetic judge is needed as suggested in the articles (homosexual marriage as a result) but I am sure you miss this reality as well…….very laughable indeed….

  130. “Adult humans have the right to marry one other adult human of their choice. Period.”

    Yes, and in one fail swoop you have just discriminated against those in love with more than ONE adult. Is ONE the new discriminatory measure now instead of just “gender”? In one fail swoop you have done exactly what you and other gay marriage proponents purport is some injustice….You simply don’t understand my friend or you want to continue playing games……A bit of both I would imagine……

  131. Joni says “you keep bringing up that bestiality and pedophiles will want recognition as well.”

    Sparta responds:

    I have done no such thing?

    Sparta earlier wrote:

    We can allow people to marry animals, …

  132. First animal relationship comment award on this thread goes to: Sparta.

    And why is polygamy bad? You seem to say that you do not want to be religious, but all your objections seem to be based in religion.

    And how is a bisexual marriage different?

  133. Yes, and in one fail swoop you have just discriminated against those in love with more than ONE adult.

    Yes, I have, because that’s what we as a society have decided is the limit – for reasons you yourself outlined when you argued against polygamy. You can be in love with as many people as you like, but the government will only recognise marriage to one of them at a time.

    And it’s rather disingenuous of you to argue that being opposed to legal polygamy is discrimination when you oppose legal gay marriage. But that’s not surprising…

  134. What is a “one fail swoop”? Is that supposed to be a “one fell swoop”?

    Surely the educated Sparta could not make a typo that bad?

    (yeah – I realise that I am being petty – but when someone is saying that my relationship is not normal I tend to get a bit upset)

  135. FWIW, New Hampshire’s legislature appears to have gone out of its way to head off concerns (even though largely bogus) that the gay marriage law would force religious groups to perform gay marriages.

    And note that this is the third US State to legalize gay marriage through legislative processes – because it’s the right thing to do by people. Three other States have legalized it through the courts – because it’s considered a fundamental right. It looks like both perspectives are converging on the same result.

    So far I’ve seen no reports suggesting that New Hampshire’s lawmakers believe that polygamy should be allowed.

  136. Politico:

    President Barack Obama’s promises of change are falling short for one core Democratic constituency: gays and lesbians, whose leaders say Obama’s administration isn’t keeping up with the times.

    Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.

    His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.

    And the news, which emerged quietly earlier this year, that he’d supported same-sex marriage back in 1996, then changed his mind, especially rankles.

  137. “Yes, I have, because that’s what we as a society have decided is the limit – for reasons you yourself outlined when you argued against polygamy.”

    We also decided that we as a society would limit it to “between men and women” but this is now irrelevant……

    “You can be in love with as many people as you like, but the government will only recognise marriage to one of them at a time.”

    Why is that not discriminatory again? I know you have no intelligent answer so it must be a “Red Herring/Straw Man” your best crutch….LOL….

    “And it’s rather disingenuous of you to argue that being opposed to legal polygamy is discrimination when you oppose legal gay marriage. But that’s not surprising…”

    No, it is rather disingenuous and hypocritical of you to suggest that we can rewrite law to fit one type of relationship that screams injustice if their wants and needs are not met. Law does not live in a vacuum genius, it will be exploited or challenged and given your lack of an argument I will not be surprised when it becomes the reality you feel is fanciful…Much like homosexual relationships were regarded a mere 30 years ago…….There is a reason why government endorses heterosexual relationships and it has nothing to do with “numbers” but now you wish to insist it is merely a numbers thing by discounting the obvious reasoning behind the endorsement of hetero relationships to begin with…..The contradiction is blinding dude but the inevitable outcome of those that wish to make policy under feel-good short sighted stances……

  138. Joni,

    “one “failed” swoop”…..my apologies and pathetic attempt at humor……

  139. Lotharsson,

    And the results when put to a ballot? Yes, well I think we both know how that works out, even in California of all places….LOL….Polygamy is comming mate…..whether you will admit it or not…..There is simply no “legal” way to prevent it…..

  140. We also decided that we as a society would limit it to “between men and women” but this is now irrelevant……

    Yes, because law and societal norms evolve. We realise that homosexuality is not a choice, but fundamental to 5+% of the population, and therefore that we are doing a grave injustice by denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love. In other societies in history this was known; in ours it was widely disbelieved for quite some time.

    Why is that not discriminatory again?

    What is your definition of “discriminatory”?

    here is a reason why government endorses heterosexual relationships…

    You keep saying that, but never letting us know. What’s that reason? Anything to do with similar genitals or similar chromosomes? Or with necessity to reproduce? Or…what?

  141. And the results when put to a ballot?

    Now your arguments are degenerating into abject denial.

    There’s no way a significant majority are going to vote for polygamy in the US or Australia. Not even in your 30+ year timeframe. There are too many issues – as you yourself have pointed out, and with which I largely agree – and it solves no particular pressing problem and relieves no obvious human right violation.

  142. Sparta, I suspect you have an odd definition of “discrimination”. You may be thinking it means “some behaviours are arbitrarily not permitted” or “some people don’t get what they want and others do”.

    But discrimination means “we treat one group of people differently and unfairly compared to others by virtue of their fundamental characteristics such as race, sexual orientation, height, gender, eye colour etc.” It’s about denyin people fair treatment purely for things they can’t change about themselves, not for choices they might want to make.

    Feel free to argue that polygamy is a newly identified sexual orientation rather than a behaviour if you like. But that might be an interesting argument since you’ve been consistently calling it a “lifestyle choice”.

  143. “Yes, because law and societal norms evolve.”

    Hilarious you feel homosexual behavior is evolutionary; I think they call it a genetic “dead end”…..

    “We realise that homosexuality is not a choice, but fundamental to 5+% of the population, and therefore that we are doing a grave injustice by denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love.”

    The ability to marry is not a RIGHT, it is not enshrined anywhere. Nor is it denied to homosexuals! Homosexuals want benefits tailored to them, plain and simple…..It is a government endorsement…..much like affirmative action which benefits minority groups only…..Again, love or numbers is the criteria we are to use now….genius, really………Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that it is not a “choice” although I tend to agree with you…..The growing “bisexual” lobby/phenomenon for example kind of puts your assertion in doubt….

    “In other societies in history this was known; in ours it was widely disbelieved for quite some time.”

    Yes, and polygamy was practiced as well and still is in many societies…..

    “Now your arguments are degenerating into abject denial.”

    No that is what you’re doing once again by trying to take the conversation elsewhere on one of your tangents as you have no intelligent argument concerning other relationships and know it….

    “There’s no way a significant majority are going to vote for polygamy in the US or Australia. Not even in your 30+ year timeframe.”

    THE MAJORITY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED BUT ROUTINELY CIRCUMVENTED ON THIS ISSUE! AGAIN, A SYMPATHETIC JUDGE AND A FINANCED ADVOCACY GROUP IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT!!!!! WHERE HAS A MAJORITY ANYWHERE VOTED FOR HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE? CALIFORNIA RING ANY BELLS, TO NAME ONE OF MANY?

    “ There are too many issues – as you yourself have pointed out, and with which I largely agree – and it solves no particular pressing problem and relieves no obvious human right violation.”

    Allowing homosexual marriage solves what pressing problem and relieves what human right violation? Keep squirming Lotharsson but it is quite obvious you really have no intelligent argument here nor have you really thought this topic through. It is all well and good to play the “empathy” card, even if it is only reserved for couples (LOL) but such empathy is very short sighted, hypocritical and completely discounts the realities of the world we live in…..Delusion is your only argument here……LOL……

  144. Lotharsson,

    No, I actually know what discrimination means in the legal sense just as I understand the difference between “rights” and “benefits”, which clearly you do not. Again, are we not actually “discriminating” on the basis of “race or gender” in terms of affirmitive action policies?

  145. I think the vote on Prop 8 was an anomaly. Anyway,

  146. Hilarious you feel homosexual behavior is evolutionary; I think they call it a genetic “dead end”…..

    Hilarious how you can’t comprehend basic English. Feel free to quote where I call homosexual behaviour evolutionary…I’ll wait.

    But I do note that some biologists think homosexuality in populations increases in response to population pressures, in which case it plays an evolutionary role. Evolution is not JUST about survival of the fittest-to-reproduce individual; survival of the fittest groups plays a role too.

  147. The ability to marry is not a RIGHT, it is not enshrined anywhere.

    What, equal treatment under the law is no longer part of the US Constitution? I missed when that part was repealed. Does that mean we can now bring back anti-miscegenation laws and dissolve all those “mixed marriages” that used to be illegal?

    It is a civil and human right to have equal treatment under the law. It may not be enshrined anywhere you can see, but 3 States in the US and several countries in Europe (including socially conservative Spain) already took that view with regard to gay marriage. Others will follow.

    Nor is it denied to homosexuals!

    Yes, homosexuals can marry, but only people they don’t want to marry. That’s real big of you.

    Imagine if it were reversed – and you, presumably a straight male, were not allowed to marry the straight female of your dreams because the government only “endorsed” same sex marriage. Can you imagine the unending howls of protest?

    Homosexuals want benefits tailored to them, plain and simple

    FFS! Saying it does not make it so. Homosexuals want access to the SAME benefits straight couples get. You get to marry the adult partner of your choice. They want to marry the adult partner of their choice. Are you literally unable to comprehend this? Or do you think homosexuals want something beyond this? If so, feel free to point to the evidence. Because so far your unsupported assertions here look like fanciful bulldust.

    Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that it is not a “choice”.

    Bullshit again. Educate yourself a little instead of clinging to prejudice. Try talking to some of those homosexuals you say you know for starters.

    Or failing that, do this thought experiment. Imagine that you are a straight male (or if it helps, reverse all the genders and imagine yourself a straight female). One day you make the (crudity warning!) choice to swear off pussy, which you are mightily attracted to, and only pursue partners with cocks, which you are totally unattracted to – and in doing so suffer discrimination, disdain, potentially put yourself in danger of physical attack, lose the option of marriage to your chosen partner. Are you REALLY arguing this is what all gay males have done? What possible motivation can you imagine?

    The growing “bisexual” lobby/phenomenon for example kind of puts your assertion in doubt….

    Are you scared of shadows again? What “bisexual” lobby? And what does this lobby want? You keep getting asked for details and none are forthcoming.

    Allowing homosexual marriage solves what pressing problem and relieves what human right violation?

    Sigh. I realise you are probably an unconscious bigot, but a bigot you are. Gay people can’t marry the partner of their choice.

    Yes, I realise you argue that this is not a “right” in your eyes, but it’s clearly discriminatory under the legal definition that you claim to know so well. It causes gay relationships to be treated as 2nd class relationships, both under the law in a myriad of ways, and in practice by other people.

  148. Lotharsson,

    Your an intellectual infant mate…..after all your huff and puff…..No, for the moment gay people can’t marry people of their choice (without a left-wing judge or circumventing the ballot), I am not entitled to affirmative action benefits, married people without children cannot claim a baby bonuses, people with certain income amounts are not entitled to welfare benefits, I must again prove my income before I am granted a mortgage and the list goes on and on…Anyway, always a pleasure…..

  149. Sparta,

    “None so blind as those who will not see.”

  150. “Are you scared of shadows again? What “bisexual” lobby? And what does this lobby want? You keep getting asked for details and none are forthcoming.”

    I provide whenever asked there genius but the number of requests is another subject….here is one lobby a bit closer to home…..for somebody that thinks they are all knowing you again validate just how little informed you really are……more shadows for ya…….

    http://www.ilga.org/index.asp

  151. Sparta,

    About the ILGA, “The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association is a world-wide network of national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people everywhere.”

    You have a problem with people wanting EQUAL rights?

  152. Sparta,

    The following is a comment from a similar discussion on Larvatus Prodeo in April. I doubt the commenter would have any objection to me quoting it here. It’s diverges slightly from the current discussion, but I see it as entirely relevant.

    @Carn: “The purpose of our Government is to uphold the views of the Majority of the people”.

    TIM: Could not disagree more. What if the majority of people thought that torture should legal or that we should be able to own slaves or that the Islamic faith should be outlawed? Do you believe that the government should enact those laws just because the “majority” believed it? Of course not. The role of government is to govern for the whole of the country not the majority. If your rule held true then in Australia women would not have the vote, Aboriginals would still be second class non-citizens, sexual discrimination would be allowed, the White Australia policy would still rule, etc etc etc. Each step of cultural growth and maturity in every society has resulted from a Government doing the opposite of what the majority wants. The role of government is to lead and to govern not to pander to ignorance.

    If it is true that the majority is opposed to gay marriage (and I don’t concede that), then the majority is wrong. Just like it was wrong when blacks could not marry whites and when women were barred from the holding public office. If you are right that the majority of Australians are opposed to gay marriage then shame on my fellow country men and women but even more shame on Kevin Rudd for allowing narrow minded bigotry to rule his leadership.

    There is no rationale argument for denying two people the right to commit their lives to each other.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/04/29/rudd-sides-with-the-bigots/#comment-708271

  153. Your an intellectual infant mate

    ROFLMAO! Thanks for that – I needed a good laugh 🙂

    I am not entitled to affirmative action benefits…

    Affirmative action, since you apparently know the discrimination law so well, is aimed at correcting actual discrimination, you know, actual UNEQUAL treatment.

    married people without children cannot claim a baby bonuses

    And how exactly does this amount to unequal treatment under the law in your eyes? Oh, right, you’re a hardcore socialist who thinks “equal treatment” means the government should distribute handouts in equal amounts to everyone, regardless of their situation. Oh, wait, that’s not right either…

    So we still don’t know why you think gay marriage should be prohibited, other than (cue scary music) it might lead to polygamy based on some legal theory that doesn’t hold water, and we still don’t know whether it’s the same chromosomes or the same type of genitals that prohibit a potential marriage in your eyes. I doubt we’re going to get an answer.

  154. I was just thinking how the world has changed..imagine that it’s only a few decades ago that marriages where one of the persons were Aboriginal were not documented in BDMs. A nightmare for family historians. That is, although Aboriginal people were duly married, that many marriages are not recorded as civil registrations. And the above was if one could find a priest or minister to perform the ceremony as marriage between races was called ‘unnatural’ and in fact abominations against nature.

  155. No, I actually know what discrimination means in the legal sense just as I understand the difference between “rights” and “benefits”, which clearly you do not. Again, are we not actually “discriminating” on the basis of “race or gender” in terms of affirmitive action policies?

    This reveals you clearly do not understand what “discrimination” means under the law.

    Yes, we use “discrimination” (in the English sense of the word – “making distinctions between different entities”) on the basis of gender or race in affirmative action programs. We do so in an attempt to correct “discrimination against” those groups in the real world. It’s the “against” part that’s crucial to discrimination law, and something you don’t seem to understand is the key point.

  156. I think the vote on Prop 8 was an anomaly…

    I think so too. I expect it to be overturned in the next election, or the one after that. Especially since there are thousands of gay marriages that continue, and will not cause the downfall of Californian society, or undermine straight marriage.

    And Keith Olbermann nailed it. It really is about the human heart – and why does it matter to people like Sparta that others be denied their shot at the same loving long-term officially-recognised family-creating relationship that is considered – by people like Sparta – to be the foundation of society?

  157. Loth..yes that was interesting wasn’t it that around 18,000 gay marriages in California do continue. It would obviously have been a legal nightmare to nullify 18,000 contracts entered into in good faith.

    Hence of course why Sparta very offensive analogy with animals would never be possible..an animal cannot enter into a contract.

  158. Lotharsson,

    “Affirmative action, since you apparently know the discrimination law so well, is aimed at correcting actual discrimination, you know, actual UNEQUAL treatment.”

    Yes, now if we could actually read minds you might be able to prove this “theory”. Until our world achieves an exact balance of the races and genders, we can continue to blame the lefts favorite boogey-men…..Regardless, the practice is justifiable in your mind under the law even if it discriminates as well? Great logic, as always, now you got me laughing mental midget…….

    “And how exactly does this amount to unequal treatment under the law in your eyes?”

    I have to have children to get a handout intended to promote child bearing? What if I am infertile? I guess I am out of luck then…..Seems rather discriminatory to me like not having my relationship endorsed because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of marriage….The injustice of it all……You almost get the impression government endorses certain groups, people, relationships etcetera for a reason? Hmm……..

    “So we still don’t know why you think gay marriage should be prohibited, other than (cue scary music) it might lead to polygamy based on some legal theory that doesn’t hold water”

    A theory so leaky that “Lotharsson the Great” has not been able to drip dry it, even in theory…

    “we still don’t know whether it’s the same chromosomes or the same type of genitals that prohibit a potential marriage in your eyes. I doubt we’re going to get an answer.”

    My position is clear, try scrolling up if you really care to know but something tells me the house could be burning down around you and you would still be trying to decide if it is really fire.……..Anyhow, when you can present an argument that justifies homosexual relationships without discriminating against other “alternative” relationships (which you can’t) than you will get my attention but until then you’re the bigot here mate. I simply raised the reality of what is sure to follow but apparently some never mature beyond the pleasure principle, regardless……Yes, I know, has to be a straw man as you have no rebuttal or perhaps another shadow I must point out for you…..LOL……

  159. The other “alternative” relationships you keep alluding to are not between two constenting adults.

    And you really love to call people “mental midgets” dont you – as if that makes your arguments better.

  160. “Hence of course why Sparta very offensive analogy with animals would never be possible..an animal cannot enter into a contract.”

    You missed the boat once again Min……

  161. Your second last post gets to the core of your argument, Sparta: jealousy.

    We live in a society which means we pay for lots of things we may not use: roads, rail, public pools, playgrounds and parks and list could go on …

  162. And have the countries that now allow gay marriage had this “sure to follow” demands that you allude to?

  163. “And you really love to call people “mental midgets” dont you – as if that makes your arguments better.”

    Yep, as some like to label me a bigot, prejudicial, homophobe, untraveled, uneducated etcetera……My argument is made more valid by the lengths in which you and others avoid it or fail in rebuffing it…..the name calling is a jab like your recent “petty” stab….

    “The other “alternative” relationships you keep alluding to are not between two constenting adults.”

    So like Lotharsson, it is the “number” of people in a relationship that matters? How very discriminatory of you Joni…….

  164. And I also don’t understand this either…. what damage to society is done by allowing gay-marriage?

  165. “And have the countries that now allow gay marriage had this “sure to follow” demands that you allude to?”

    In the works…..take a look at the links I posted…..Canada and Britian for instance….forget it, I won’t make you look…….

    http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070625_106285_106285

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23923768-601,00.html

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922968-28737,00.html

  166. And I also don’t understand this either…. what damage to society is done by allowing gay-marriage?

    It’s quite simple really Joni.

    If we start giving equal rights to gays and lesbians pretty soon everyone will want them.

  167. Article 1 – polygamy
    Artcile 2 – polygamy
    Article 3 – polygamy

    And I said – the Bible permits polygamy – so what is the problem?

    And where are the demands for the other “alternative” marriage types? apart from polygamy.

  168. And so you are withdrawing your statement Sparta as below:

    We can allow people to marry animals, allow those who live and identify more with another gender/culture/race claim whatever they would like, that way they can benefit from affirmative action policies, benefits etcetera….I mean, let’s just remove all standards or semblance of stability in the name of what makes us FEEL good….brilliant, as always

  169. They’re not “sure to follow” demands either joni, rather a separate argument coming from a different part of society, not based on anything gay and lesbian activists are saying.

  170. Regardless, the practice is justifiable in your mind under the law even if it discriminates as well?

    You don’t understand the difference between prohibited discrimination as a legal concept, and “discrimination”, the act of discerning differences and acting up on them. That doesn’t mean that the two concepts are the same. And just so we’re all clear about it, they’re not.

    So is the legal concept of affirmative action “justifiable under the law”? Well, yes, BY DEFINITION, because “justifiable under the law” means it is consistent with the law.

  171. I have to have children to get a handout intended to promote child bearing?

    Why, yes, unsurprisingly you do. The law recognises that child bearing imposes costs, and if you don’t have children you don’t incur those costs, so the question of whether you should receive financial help with them never arises.

  172. Joni..the problem is that under current law marriage is an exclusive contract. That is, if a man marries more than one woman then only the 1st wife is legally married, the 2nd and subsequent wives can claim defacto status. If the man marries and has a civil contract with more than one woman then he is guilty of bigamy.

  173. Sparta

    I admit I am coming in on the end of all of this so you may have answered this before.

    1) Do you belive that being Homosexual is a choice, or do you believe it is genetic and therefore unable to be a choice ?

  174. Anyhow, when you can present an argument that justifies homosexual relationships without discriminating against other “alternative” relationships (which you can’t)

    OMFG! Are you really that uncomprehending?!

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume I haven’t done that already.

    You are saying that because other people might want other legal arrangements which you apparently find objectionable – and which you somehow think would be inevitable if gay marriage were allowed – that gay couples should be denied the same arrangements as straight couples, not because you think they shouldn’t have those rights, but because of what might follow?

    Wow, that’s cruel.

  175. …rather a separate argument coming from a different part of society, not based on anything gay and lesbian activists are saying.

    The problem Sparta has – ironically – is that he is unable to discriminate between the two arguments. And that leads him to believe that the two are the same, and hence he believes that anyone who HAS discriminated between the two HASN’T. This explains a great deal, including his assertions about the intellectual faculties of various commenters.

  176. Let me just stand up for sparta for a bit.

    He normally does not post in the afternoon (in Australia) as it is now night in the USA. So please do not assume that he has run away from answering. For all his faults (?) he does stand up for what he believes and is willing to debate. So please can we show some respect to him and let him answer when he is ready.

  177. “You don’t understand the difference between prohibited discrimination as a legal concept, and “discrimination”, the act of discerning differences and acting up on them.”

    The evidence for this “discrimination” that you seem to feel warrants its inception while openly discriminating on the basis of color in itself is what? More theory I presume. After all, if a person of color is unable to advance in profession or education it must be due to their gender or color didn’t you know…genius…..

    Yes, I don’t understand, coming from a person who thinks government endorsement is a right. If that is so, why are polygamist not entitled to said right again? Oh yes, in your world where this right “exists” it mandates something about “two” people only……Can you say delusional…….

    “That doesn’t mean that the two concepts are the same. And just so we’re all clear about it, they’re not.”

    Thankfully the loons don’t control the asylum yet…..as is evident by your responses thus far…..Perhaps you’re a legislator in your world as well? LOL….Everybody listen up, Lotharsson has spoken so let it be known throughout the land…..sure thing….

    “So is the legal concept of affirmative action “justifiable under the law”? Well, yes, BY DEFINITION, because “justifiable under the law” means it is consistent with the law.”
    Just priceless………….another right or justification you cannot point too…….

    “Why, yes, unsurprisingly you do. The law recognises that child bearing imposes costs, and if you don’t have children you don’t incur those costs, so the question of whether you should receive financial help with them never arises.”

    You mean like the law recognizes heterosexual marriage and the eventual child bearing costs it may impose or the stability an intact family can provide? You mean the law actually honors one family composition over another? Imagine that……

    “For the sake of argument, let’s assume I haven’t done that already.”

    Are you kidding me? For the sake of the argument why don’t you point out where you have……..you have done nothing of the sort…..Your ADD kicking in again mate…..LOL….

  178. Joni,

    “And I also don’t understand this either…. what damage to society is done by allowing gay-marriage?”

    Again, it isn’t “gay-marriage” per se but the legal precedent that will be set and the legal nightmare that is sure to follow……Can we agree that heterosexual disputes over children, property etcetera when they breakdown are not only emotionally consuming but costly and sometimes destructive for everybody involved? Are parental models important, family units needed? There is a vast amount of data that suggest just how important these factors are to child rearing (the future of our societies). The government endorses marriages between heterosexuals, not for the hell of it but to assist in this stabilization of the prospective family (and hence children/ the future society). Now along comes the gay community demanding their relationships receive the same endorsement, but some of us say “you can’t produce though” and you say “no but we love and thanks to medical technology we can circumvent the biological reality or adopt”. I then say, “yes but is it really a good idea for government to get into that line of work given how little we know? How does not having one of the genders in a family affect a child exactly in the long term anyway”? We know the statistics associated with kids who are raised in single gender/parent homes, do we not? “You say, well we really don’t know for sure in our particular scenario, nobody does but hell, what about my “rights/benefits”? I then say ok, I like Vegas, let’s roll the dice…

    However, than comes along Ahmed the polygamist and Phong the bisexual foreign exchange student. Ahmed is in love with 6 women, they love him but cannot get the help they need from the government to raise their 12 offspring so they live in abject poverty and Phong loves Mark and Cindy. Mark and Cindy don’t mind sharing Phong. However, they are all poor college students and need some help as well paying their tuition as all come from divorced heterosexual homes…..Both groups demand the same benefits we have afforded homosexuals now, but the government says, nope. The new barometer isn’t really about family stabilization, it’s simply about two people who love….Ahmed and Phong say well why should it only be about the love shared between “two” people? Is my love worth less? The government says……….. “Sorry folks, again you’re relationships are not entitled to the benefits/government endorsement because, we are only endorsing loving “two” person relationships now……Ahmed and Phong declare that their rights are being violated with such a law and the government say what? Somewhere the original reasoning behind endorsing hetero relationships via marriages to begin with is lost to all……

    Follow me there Joni………..Gay marriage may set a disastrous precedent that will inundate our courts and plague our culture much like that seen with the breakdown of the traditional home over the last 30 years has….The legislation/size of government that will be needed to accommodate dealing with this added complexity will be mind boggling and don’t get me started on the tax revenue that will need to be generated. We simply don’t know is the point…(no, I am not talking about the end of life as we know it..LOL) I don’t know about you, but I am not real thrilled with where we are now. Something about 6 year olds getting sex-ed that just doesn’t sit right with me or do it yourself divorce kits, 50% drop out rates, single mother homes etcetera….The gay marriage debate is far more reaching then many grasp I think.…….. One more time, I certainly wish I could be the good guy here, I don’t have a vested interest in seeing you unhappy or being labeled the bigot but don’t you think somebody should mention the what if’s?

    Goodnight……..

  179. Bacchus,

    “…rather a separate argument coming from a different part of society, not based on anything gay and lesbian activists are saying.”

    Unfortunately that is where you and the colossal ass (who is now chasing his own tail once again) are wrong. The whole argument for gay marriage is based on what?

    a) A right that is no right at all but a benefit granted to a particular segment of our society much like the baby bonus for example or affirmative action.
    b) A rationale that professes it is entitled to government endorsement because of love.

    Polygamists have been making these same arguments for decades and are making headway in other countries. The ass can even admit as much but on one hand says such an idea as polygamy can never win over the majority, even after repeated attempts to get him to notice that the majority were not needed in order to take the concept of gay marriage (which was as a foreign concept indeed not too long ago) from obscurity to the front page of the New York Times. It is also no wonder that Bisexuals and the homosexual lobby’s are now in partnerships working towards common goals. It is hardly a separate issue mate….clearly you are not following this topic with any consistency……

  180. So your only other “alternative” is polygamy?

  181. It’s interesting, Sparta, that there is an increasing number of studies coming out similar to this:

    Study: Same-sex couples just as good, if not better, at parenting

    http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

  182. After all, if a person of color is unable to advance in profession or education it must be due to their gender or color didn’t you know

    More straw.

    If you don’t understand that affirmative action programs need to demonstrate that there is an underlying unequal playing field to have any validity in the first place, then you don’t know what you’re arguing against.

    In response to me pointing out that “justified under the law” is basically saying “consistent with the law”:

    Just priceless………….another right or justification you cannot point too…….

    Maybe you need to consider that sometimes you don’t clearly elucidate what you wanted to ask, rather than your respondents being idiots…

  183. You mean like the law recognizes heterosexual marriage and the eventual child bearing costs it may impose or the stability an intact family can provide?

    No. Please discriminate between the two cases.

    You assert that the marriage law gives benefits to straight marriage because they may result in children. (Please feel free to provide some evidence for this assertion. Plenty of straight marriages are childless and yet still have all the benefits of being recognised as marriage.)

    The baby bonus is paid because there are costs incurred for actual children.

    Potential. Actual. Difference.

  184. The government endorses marriages between heterosexuals, not for the hell of it but to assist in this stabilization of the prospective family (and hence children/ the future society)

    So finally it comes out. What happens in the bedroom DOES matter. Government recognition of marriage is for possible breeding. Not actual breeding mind you – just the possibility.

    So I guess that means Sparta is all for lesbian marriage?

  185. Another fear-based argument from Sparta?

  186. How does not having one of the genders in a family affect a child exactly in the long term anyway”?

    Well, there are plenty of single-parent straight families. Maybe you could ask them. Or ban their families, force them to marry someone else?

    How about we ask the following question instead. Given that people think having only one gender in single parent families is acceptable, why is having two parents of the same gender worse? One extra parent, no matter the gender, surely means a more stable family and more loving care for the child.

  187. Another fear-based argument from Sparta?

    Seems like it:

    Gay marriage may set a disastrous precedent that will inundate our courts and plague our culture much like that seen with the breakdown of the traditional home over the last 30 years has

    So we’ve got fear that something bad may follow, so screw over the gays. We’ve got valid concern over the state of straight marriage, so screw over the gays.

    Kind of like Al Qaeda attacked us, so invade Iraq.

    And we’re afraid of another terrorist attack, so screw over a bunch of people who were innocently sucked up into our dragnet.

  188. A right that is no right at all but a benefit granted to a particular segment of our society much like the baby bonus for example or affirmative action.

    Except that it’s not like the baby bonus, is it? You can choose to have a baby, and thereby incur the costs (and help generate the future benefit to society) to which the benefits are addressed. If you’re gay, you can’t choose to “be straight”. And currently you can’t marry your chosen one, so society can’t accrue the benefits of more stable relationships – instability in straight marriages being one of the things that you rail against.

    And it’s not like affirmative action, is it? There’s no unequal playing field for straight couples when compared to gay couples that needs remedying, is there? If anything they have all the advantages – their relationship is accepted as normal and unremarkable by everyone and their roles are deeply embedded in everything we do, right down to a space for “husband” and “wife” on all sorts of application forms.

  189. So your only other “alternative” is polygamy?

    As far as I can see. He keeps trying to throw some sort of fear of a bisexual agenda into the mix, but I can’t see any new “alternative lifestyles” involving bisexuals beyond straight, gay or poly marriage.

  190. I could take his argument(s) apart, but one has to remember, he is the master of projection and magic thinking, so the revealed ‘dog chasing tail’ is as good as it will ever get: be afraid, very afraid, of polygamists and bisexuals who are much worse than gays despite their reproductive potentials. 😉

  191. I think I just got hit on the head about this constant reference to bisexuals and polygamy by Sparta. Is he saying that for a bisexual to be happy and satisfied he/she needs to marry one of each sex hence bisexuality leads to polygamy?

  192. So Sparta is afraid that gay marriage will “set a precedent” that will allow polygamy to become legal. That seems to be the overriding fear. (That, and we’ll have to give them government benefits as a result that will raise taxes!)

    He appears to acknowledge that polygamy will not arrive by popular vote. So he thinks it would occur via a court finding it necessary under the law.

    What I don’t get is how a court will ONLY find it necessary BECAUSE gay marriage exists. Given that polygamous marriages are heterosexual, the fact that homosexual marriages are legal doesn’t add anything to the argument that isn’t already there.

    In fact, since he thinks that straight marriage is endorsed by government primarily because it might produce children – then his reasoning gives major ammunition to the polygamists, who will presumably produce families with MORE children than traditional straight marriage.

    And if you really believe that marriage (rather than being about adults forming a hopefully lifelong pair bond), is really about forming a family for the production and care of children, then polygamists have a point – they have more parents so they can clearly take better care of children than traditional pairs of parents.

    I think Sparta is secretly arguing for polygamy 😉

  193. Daphon – hehe – maybe that is the crux of his point.

  194. But what if you are 70% straight – 30% gay – does that mean you have to have 7 wives and 3 husbands to keep your sexuality ratio in sync?

  195. Daphon – ahhhh, that is entirely plausible, and would explain a lot.

  196. I haven’t yet seen a bisexual person or organisation pushing for polygamy. Are there any out there?

  197. (That, and we’ll have to give them government benefits as a result that will raise taxes!)

    N.B. We don’t ask where the taxes came from in the first place when handing out the privileges and benefits, either; that is a given and a just dessert which naturally and unqyestionably accrues only to breeding pairs because there is a self-evident and circular reason for that occurrence. And despite having argued previously in another fear-based discourse for limits on breeding. Good to know those Mexican illegals are predominantly staunch Roman Catholics and sticklers for monogamous matrimony and pumping out new Americans to swell the righteous arguments, though.

  198. The funny thing about this “marriage is only created for breeding potential” argument is that I know a number of gay Dads and Mums, therefore gays as a group DO manage to reproduce (with or without medical technology), and therefore marriage on Sparta’s terms SHOULD be extended to them for exactly the same reasons he says it is for straights – they MIGHT reproduce.

    But I bet I’ll soon find out that I’m a complete tail-chasing moronic mental midget who hasn’t understood the REAL reason gays can’t marry yet. Either that, or Sparta is secretly arguing for gay marriage as well as polygamy 😉

  199. Lotharsson, on June 5th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Indeed. Even on the ‘intact’ and ‘stable’ families bizzo he’s arguably peddling BS. Marriage, as an institution, is demonstrably in decline; anything that can buttress it, by people who want marriage and intact families, seems to fit his definition sans the anti-gay gloss.

  200. From the Canadian article that Sparta linked to earlier:

    Polygamy laws have trumped issues of religious freedom in challenges in several jurisdictions, including the U.S., India and the European Union, he notes.

    There’s a risk the Supreme Court hasn’t finished the process of redefining marriage that started with the reference on same-sex unions, he concedes. “If you open up the definition of marriage, as we have, one can ask, ‘Well, if it doesn’t have to be a man and a woman, why not more than two parties?’ ” The issues, though, are different, he believes. “The fundamental basis of the challenge to have same-sex marriage was that allowing it promotes equality, and we don’t want to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument against polygamy is that it is fundamentally an unequal relationship.”

    (My emphasis.)

  201. Colbert has the solution – don’t make all marriages equal; create so many different kinds of marriages that the gays don’t feel singled out 😉

  202. More shadows/straw-men…..for all the circumstantial evidence, I am amazed some still fail to grasp but then again, not really………

    http://newsblaze.com/story/20080902140449iwfs.nb/topstory.html

    From the link above……for you Baccus………..

    “As marriages in the 21st century go beyond the traditional to encompass de facto relationships and recognition of gay and lesbian alliances, some are arguing for polygamous marriages to be protected and granted equal rights under the law.”

  203. More straw-men……..in the words of Lotharsson “scroll on by”, only reality here……..

    “NH’s “Same Sex Marriage” Law “Discriminates” Against Polygamy”

    http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

  204. Yes, all the advocates of “rights” here may celebrate even if their “victory” comes at the hands of discriminating against another group…..Hypocritical, no not the defenders of “love, compassion and rights”……LOL

    What a transparent joke……..Me, Me, Me, Me………

  205. And still Sparta – your only other “alternative” is polygamy.

  206. And instead of you trying to defend your position against gay marriage, you have now turned to be a defender of rights for polygamists!

  207. (We won’t tell Sparta that the whole of ‘society’ is a grand experiment in ‘polygamy’ and six degrees of incest; nor that socially-endorsed ‘homosexuality’ is all those ‘straight’ dads hankering after having sons to perpetuate their line.)

  208. Joni,

    So you at least acknowledge polygamy is coming?

  209. No mate – that is your premonition.

    And so we ask again (and again)- apart from polygamy – what are the other “alternatives” that you keep alluding to.

  210. I would have thought that other alternative was obvious…cloning…doesn’t get much more homo-sexual than that. Me, married to me, procreating with me, to reproduce me and me and me…just to cover the me, me, me, me meme and the lolzes.

  211. And weren’t the Spartans a gay army?

  212. Yes, all the advocates of “rights” here may celebrate even if their “victory” comes at the hands of discriminating against another group

    Sparta, __IF__ gay marriage is considered by YOU to come about by “discriminating against” polygamists…

    …then by your own admission YOUR position discriminates against gay people.

    So as someone once said, take a look at the log in your own eye before you complain about the speck in someone else’s…

  213. Were the Spartan warriors gay?

    Spartan warriors made up the fiercest gay and bisexual army in human history. Sparta demanded its warriors sexually love one another so that they would also fight for each other to the death.”

    Look up the Theban Sacred Band

    Homosexuality in ancient Greece

    …and damn if sex wasn’t a societal thing back then and not just for procreation.

    Lot’s more if you look.

  214. What a transparent joke……..Me, Me, Me, Me………

    Sparta, your position appears to be solidly based on “Me, Me, Me, Me”.

    YOU want to prevent others doing what YOU can do for reasons best known to yourself, despite the fact that THEM marrying will not take anything away from YOUR marriage or society – if anything, it will increase the amount of stable family relationships in society.

    And your opposition appears to be for no good reason other than YOU want them to not have the “benefits” (your term) and rights that YOU enjoy. Yes, you couch it in arguments about child raising – that somehow marriage, a civil contract between two adults with no mention or guarantee of children, is ONLY provided for the benefit of said hypothetical children. What an utter crock! That argument is profoundly denigrating to and dismissive of the powerful life partner bond (which we know as a “family”) created between pairs of adults – whether or not they have children – a bond which we all want to encourage because it leads to a better society for everyone!

    (And the “it’s only for the kids” argument is stupid to boot – gay people have been able to have children forever. If they need to bring someone else in from outside of their relationship to provide DNA, that’s none of your business. Plenty of straight couples don’t have kids with DNA from both parents – perhaps far more than you realise.)

    Speaking of “Me, Me, Me, Me”, you’re even worried that gay marriage will lead to legal polygamy and (somehow?) YOUR taxes will increase! How mean-spirited!

    And to top it all off, your prejudice is showing – I’m a straight married male.

    But I have enough basic human decency to recognise that if my wish to take my chosen life partner as my spouse were to be denied merely because our genitals or chromosomes were similar, that it would have profound and deeply painful consequences. It would mark my relationship – and by extension me – as 2nd-class in the eyes of society, it would encourage prejudice, and it would deny me a large number of rights, both large and small, that are taken for granted by most of the population by virtue of marriage.

  215. Basically you’re just full of $h!t Sparta – cause and effect mate. Legitimising polygamy doesn’t lead to homosexual marriage and neither does legalising homosexual marriage lead to legalised polygamy. That concept that they do seems to be the crux of your argument.

    Some of the arguments put by both disparate groups to support their position may be similar, BUT, you intellectual cripple, they’re different and individual arguments. Your assertion that they are the same or that one automatically follows the other is where you fail miserably.

  216. Speaking earlier of the failure to date to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, seven in ten Americans support allowing openly gay people to serve in the military.

  217. “if anything, it will increase the amount of stable family relationships in society.”

    More theoretical speculation, nothing more……..Nobody knows what the outcome will be mate, individuals like yourself are simply willing to gamble with our cultures…..

    “YOU want to prevent others doing what YOU can do for reasons best known to yourself”

    You mean marry or procreation? Hardly dude…….I am not preventing anybody from doing anything. I simply have an opinion, one that is routinely circumvented by unelected officials or officials unwilling to put it to a ballot, as we both know is the only way this cause finds success. Please tell me what gays are denied that I am not? There are many examples in society of things I “can’t have or can’t do” because of my gender, race or in general. Again, the law cannot be all things to all people mate and isn’t in many ways outside of this debate. You and others simply ignore this fact……

    “And your opposition appears to be for no good reason other than YOU want them to not have the “benefits” (your term) and rights that YOU enjoy.”

    ONE MORE TIME, THEY ARE NOT DENIED THE “BENEFITS” I AM . They are trying to change the “laws” to suit their wants and needs; there is a difference you seem unable to grasp…..plain and simple. More than one court has already seen it this way as well…..Oh yes, since you are so convinced marriage is a right, please tell me where in my Constitution or Bill of Rights your repeated claim is enshrined? You can’t and we both know this……..

    “Yes, you couch it in arguments about child raising – that somehow marriage, a civil contract between two adults with no mention or guarantee of children, is ONLY provided for the benefit of said hypothetical children.”

    Ok genius, please tell me why the government endorses heterosexual marriage to begin with then? Just for the hell of it perhaps or to “discriminate” against homosexuals……LOL

    “That argument is profoundly denigrating to and dismissive of the powerful life partner bond (which we know as a “family”) created between pairs of adults – whether or not they have children – a bond which we all want to encourage because it leads to a better society for everyone!”

    Blah, blah, blah…..I am no more denigrating and dismissing than you are concerning polygamy. That “bond” doesn’t need government endorsement now and never has, try to keep it straight……Your positions are not only hypocritical but completely illogical….

    “(And the “it’s only for the kids” argument is stupid to boot – gay people have been able to have children forever. If they need to bring someone else in from outside of their relationship to provide DNA, that’s none of your business.”

    In your opinion……….Regardless, not sure what you getting at other than acknowledging that homosexual relationships are genetically unviable partnerships…..

    “Plenty of straight couples don’t have kids with DNA from both parents – perhaps far more than you realise.)”

    Your point is? You seem to think there is no difference in the sexes then? We are exactly the same and add exactly the same thing to a relationship? Ok………….You wonder why we are not asexual then to begin with…Hmm…….Perhaps it is for government to decide which relationships it wishes to endorse and hence the American people? Yes, but we have plenty of evidence to suggest that the “mom and dad” model are essential to a healthy child (whether their own or adopted)……We simply don’t know in the case of the homosexual relationship. Bracchus sights a short term study that stresses this point as well and only has looked breifly at “mom and mom” housholds thus far……..

    “Speaking of “Me, Me, Me, Me”, you’re even worried that gay marriage will lead to legal polygamy and (somehow?) YOUR taxes will increase! How mean-spirited!”

    I think we both know by the few links I have posted that it is coming as homosexual relationships are pushed on the people via judicial fiat and back door dealings. You can simply continue to ignore it all you like; at least you guys are no longer claiming “red herring” as Tim was a mere year ago….LOL……Mentioning that our taxes may lead to supporting or contributing to relationships I do not feel should have government endorsements is my prerogative. I suppose you are comfortable with taxes going to religious organizations then? I am to have no say in how my taxes are used because some might find it “mean-spirited”? Your neo-socialist leaning rears its head again…….

    “And to top it all off, your prejudice is showing – I’m a straight married male.”

    Congratulations, so am I. I was referring to your feelings about polygamy…….

    “But I have enough basic human decency to recognise that if my wish to take my chosen life partner as my spouse were to be denied merely because our genitals or chromosomes were similar, that it would have profound and deeply painful consequences.”

    Are you really this thick or is it your intention to keep playing the “empathy” card despite the legal pitfalls I have mentioned knowing you can’t win that debate on that ground so you prefer to keep using the “guilt” routine as the homosexual lobby does (which is proving successful)? It really is the only leg you guys have on this issue and why your ilk looks for “sympathetic” judges….. All of your arguments trying to make the case for homosexual relationships can easily be applied to the lifestyle I have mentioned, one you openly discount. How very hypocritical of you do-gooder…….

    Anyway, it has nothing to do with human decency mate and nobody is saying you can’t be with those you want (including me), we simply disagree on whether or not it should receive government endorsement, so enough already with your moral relativism……

    “It would mark my relationship – and by extension me – as 2nd-class in the eyes of society, it would encourage prejudice, and it would deny me a large number of rights, both large and small, that are taken for granted by most of the population by virtue of marriage.”

    Let me break this down for you one more time. Homosexuals have all the “rights” of citizenship and hence are not being treated like second class citizens, try to grasp…But like heterosexuals, we are not all “entitled” to the same benefits under the law for a plethora of reasons. Benefits are not synonymous with rights no matter how much you want to act like a child with your fingers in your ears screaming “rights, rights rights”. The government can and does deny “benefits” to many citizens based on race, social class and gender etcetera in a whole host of areas. The endorsement of heterosexual marriage is no different (a baby bonus is another). Because the law cannot be all things to all people, all the time, there will always be groups and individuals who “FEEL” they are being denied something; real or imagined. You can continue to resist acknowledging this as you have thus far out of ignorance or denial but it only validates my arguments and leaves you standing there going on about “feelings”…………

  218. Lotharsson,

    Oddly, the study doesn’t mention what military men/women actually think….This seems to be the most important to me as they will be the ones having to “live with it”. From my own personal perspective, it will never work………Instead it “grossly” speculates that the results are synonymous with servicemember wishes as well….LOL……

    Amazing how people find ways of twisting numbers….Still, overlooks the point that the overwhelming majority still say it isn’t a good idea…LOL…..

  219. bacchus,

    Clearly you have never heard of a precedent….LOL…

  220. Lotharsson,

    “Sparta, __IF__ gay marriage is considered by YOU to come about by “discriminating against” polygamists……then by your own admission YOUR position discriminates against gay people.”

    I “DON’T” feel it is discriminatory, Lotharsson….I am simply using YOUR language and YOUR reasoning to make my point……….

  221. This…

    Nobody knows what the outcome will be mate, individuals like yourself are simply willing to gamble with our cultures…

    …is your only point.

    And…

    Your positions are not only hypocritical but completely illogical

    is best exemplified by…

    Mentioning that our taxes may lead to supporting or contributing to relationships I do not feel should have government endorsements is my prerogative.

    and…

    You can continue to resist acknowledging this as you have thus far out of ignorance or denial but it only validates my arguments and leaves you standing there going on about “feelings”…………

    Obviously, what you mean to say is, “I, brave and prudent Sparta, feel afraid again”.

  222. Mobius Ecko,

    Now that is hilarious……although I am not sure what antiquity and present day culture has to do with anything? Both cultures long since having fallen apart….. Regardless, I think the Spartan’s better fit the “bisexual” model, wouldn’t you say? Lends credence to the idea that “sexual preference” is not “innate” like some here suggest is all. But hetero sex is “crucial” if we are to continue as a species which nobody here denies thankfully. Just because we have found ways of pleasuring ourselves without making children doesn’t negate the biology behind the “drive” if we as a species are to survive…..Darwinism and all….LOL……Other than it being only a “pleasure seeking behavior” what is the crucial role served by homosexual behavior again?

    “non-reproductive sex, including homosexual sex, does play a crucial role in society and in nature”

    I am still waiting for that “crucial role” in our society and in nature you keep going on about…..You were so quick to say I was “wrong again” yet have provided nothing except a piece on monkeys and references to antiquity…….LOL……

  223. Legion,

    “Obviously, what you mean to say is, “I, brave and prudent Sparta, feel afraid again”.”

    No, what I meant to say is what I have typed thus far but if I was unclear on any point ask and I will be happy to clarify…..Fear isn’t the motivation here mate as is always the accusation made toward those who disagree with “progressive” policy (or lack of). It is simply “bad/lazy law” and a bad precedent in my opinion. Much like “Dred Scott v. Sandford”………

  224. It’s an intriguing idea that Scientistic Darwinism business, just the same as if a Scientistic Creationist perspective were applied. Either way, the demiurges of the respective sciences appear to vouch for the capacity of the design process(es) to have: a) prevented a beginning or bought about an end of homosexuality; or b) to have made the entire exercise an impossibility, then or now. And yet, there’s ample evidence that the bi-directional threading is both possible anatomically and that the thread endures across time and place and cultures. Which is problematic, really, for either of a Darwinian or a Creationist anti-gay account: either God screwed up or evolution did when making humans with multi-purpose rudie bits and providing them with the capacities for creating familiar groupings of various sorts. Or, perhaps, it’s just that the relevant biological and social scale really is group and across generations, not some abstract fantasy family to which opportunistic ‘traditionalists’ cling through legal fiat and transient cultural inertia despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary.

  225. Legion,

    “And yet, there’s ample evidence that the bi-directional threading is both possible anatomically and that the thread endures across time and place and cultures.”

    You mean like normal and abnormal…LOL…….ample evidence anatomically there is not especially in regards to “our species” across all of our known existence and I challenge you to find any……

    “Which is problematic, really, for either of a Darwinian or a Creationist anti-gay account: either God screwed up or evolution did when making humans with multi-purpose rudie bits and providing them with the capacities for creating familiar groupings of various sorts.”

    Or perhaps the genetic model is simply not “perfect”, as we all know, clearly evidenced by the countless anomalies seen in all species and in all biological “systems” but that does not change the fact they are still “anomalies”….Problematic for Darwinism it isn’t, in fact homosexual behavior lends nothing but support to the evolutionary theory…..

    “Or, perhaps, it’s just that the relevant biological and social scale really is group and across generations, not some abstract fantasy family to which opportunistic ‘traditionalists’ cling through legal fiat and transient cultural inertia despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary.

    Legal “fiat”, that is rich indeed given the context of this discussion for how does “fiat” exist without the context of “law” exactly…… LOL…..some would simply rather discount, lament, dance and sing around realities they can neither intellectually challenge nor legally make a case for with our existing framework. Hence the need for “sympathetic” ears in black robes……In fact they must, as you and others have tried to do, create a completely different “reality/or legal construct” in an attempt to make their case; like prescribing a “right” where there is none or ignoring that their version of a “right”, as argued, could apply anywhere, to anybody, to any cause at any time. This is the conundrum I have gone at lengths to point out and one in which all the “intellectuals” here have avoided acknowledging….It is also grossly offensive to attempt to prescribe any comparison at all to the plight of those denied “real human rights” on the basis of skin color/ or race for example and why such a concept has not been accepted. Your idea of “cultural inertia” is rather entertaining as if homosexuality is a “novel” concept for starters or one that has not been tried countless times before to the benefit of what again?

    Other than providing “physical pleasure” to those who prescribe to it, what is homosexuality’s crucial role in society is my point and need for government endorsement as a matter of law? The pleasure centers of the brain in question here really, are remnants of the most primitive aspects of our psyche and hence I hardly see how giving into them is a type of “progression”; more like regression……..Although I defend the individuals “freedom” to entertain such behavior in the privacy of their own bedroom, we certainly shouldn’t be making law to accommodate all inklings of the limbic brain for heaven’s sake as law exists to curb it in the first place…..We have millions of others who feel disinfected by what they “cannot” have as a matter of law, this does not mean their “wants” not being met are essential/crucial to our societies let alone species?

    For somebody that proclaims the need for “models” and “statistical evidence” you seem quite content we have none to support your “wealth of evidence” on this topic….Indeed, like other proponents here you simply cannot challenge on the merits of your own legal arguments, so you must continue to distract and evade the premise. Condescension and self proclaimed esoteric mantra are your only defense. Alas, that is your MO however on most topics….I cannot fault you for that though, just as I cannot fault the homosexual for a way of life that serves no purpose other than personal pursuits nor their assertion that it is also a “right” that with whom they wish to engage in such a pursuit warrants government endorsement on merits that simply don’t exist as they do for heterosexual relationships…….Purported esoteric ramblings, feelings and the “I am a better person than you because I support gay-marriage” claims aside……………

  226. I am still waiting sparta for you to tell us what the other “alternative” relationships are apart from polygamy.

    And was it the “courts” in other countries that allow gay marriage? Has there been this breakdown of society that you warn of?

    Of course not, because you are not the genius that you keep telling us you are.

    And how about that gay-army eh?

  227. That is calling the kettle black Sparta, the master of condescension and esoteric mantra.

    You just come back to the same point and then as is your MO switch it to the poster who is putting forth a debate you have difficulty countering.

    If homosexuality has no societal value as you proclaim then why does the church and other anti-gay organisations state that it will bring down society?

    Haven’t you also inferred that allowing homosexual marriage will lead to a degradation of society, yet you also proclaim it has no societal influence?

    Some psychological background and note the separation of love and sex:

    Sexual orientation is different from sexual behaviour because it refers to feelings and individuals’ views about what they consider themselves to be. Sexual behaviour is simply how people behave in a sexual situation. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviours.

    So why should that stop two consenting adults from marrying regardless of their orientation?

    You still haven’t answered that Sparta through your multiple paragraphs that basically come down to you not liking it and it will destroy society with no evidence it will.

  228. Homosexuals have all the “rights” of citizenship

    Bloody hell. Out of Sparta’s latest rant claiming … oh, never mind, a whole bunch of crap, most of which has been refuted already – this takes the cake.

    In response to pointing out that prohibiting gay marriage marks gay life partnerships as 2nd-class relationships, Sparta responds that homosexuals have all the “rights” of citizenship, implying that should be good enough so stop asking for marriage equality!

    You’re a real piece of work, Sparta.

  229. All of your arguments trying to make the case for homosexual relationships can easily be applied to the lifestyle I have mentioned, one you openly discount.

    No, some of them can. But you are totally, wilfully blind to the powerful counter-arguments to polygamy that do not apply to gay marriage, which means the case for the two propositions are not the same.

    And EVEN if we assert for the sake of argument that the same principles that lead to legal gay marriage lead to legal polygamy … then so what? If the argument proves that it’s the right thing to do, then it’s the right thing to do. You would hold hostage a whole group of society because of an unproven fear that it would aid in proving legitimacy of something you don’t want. Imagine if someone had once said “Hell, no, we can’t give the vote to women – it might lead to voting rights for blacks!”

  230. Oddly, the study doesn’t mention what military men/women actually think

    Oddly enough, recent media reports about specific cases where gay people were kicked out said their units (a) knew they were gay, and (b) wanted them to stay.

    Yes, that’s anecdotal. But it is likely to turn out to be a storm in a teacup.

    Amazing how people find ways of twisting numbers….Still, overlooks the point that the overwhelming majority still say it isn’t a good idea…L

    WTF? What planet are you on? You certainly are the “master of projection”. The survey explicitly shows that the “overwhelming majority” support it – which you “twist the numbers” in your head to claim means that the “overwhelming majority still say it isn’t a good idea”.

  231. I “DON’T” feel it is discriminatory, Lotharsson….I am simply using YOUR language and YOUR reasoning to make my point

    So we have it on the record that you use arguments that you believe are based on falsehood? Very handy for future reference.

    And for the record, you still don’t understand discrimination under the law, nor are you smart enough to understand the key difference between the argument for gay marriage on anti-discriminatory grounds and the argument for polygamy on anti-discriminatory grounds.

  232. “And to top it all off, your prejudice is showing – I’m a straight married male.”

    Congratulations, so am I. I was referring to your feelings about polygamy…….

    No, you most certainly weren’t referring to my feelings about polygamy when you wrote “Me, Me, Me, Me”, which started this part of the exchange. You were arguing that gay people were whining on about “benefits” they selfishly wanted…

  233. But hetero sex is “crucial” if we are to continue as a species…

    Can’t go two minutes without bringing up a painfully obvious red herring?

    Or is this whole thing driven by a deep irrational fear that you have that if gay marriage is legalized, we’ll all be forcibly made to “go gay” and we’ll forget how to make babies by methods natural or assisted?

    So many fears – must be difficult to get out of bed in the morning.

  234. This is the conundrum I have gone at lengths to point out and one in which all the “intellectuals” here have avoided acknowledging

    LOL!

    Your argument has been amply acknowledged on this thread, but it has also been pointed out that’s it’s bulls**t. It is based on over-simplification of the arguments for two different cases allowing you to conflate them in your head and pretend that one will inevitably lead to the other. You saying so does not make it so.

    t is also grossly offensive to attempt to prescribe any comparison at all to the plight of those denied “real human rights” on the basis of skin color/ or race for example and why such a concept has not been accepted

    Saying it does not make it so. The fact is that there are several jurisdictions – some even in the US – who disagree with you.

  235. what is homosexuality’s crucial role in society is my point and need for government endorsement as a matter of law?

    As has been pointed out, but as you are apparently not smart enough to comprehend, homosexuality bonds homosexual couples together in long term relationships. It’s more than just pleasure; it’s family-building. Oxytocin, anyone?

    This is to society’s benefit because more stable families are a societal good. It also means that gay people do not feel forced to try for straight marriages, which happens more than you likely realise, and leads to UNSTABLE families.

    Really, how hard is this to understand? You complain about the state of society and family and marriage – and then want to prevent people who want to marry from marrying – and to top it off, hilariously assert that we don’t know that allowing gay marriage will result in more marriages.

  236. we certainly shouldn’t be making law to accommodate all inklings of the limbic brain for heaven’s sake as law exists to curb it in the first place

    Dude, that’s ALSO what gay marriage law achieves. It provides a more stable avenue for gay people to form long-term committed monogamous partnerships, rather than seeking short term limbic pleasure with a whole series of partners.

  237. .We have millions of others who feel disinfected by what they “cannot” have as a matter of law, this does not mean their “wants” not being met are essential/crucial to our societies let alone species

    Sad to see that you can’t let go of your favourite bigotry strawman.

    It’s not about the “wants” of gay people.

    It’s about equality.

    It’s about being acknowledged as being in a committed lifetime partnership the same in every way as any other such partnership which has been called a “marriage”, and having all of the societal rights that attach to that partnership.

  238. “It’s about equality.”

    Our PM will have none of that, thank you!

    Apparently there will be a ‘relationship registers’ so same sex couples can be recognised in many Commonwealth laws…how many?

    To me that smells of segregation which is discrimination in my oh so humble opinion.

    It appears to be a very small step forward but how do the people feel that this affects?

    If I was gay I would not feel comfortable putting my name on this register.

    http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3958/Rudd_Government_Says_No_To_Civil_Unions

  239. Sparta, here’s what I don’t get about your core argument.

    To recap – in your eyes, gays want “benefits” from the government that straight married couples have. They shouldn’t get “benefits” unless the government feels like giving them. This is presumably because “benefits” cost the government money.

    What exactly are these costly “benefits”? Gay marriage proponents generally have a long list of rights that attach to marriage which are denied to non-married gays, but I’m not clear on “benefits”.

    And Sparta, think carefully before you start arguing about the governmental cost of benefits. Gays generally earn more, pay more taxes (and have more discretionary income which supports the economy) than straights, so if you’re going to count the cost of “benefits” from legalising gay marriage, gays are going to point out that if you are going to do accounting like that, then straights aren’t paying their share of taxes.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  240. Apparently there will be a ‘relationship registers’ so same sex couples can be recognised in many Commonwealth laws

    I’m sure Sparta will argue against this on the grounds that it’s too costly to run such a register and figure out which laws it does and doesn’t apply to – it would be much simpler and cheaper and easier to understand if we simply had gay marriage 😉

  241. “You just come back to the same point and then as is your MO switch it to the poster who is putting forth a debate you have difficulty countering.”

    Difficulty countering, now that is funny…….Your points have been a cake walk.

    My apologies if I have missed anybody’s insult, I do have my hands full here…….

    My god, on this topic I feel I am debating a class of preschoolers who are all whining incessantly for the instructor to acknowledge there is a tooth fairy because they find money under their pillows when they leave a tooth or because “mommy says”……… We have Lotharsson in pig tails incessantly asking “but why?” and Mobius is in a tantrum because he has been told there really is no Santa Clause…..LOL

  242. The other interesting meta-observation about Sparta’s position is that he doesn’t think that “happiness” is a societal good. Hypothetical future children are, but happiness (let alone security in one’s primary relationship) is not. That seems to lead to an interestingly…Puritanical(?) view of government’s role.

    I guess that “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” business in the Declaration of Independence was just sentimental claptrap.

    (Do click on the link and read the section on judicial rulings – highly relevant, especially to “rights”.)

  243. We have Lotharsson in pig tails incessantly asking “but why?”

    Ah, yes, argument by emasculating insult – that always shows them how powerful your position is!

    At least it used to, back in that pre-school you refer to.

  244. I usually stay away from these type of threads but I just can not understand what the big deal is about denying gay civil unions that would be recorded by the Registrar as all are.

    Same goes for polygamy, if all parties are consensual why does the governments deny these people that right?

    I suppose it is theological constraints that is being applied.

  245. Sorry sparta – show me where you have actually presented a case against gay marriage that is not based on the possible polygamy fear.

  246. I suppose it is theological constraints that is being applied.

    It’s usually “the christians” scaper. All this “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” garbage that they constantly trot out.

    They (the christians) don’t want to see gays and lesbians having equal rights because it robs them of another minority group that they can victimise and marginalise.

    As someone said:

    “If we give gays and lesbians equal rights, pretty soon everyone will want them”.

  247. And maybe we can look at the rights that marriage actually gives.

    Such as:

    – recognition of the relationship in law
    – next of kin rights
    – tax benefits (which have actual get reduced in case of Centrelink)
    – inheritance rights

    And I still do not understand how giving these rights will harm existing marriage.

  248. Lotharsson,

    “Gay marriage proponents generally have a long list of rights that attach to marriage”

    I’ll tell you what Lotharsson, you give me just one of those “rights” currently denied to homosexuals under current law, a “right” and I will continue……just to give you some help…

    What is a “right”?

    -A power or privilege granted by law-

    What is a “benefit”?

    -Something that aids or promotes well-being-

    I’ll even give you a bit more help. Conversely, if the government wanted to, they could dissolve the benefits currently afforded to heterosexual relationships (endorsement of marriage) and it would not be illegal under any current framework.……

  249. Sparta

    Just on your post – how about the fact that hospitals can (and do in my case) deny partners next-of-kin rights.

    Shall we start with that one?

  250. Sparta, what joni said.

  251. How about what the New Jersey Law Journal said in 2000:

    Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse’s medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers’ compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one’s spouse…

  252. Conversely, if the government wanted to, they could dissolve the benefits currently afforded to heterosexual relationships (endorsement of marriage) and it would not be illegal under any current framework.

    Yes, they probably could. But that doesn’t help your argument. In that case you would have achieved marriage equality – no-one gets to – and the gay marriage proponents would be fine with that because it was equal.

    But given that it will never happen due to the volcanic outrage you’d see from the straights, it doesn’t help anyone in the real world.

    See, you don’t actually understand “rights”. Rights are a power that the right-holder can assert and that no-one can deny. Some rights are inalienable; others are granted. Those that are granted can be taken away by the grant giver; those that are considered inalienable cannot.

    Furthermore, and confusing to your case, is the fact that some – indeed most – rights are also benefits. So arguing that gays want “benefits” is tangential; they want rights which others have, most if not all of which can also be construed as benefits.

  253. “Sorry sparta – show me where you have actually presented a case against gay marriage that is not based on the possible polygamy fear.”

    Geez……

    I think I have done that and then some Joni…..You simply haven’t been following. Polygamy of fear, does this mean we are back to it being a “red herring” again despite the links I have provided? If this isn’t enough for you to at least pause and consider there is now a groundwork in play thanks to the same-sex debate then I doubt you will ever “get it” or at least until the “fear” is a reality…….

  254. Does hetero defacto relationships enjoy pretty much the same rights as married couples in this country?

  255. And Sparta, to continue, let’s allow that there are also “benefits” which are not “rights” that attach to marriage. How exactly does that help your argument? Benefits that attach to marriage should be given to those pairs with differing chromosomes or genitals (you don’t seem very clear on which), but not to those pairs with the same chromosomes or genitals? How do you argue to yourself that that is not discriminatory on the basis of the genitals or chromosomes involved?

  256. You are a one trick pony Sparta – what is the objection you have apart from polygamy? You are the one that referred to other “alternative lifestyles” (note the plural).

    What are the other lifestyles that you referred to?

  257. Polygamy of fear, does this mean we are back to it being a “red herring” again despite the links I have provided?

    Sparta, you were asked to show how you’ve argued against gay marriage WITHOUT using fear of polygamy. You responded WITH fear of polygamy.

    Try again.

  258. And Sparta, you keep claiming polygamy will inevitably be legalized if gay marriage is, because you say the argument is the same. This, despite the Canadian article that you linked to earlier noting that:

    The fundamental basis of the challenge to have same-sex marriage was that allowing it promotes equality… The argument against polygamy is that it is fundamentally an unequal relationship.

    Surely you understand enough logic to note that the “unequal relationship” argument against polygamy does not apply to gay marriage, and therefore gay marriage does not inevitably lead to polygamy because there are clearly fundamental differences between the two?

  259. But Lotharson – Sparta posted multiple links about the same story – and that makes it more powerful. Remember – he keeps telling us how we are intellectual inferior to his mental immenseness.

    😉

  260. Sparta posted multiple links about the same story – and that makes it more powerful.

    Oh, I see, this mental midget didn’t understand that. I merely thought linking to someone else’s web page meant your argument was correct. Now I see – doing it twice or more is much more powerful still!

    😉

  261. “See, you don’t actually understand “rights”. Rights are a power that the right-holder can assert and that no-one can deny. Some rights are inalienable; others are granted. Those that are granted can be taken away by the grant giver; those that are considered inalienable cannot.”

    Are you seriously arguing that government endorsement of marriage is an inalienable right then? You say homosexuals would be fine with my hypothetical so that can’t be it? So which is it? Or perhaps it is you who isn’t really clear on what a “right” is to begin with? I am afraid you are simply wrong here Lotharsson, “rights”, as a matter of legality, cannot be taken away or granted by government within our current legal framework at whim or in contradiction to the “right holder”, in this case the “right holder” being the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Case in point….

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091802177.html

    You seem unable to grasp the essential concept at the heart of this debate as most proponents do; which might explain your obvious contradictions. Your heart is in the right place but unfortunately the law isn’t………

    “Furthermore, and confusing to your case, is the fact that some – indeed most – rights are also benefits. So arguing that gays want “benefits” is tangential; they want rights which others have, most if not all of which can also be construed as benefits.”

    While this may be true to some extent (rights are also benefits) it certainly isn’t in regards to the topic at hand. Please, if you’re going to insist on saying homosexuals are denied “rights” identify them first (pursuit of happiness for example). You certainly wouldn’t deem freedom on par with marital benefits would you? Like me, homosexuals are not entitled to every “benefit” the government provides but are entitled to every “right”; a very simple concept that seems to elude you and others.

  262. I also don’t think Sparta has a clear understanding of the difference between the right to marry the person of your choice, and the rights (and non-rights benefits) that attach to marriage. He tends to argue that gays shouldn’t get the latter under his theory of the purpose of governmental marriage laws. I don’t think that helps his case, as the gay marriage case is built on the former.

    It’s not hard to see how, as in that link I posted earlier, that Justice Warren’s pronouncement in Loving v. Virginia would apply to gay marriage:

    The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    This was in a case where two people were prohibited by anti-miscegenation law from marrying (because one was white and one was not). Given what we now know about innateness of sexual orientation, exactly the same statement applies to gay marriage.

  263. joni, on June 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pm Said:

    How about what the New Jersey Law Journal said in 2000:

    Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse’s medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers’ compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one’s spouse…

    It seems that the solicitor who holds my Enduring Power of Attorney has most of those matters covered. If I also named him a beneficary he would have more rights than the missus.

  264. Are you seriously arguing that government endorsement of marriage is an inalienable right then?

    Yes, and not only me. The US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (my emphasis):

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

  265. “What are the other lifestyles that you referred to?”

    You seem obsessed with this question Joni? I think I mentioned two so far. Those who are openly gay because they are “born” that way and those who practice both hetero and homo because they are just plain confused/born that way…….Confused, so am I……….

  266. More than 1000 rights, benefits and privileges of marriage, identified by the US Government Accountability Office.

    All of them are denied to same-sex spouses by the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act”, even if legally married in their State.

  267. So Sparta, which of those 1138 rights, benefits and privileges identified by the GAO “can’t be taken away or granted by the government”?

    Before you answer, note that the GAO found these rights by inspecting Federal statutory provisions – you know, laws created by the government.

  268. “Sparta, you were asked to show how you’ve argued against gay marriage WITHOUT using fear of polygamy. You responded WITH fear of polygamy.”

    I have argued against gay marriage being a “right” as a matter of law and the legal pitfalls associated with the proponents arguments for, polygamy being the most obvious example. In contrast to you and others insisting it is a “right” and nothing more……Unfortunately I am still waiting for anybody to first tell me what “right” they feel has been denied and if “love and want” are said “rights” then how can we not apply such “rights” to any relationship. Proclaiming government endorsement of marriage is a “right” is simply crazy. I have been pretty consistent on this throughout. It is you and others who are all over the place……..Must I really go to the begining of this debate, as is routine with you and lead you by the hand? For somebody who is constantly telling people “they don’t understand this or that” you seem quite confused……….

  269. And Sparta, in California, Proposition 8 modified the Constitution in order to remove the Constitutional right to gay marriage determined by the courts.

    Still want to argue that “rights” can’t be taken away by government?

  270. I have argued against gay marriage being a “right” as a matter of law and the legal pitfalls associated with the proponents arguments for, polygamy being the most obvious example.

    Try again. This time without referencing polygamy.

    Unfortunately I am still waiting for anybody to first tell me what “right” they feel has been denied…

    That’s just plain flat-out bald-faced lying. You’ve got nothing, and it shows.

  271. I think I mentioned two so far.

    You remain confused. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation, not a “lifestyle” or “relationship style”. Bisexual people may enter into straight, gay or poly relationships. But there is no specific “bisexual lifestyle”.

  272. “Before you answer……..”

    I can hardly wait but instead of just posting questions for me to answer try answering those I post as well……Try to get the ADD under control mate…….

  273. Within the bounds of legal marriage there is considerable infidelity with a percentage of those who are unfaithful having multiple partners, and in some cases both partners being unfaithful. Since the increase in the use of DNA the discovery of the amount of men who have been raising children that are not their own has been surprising.Paternity Law Reform

    A marriage partner can have children to someone other than their legally married spouse, but cannot claim benefits for the extra-marital affairs. That is not against the law as long as they are not married to more than one person. That is basically the legal requirement for marriage between just two consenting adults, not being able to claim multiple benefits. There are no real punitive laws, apart from it being frowned upon in some societies, against adultery, mostly laws are in regards to divorce law. Though as usual in the US there is a wide discrepancy between states and old laws remain on the books even if they are not upheld. When was the last time someone went to jail or was fined in Alabama for adultery.

    In many places I don’t think it’s even against the law for someone to be married to one person yet be living with more than one partner in the same household. Certainly for influential men in France having mistresses (even the PM) including having children with them is not considered anything terrible.

    So, though it may not come under the term polygamy, which is mostly illegal so a government doesn’t have to pay out multiple benefits to the same person in several partnerships, polygamy by proxy or in all but name does take place without legal repercussions.

    My point is that for many marriage is a front and a legal construct they must go through to receive recognition and government benefits for themselves and the children they have. This doesn’t stop them having children outside marriage or even having multiple partners. Women will have children to a partner outside the marriage and will allow their husband in ignorance to raise the child as his own. Yet even though this is mostly frowned upon and the extent of it is fairly well known, little is done to make it illegal except as a grounds for divorce. In most Western societies or states where there are punitive laws against extra marital affairs, these laws are rarely invoked and a blind eye is turned to the affairs.

    How any people have been caught and arrested by police for having a nookie with someone other than their partner? I’d say that the police themselves would be among the statistics of those having extra-marital affairs even in states like Alabama where you can supposedly be fined or jailed.

    So here we have within one group in society two consenting adults who want to be able to get married because of their love for each other, but cannot only because their partner happens to be the same sex. Yet within the legal marriage between two consenting adults of a man and a woman there are considerable relationships with others outside the marriage, and that includes a married partner having an adulterous relationship with someone of the same sex.

    None of that will change by allowing gays to be married, but it does show how the concept of a legal marriage is really nothing more than a construct of an ideal and has mostly become a government instrument for controlling how they manage and restrict payments to family units (which by the way includes single mothers), so much so that de facto relationships are almost as equal or are equal on all counts. The only time it is not equal is when the partners do not declare a de facto relationship or if they are gay.

    The inconsistency in this alone should give people thought as to just why are gays being barred from marriage.

  274. “Still want to argue that “rights” can’t be taken away by government?”

    FFS……..are you serious?

  275. “Try again. This time without referencing polygamy.”

    What? Now I must make my case with an argument/example “you would like to have”? Give me a break….Your only rebuttal on this example is what? Oh yes, “marriage is between two people because I, Lotharsson say so and because the majority will never allow it”……Riveting…..LOL…..You try again high-speed….I know, your not real keen on answering questions, only posing them……….

  276. “You remain confused. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation, not a “lifestyle” or “relationship style”. Bisexual people may enter into straight, gay or poly relationships. But there is no specific “bisexual lifestyle”.”

    Let me get this straight, those who like having sex with both men and women do so because it is a lifestyle and those that like having sex with just the same sex do so because it is innate? Fucking brilliant….So says Lotharsson, so must it be……….The confusion is all yours mate, perpetually…….

    Heading to bed, not running away….1 am here on the East Coast and all…..I will answer in the morning……..

  277. FFS……..are you serious?

    Yes, of course I am. You said:

    “rights”, as a matter of legality, cannot be taken away or granted by government within our current legal framework at whim or in contradiction to the “right holder”

    I then showed that some just have been, and asked if you still stood by that quote…and by implication whether you wanted to clarify whether you thought there were different classes of rights, some of which indeed can be taken away in contradiction to the “right holder”.

  278. Now I must make my case with an argument/example “you would like to have”?

    No, you remain confused.

    You’ve been asked over and over again if you have anything against gay marriage other than it might lead to polygamy. When joni did this most recently, you responded by citing polygamy.

    If you feel that your case rests entirely on the concern about polygamy, all you have to do to answer joni’s question is to say so.

  279. Let me get this straight, those who like having sex with both men and women do so because it is a lifestyle and those that like having sex with just the same sex do so because it is innate?

    No, you are 180 degrees out. I said there was NO particular “bisexual lifestyle”. I said it was a sexual orientation, which means that it is innate. (And you still need to further distinguish orientation from behaviour, but let’s not complicate matters here.)

    You keep saying there are other “lifestyles” beyond polygamy that will also have to have government endorsement if gay marriage is granted. As far as anyone else can tell, what you mean by this is “bisexuality”.

    Those of bisexual orientation are sexually attracted to both men and women. That does not mean they have relationships with more than one person at a time, although – just like straights – they might. If they were to marry someone of the opposite sex, that would not be considered a “bisexual lifestyle”, it would be considered a straight marriage. Likewise, if they marry someone of the same sex, that is a gay marriage. If they were to marry two or more people (regardless of sex), that would be a poly marriage.

    So let’s rephrase the question and see if that makes it any clearer.

    Besides polygamy (and presumably polyandry – multiple husbands for one wife), what other hypothetical marriage arrangements are you afraid would need to be legitimized if gay marriage is made legal? Skip polygamy – we know that’s on your list. Are we talking group marriages with more than one person of each sex? Something else?

  280. Mobius Ecko, on June 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pm Said:
    “So here we have within one group in society two consenting adults who want to be able to get married because of their love for each other,”

    Perhaps this notion of love and marriage is confusing the whole issue.
    A marriage is merely a binding agreement designed primarily to provide legal security for the offspring of a marriage. In many cases it’s a means of legally merging assets of two families for the ultimate benefit of the succeeding generation.
    Love and romance may come later, but any marriage should have some practical purpose and intended outcome, to enable it to fulfill the primary reason the legal framework was created in the first place.
    The issue of emotional attachments, fidelity, or infidelity are irrelevant and should be ignored when discussing the matter.

  281. johnd, I don’t think it’s that simple.

    A marriage – at least between spouses without children – formalises creation of a family in the legal sense.

    A marriage is also a binding agreement meant to provide security for both SPOUSES – not just the offspring that may or may not come along. For the American case, go have a look at the 1100+ rights and benefits that the GAO identified (see link earlier). Many are exactly aimed at spousal security.

    And I don’t think you can ignore love either. If you seek permanent residency for your foreign spouse – both in the US and in Australia – the government requires you to provide evidence to substantiate that you have an actual relationship with said spouse. If it were merely a “legal merging of assets” they would not need to do this.

    And I think you would find a great deal of surprise if you suggested to most people standing at the altar – or at the registry – that they were marrying for the purpose of merging assets. Most would tell you that the REASON was they love their spouse-to-be and want to spend the rest of their lives with them. Isn’t that enough purpose and intended outcome?

  282. Loth..in ’75 when hubby and I married his sole asset was a ’68 Mini Cooper S Mk2. I had to pushstart it most mornings..the car that is 😉

  283. Lotharsson, on June 7th, 2009 at 5:41 pm Said:

    “johnd, I don’t think it’s that simple.”

    I was referring to it’s original creation. Like Christmas it’s since become a goldmine, for bureaucrats and lawyers that is.

    “Most would tell you that the REASON was they love their spouse-to-be and want to spend the rest of their lives with them. Isn’t that enough purpose and intended outcome?”

    NO. It’s NOWHERE near enough reason or purpose, and it shows in the statistics. If there are good solid practical reasons for the union, love will come, and last.

  284. I forgot to add one other practical reason why the state of marriage was created. It provided a formal means for the creation/transfer of identity.
    ISO 9001 ahead of it’s time.

  285. johnd, on June 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pm Said:

    Perhaps this notion of love and marriage is confusing the whole issue.
    A marriage is merely a binding agreement designed primarily to provide legal security for the offspring of a marriage.

    But many marriages have no children at all, more so in the West, and have no intention of having children, which is the case for two of my friends, one couple who have been married for over 30 years and the other 24 years. What is the legal security then when they could just as easily be de facto?

    What of the children outside marriage and under de facto relationships, or the children of a different biological parent outside the family?

    And sorry, whenever they interview those couples who have been together for 50 years or more and still love each other inevitably it is love that is given as the reason for the marriage in the first place, as it was for my parents. My mum and dad certainly never stated they got married because it was practical, they stated it was because after going out for a while they fell in love and that’s when they decided to get married.

    Days of Our Practical Lives

    “John you have a great asset to build on.”

    “Mary, you are such a practical person and have some enormous assets of your own, though I don’t love you and am having it off with your sister, who I do love immensely, your practicality and assets cannot be overlooked, will you marry me?”

    “Of course John, your asset has too much growth potential to be ignored, so though I’m shagging your brother’s brains out because I love him immensely, I’ll marry you.”

    A marriage must have some practical purpose and intended outcome, with love being a secondary consideration and if it comes later that’s good but if it doesn’t meh. Yeah right in some ideal alternate reality, but it fails because humans are mostly emotional beings not practical ones.

    What a cold heartless world you live in if that is what you think of marriage.

    And note that everything you have stated can go equally to same sex couples, and in fact you can take your statement to its conclusion and any couples can get together to combine assets regardless of gender. Is this why some governments are afraid of same sex marriages, all these people forming marriages purely to rort the system?

  286. I’m not married, don’t intend to be, have been with my “partner” for 10+ years & we have a daughter together.
    Marriage is not necessary to legitimise the integrity of a relationship.
    It should be a personal choice undertaken by those involved & noone else.

    This choice should be available to ALL people. The arguments against are reflexive crap.
    WTF gives outside parties the right to prohibit such things on pseudo-religious grounds?

  287. I’m not married

    Smart girl, that woman of yours Tboss. Who’d want to marry a Crow’s supporter anyway?

  288. lol, lets hope she stays smart.

  289. Some very nice work there, Lotharsson. I’d noted the grundnorm of ‘life, liberty and happiness’ and its implications, but would also add that other grundnorm of “equality under law” vouchsafed by an independent judiciary in a liberal (egads, the word liberal) democracy, and not a majoritarian tyranny; I’d noted the ‘so what-ness’ to the slippery slope/floodgates arguments presented thus far, even when those precise arguments were actually developed by someone with capacity to so do; I’d noted the juvenile conceptualisation-as-mantra of what a family could be in a comple society; and, yet, am amazed as ever with your patience and willingness to share your reasoning(s) and researches for the benefit of all. So, thank-you.

    Otherwise, my deconstruction of the neuro-linguistic heart of today’s representation of a rights-focussed pseudo-discourse: it ain’t right and I don’t like it (and vice versa). 😉

  290. complex* society

  291. Thanks Legion.

    I’m also reminded by some positions here of “We live in an economy, so all youse lot over there will just have to suffer for the good of it”. It’s a pretty cold, heartless – and abjectly fearful – world some people seem to live in, as if the only metrics that matter have dollar signs attached, including more children for the great mills of our time.

    Well, f*ck that! I live in a society, not an economy, and see the goodness of the pursuit of human happiness as axiomatic, orthogonal to any economic considerations.

  292. Toiletboss, on June 7th, 2009 at 7:48 pm Said:
    “Marriage is not necessary to legitimise the integrity of a relationship.”

    TB, I’ve always held that exact same view, despite being married for several decades.
    It’s important to separate the relationship, the marriage, and the wedding for that matter, when considering these matters.
    If emotional attachments require a contract to give the partners faith in the bond, then something is lacking.
    As for weddings, I’m not sure that many young people understand the difference between getting married, and being married.

  293. Toiletboss I’m also not married and never have been, but you will probably be surprised to learn that one in four people in the West never get married and that figure is growing. It is that common. I think the figure is close to 30% in the US now.

    These are not people who couldn’t marry but chose not to.

    There is a book that I have stacked away in a box somewhere called “So Why Have You Never Married” by someone called Wiseman I think. It pretty well nails the reasons and makes a lot of sense. At one stage in a long term relationship I kept wondering why I had no interest in marrying the woman I had been sharing my life with for the previous seven years and she bought me the book. She was a divorcee with a son.

    Not the point I know as gays should have exactly the same right to be married, but if they wait long enough marriage might be an old ritual rarely practiced anymore.

    Surely allowing gays to legally marry may also help the waning marriage institution as people see how far a couple who love each other are willing to go to declare that love.

  294. Mobius Ecko, on June 8th, 2009 at 8:05 am Said:

    It’s all about them supposedly wanting some legal status, but then if they each assigned the other “enduring power of attorney” and made the other beneficiary, what other legal protection do they require in their circumstances?

  295. Mobius Ecko, on June 8th, 2009 at 8:05 am Said:
    “I kept wondering why I had no interest in marrying the woman I had been sharing my life with for the previous seven years and she bought me the book.”

    I know it’s none of my business, but it intrigues me firstly as to why the love of your life would buy you the book, and secondly why you felt the need to read it.
    What signals were each of you sending, and how were they interpreted?

  296. 8:24. None of your business, in fact utterly and absolutely none of your business.

    8:17. You miss the point about equality. Doing that still doesn’t make them equal to those who can legally marry for whatever reason they legally marry.

  297. Mobius Ecko, on June 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am Said:

    8:24. Noted. Perhaps your post should be edited to remove the offending paragraph.

    I decided to read back through this thread and find it amusing that Rhesus monkeys and other animals were earlier being drawn into the discussion to make various points.
    There is not doubt that most animals, perhaps all species, at times can be seen “mounting” other animals when there is absolutely no hope of reproduction, and one can only guess what meaningful thoughts are running through their minds at the time, but the one that has me really puzzles me is when a dog “mounts” someones leg.

  298. I have a 15y.o. desexed (@ 1y.o.) female dog who will still hump a foot if offered.

    Go figure?

  299. My dog is definately gay!

    Has a sniff of a female and sneezes and walks away but will happily hump another male.

  300. scaper…, on June 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am Said:
    “sneezes”

    An allergy perhaps, or poor hygiene?

  301. Why the hell should my post be edited John and what is offensive about it?

  302. Mobius Ecko, on June 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am Said:

    “Why the hell should my post be edited John and what is offensive about it?”

    This is an open forum, and if your particular comment is not open to being discussed, dissected or otherwise open to scrutiny, then it offends the spirit of such a forum.

    Not only that, but apparently my initial query relating to the comment apparently offended you personally, hence your response to mind my own business.

  303. It must be time to throw some more sand in Sparta’s direction…

    You mean like normal and abnormal…LOL…….ample evidence anatomically there is not especially in regards to “our species” across all of our known existence and I challenge you to find any……

    Did I say that? Really? Or did you? I thought I meant screwing. In fact, I’m sure I meant the thread of a screw. And, strangely, the screw does seem to fit, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    Or perhaps the genetic model is simply not “perfect”, as we all know, clearly evidenced by the countless anomalies seen in all species and in all biological “systems” but that does not change the fact they are still “anomalies”….Problematic for Darwinism it isn’t, in fact homosexual behavior lends nothing but support to the evolutionary theory…..

    Unless you are saying all humans are anomalies, even the straight parents pumping out gay children generation after generation for all of recorded.human history, I think you’ll find that one hard to factor out of an evolutionary process that brought humanity to a now, screwing and all.

    Legal “fiat”, that is rich indeed given the context of this discussion for how does “fiat” exist without the context of “law” exactly…… LOL…..some would simply rather discount, lament, dance and sing around realities they can neither intellectually challenge nor legally make a case for with our existing framework. Hence the need for “sympathetic” ears in black robes……In fact they must, as you and others have tried to do, create a completely different “reality/or legal construct” in an attempt to make their case; like prescribing a “right” where there is none or ignoring that their version of a “right”, as argued, could apply anywhere, to anybody, to any cause at any time. This is the conundrum I have gone at lengths to point out and one in which all the “intellectuals” here have avoided acknowledging….It is also grossly offensive to attempt to prescribe any comparison at all to the plight of those denied “real human rights” on the basis of skin color/ or race for example and why such a concept has not been accepted.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Your idea of “cultural inertia” is rather entertaining as if homosexuality is a “novel” concept for starters or one that has not been tried countless times before to the benefit of what again?

    What a jolly good question; why don’t you ask Darwin? Or perhaps ponder how you came to acquire the philosophical fruits of a Western tradition through the recorded thoughts and works of your homosexual forebears, among others of all sorts; just as those fruits continue to be shared by the homosexuals spread far and wide throughout society today, and not just in their households-as-families.

    Other than providing “physical pleasure” to those who prescribe to it, what is homosexuality’s crucial role in society is my point and need for government endorsement as a matter of law? The pleasure centers of the brain in question here really, are remnants of the most primitive aspects of our psyche and hence I hardly see how giving into them is a type of “progression”; more like regression……..Although I defend the individuals “freedom” to entertain such behavior in the privacy of their own bedroom, we certainly shouldn’t be making law to accommodate all inklings of the limbic brain for heaven’s sake as law exists to curb it in the first place…..We have millions of others who feel disinfected by what they “cannot” have as a matter of law, this does not mean their “wants” not being met are essential/crucial to our societies let alone species?

    More blah, blah, blah.

    For somebody that proclaims the need for “models” and “statistical evidence” you seem quite content we have none to support your “wealth of evidence” on this topic

    Yes, yes I am; there is no evidence whatsoever for something that is neither new nor novel, nor proscribed by dint of evolution or intelligent design, not anywhere.

    Indeed, like other proponents here you simply cannot challenge on the merits of your own legal arguments, so you must continue to distract and evade the premise. Condescension and self proclaimed esoteric mantra are your only defense. Alas, that is your MO however on most topics….I cannot fault you for that though, just as I cannot fault the homosexual for a way of life that serves no purpose other than personal pursuits nor their assertion that it is also a “right” that with whom they wish to engage in such a pursuit warrants government endorsement on merits that simply don’t exist as they do for heterosexual relationships…….Purported esoteric ramblings, feelings and the “I am a better person than you because I support gay-marriage” claims aside……………

    More blah, blah, blah.

    And note, I haven’t even begun to present ‘my’ arguments on your chosen field of immortal combat; only addressed your oughtisms and flight from the realities of a horde of brown-eyes staring the mighty Cyclops down wherever his one-eyed outlook on life should happen to turn; presently I am just exploring things.

  304. But John you even started your question with “I know its none of my business” so you knew it was.

    And since when do you make the rules on open forums, sometime you really come across as being overweening and autocratic?

    I made a short statement on my past personal life that only revealed I was in a long term relationship with a divorcee who had one child, you then stated “I know its none of my business” and asked for further personal information, which I quite emphatically stated was none of your business.

    You then took it upon yourself as some arbiter of open forums to tell the administrators to edit and remove my original short personal statement, which I made of my own volition and didn’t want removed.

    Yes this is an open forum, and how much you tell or don’t tell of your personal life is your own business, and not for some up start non-administrative member who thinks they’re better than most to be the judge of how much other posters should or should not reveal.

    If you want to do that start your own blog and make the rules on personnel revelations by members, then exercise the right to delete personal info you say doesn’t reveal enough.

  305. Doh, “knew it wasn’t” in first sentence.

  306. Mobius Ecko, on June 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm Said:

    There are those who post here, and on any such forum, that inspires others to “pick their brains” to better understand what they stand for or where they are coming from, and prepared to explain or defend the words they post.
    Then there are apparently some that don’t.
    As you said it’s a personal thing.
    I apolgise, I thought you might have been in the first group,

  307. No John, it does not appear you post to pick brains at all.

    You seem to want it to be all one way traffic with you setting the agenda and little booby traps here and there to catch out posters because you have a position of superior knowledge in some areas you won’t elucidate on. It seems you play a game of “catch out the poster.”

    What right have you to demand that personal information from another poster be deleted, that is not picking brains, nor is asking for in depth personal information, knowing full well it was none of your business? Instead of picking brains it appears you want to control debate. If you want to do that as I said start your own blog.

    It appears you are in your second group.

    And where did I say it was a personal thing?

  308. Still waiting for Sparta to tell us the other “alternatives” that he keep alluding to. Then we can start to work on his (seemingly) only problem with gay-marriage… that it might (or in Spartas case – will) lead to polygamy.

  309. Well, I don’t know what Sparta has in mind as an alternative, but the more I think about it, the more I am reaching the conclusion that ‘household’ or ‘family’ is the fundamental group unit of society (howsoever open or closed those concepts may be) and not ‘married’ per se, or even the ‘nuclear family’, which is only and has only ever been a sub-set of how people manage their intimate social and economic affairs; that marriage per se does neither make nor not-make for parentage; and that society can just as easily ‘benefit’ the parent-child relationship, if society is going to do that, at the level of the parent-child relationship.

  310. marriage per se does neither make nor not-make for parentage; and that society can just as easily ‘benefit’ the parent-child relationship, if society is going to do that, at the level of the parent-child relationship.

    Absolutely. I think the “it’s only there to encourage/reward procreation” lines are rubbish. Procreation seems to take place just fine without marriage (and without external incentives), as well as within marriage. Rewarding/supporting actual procreation rather than hypothetical future procreation can certainly be arranged.

    In Australia the concept of de facto marriage supports the notion of “household” or “family”, although IIRC to a somewhat different degree to official marriage. I would note, independent of procreation, that both de facto and official marriage provide spouses (households? families?) with security, benefits and rights that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

  311. Then we can start to work on his (seemingly) only problem with gay-marriage…

    The problem I see is that Sparta is a man of principle…but only as long as he can guarantee the results of application of that principle. Otherwise he wants to take his bat and ball and go home, as it were. (Kind of like Obama will only support court trials for the detainees that he’s sure he can convict; for the rest he’ll only support military commissions with lowered standards of evidence for those who he’s sure will thereby be convicted; for the rest he’ll only support changing the law to keep them in detention forever without any trial-like process.)

    If the principle that leads to gay marriage is just and correct, and the same principle also justly and correctly leads to polygamy, then you have to accept the application of the principle. If you have any integrity you can’t say “Well, the principle is right, and yes, it does justify gay marriage, but if we do that we’ll end up justifying polygamy and that’s just not on…”.

  312. Lotharsson,

    “So Sparta, which of those 1138 rights, benefits and privileges identified by the GAO “can’t be taken away or granted by the government”? “

    What? You mean marriage is a “factor” in how we determine to “apply” rights, benefits and privileges? Like whether somebody has a baby? Isn’t this similar to race and gender as well, no, not in Lotharsson’s world…………..Now you are arguing that benefits awarded as a result of the government endorsement of marriage (which is not the same as the “right of marriage”, my contention you seem to be confused about) are the original “right” being violated? …..You must be kidding me…..LOL…..

    “Gay marriage proponents generally have a long list of rights that attach to marriage”

    Appears I walked into this one though assuming you were still addressing whether marriage was a “right” to begin with………My apologies, seems I had better limit such debates to only one poster at a time. Responding to you, Joni, Mobius, Legion, Min, daphon, B. Tolputt and bacchus simultaneously has finally caught up to me……However you are now professing marriage a “right” on par with the “rights/benefits/privileges” that come with the government endorsement of or as a consequence of (as mentioned above)………I have put forth more than one example that substantiates and at the very least makes an argument against gay marriage in support of my original contentions. In fact, you have actually supported my case for me while arguing against it at the same time ironically. How are any of these examples not representative of the kind of “discrimination” you say exists by denying homosexuals government endorsement?

    For example: I mention the “baby bonus”; which is to say a benefit or “right” by your definition that is given only to those with a baby. Doing so however, is in support or provides “rights” (your definition) to only those with a baby (or adopted up to 16 years of age). So one can easily say that those who “cannot have babies” for innate reasons or do not wish to adopt can make the claim they are being denied such “rights”.

    For example: There are numerous government programs that benefit people on the basis of color and gender. This by far has more validity than the argument you are trying to make for homosexual marriage. Such programs bestow “rights” (your definition depending on the day) while excluding others from claiming such “rights” for innate reasons. You seem to think you must have some “proof” of discrimination for there to be any validity. Thus far such proof can be as little as nobody of a particular gender or race being employed in a particular occupation or place (hardly evidence) or in the numbers some “would deem” acceptable, enrolled etcetera to a particular program. This argument also falls short by simply looking to Medical or Law School Admissions…….but I digress….

    For example: Those who have served in the Arm forces are given certain “rights” for having served. Those that cannot serve for moral reasons or certain medical disabilities will never be eligible for such “rights” as they will never be permitted to serve.

    For example: Those who do not make a certain amount of money per year are provided “rights” denied to those who do and literally at the expense of those denied no less.

    For example: We provide “rights” to children/adults with innate “genetic disabilities” while others deemed “normal” are not eligible for obvious reasons.

    The list goes on and on but still you choose to ignore………..You simply feel homosexuals should marry because heterosexuals can on the basis of being denied government endorsement and what that entails now? Even after I have said I support a separate system that fulfills the purported “injustices”claimed by the homosexual lobby, it is simply is not good enough because? Oh yes, the two relationships are not different to begin with……….LOL….

    You see, governments pick and choose to bequeath “rights”( I say benefits), upon some for a whole host of reasons and do so routinely while denying said benefits to others (as I have pointed out and mentioned at nausea). Doing so does not constitute some breach of somebody’s “civil rights” or “rights” in general……..which is the argument currently being put forth. Such policies simply serve to better society.

    I raised polygamy and polyamory as an example (as do most who take my position) because they are the most obvious as both types of relationships currently are practiced throughout the world and within our own borders (DOES THIS HELP JONI!!!!!). Your rebuttals for these obvious legal realities that will follow (my original contention) are:

    a) “Polygamy will never be accepted by the majority” (Despite the fact that it doesn’t need to be, just like homosexuality hasn’t) and my personal favorite, “you only think the benefit or “right” should apply to “two” people”. This in itself clearly violates your own reasoning/defense in “support” of homosexual marriages to being with yet you can’t grasp how or refuse to acknowledge such…….

    b) “Polyamory is a lifestyle only while homosexuality is an innate biological certainty”. This assertion is based on nothing other than your opinion while ignoring polyamory also easily falls under the same arguments for homosexuality say for the “two” people contingent that you have thrown in to refuse having to address is it as well (a real straw-man no less but one I can easily counter). Ironically, now your discriminating on the basis of “number” instead of “gender”, by your own rationale and inadvertently supporting the “polygamy pitfall” contention I say will follow by ensuring you deem marriage be between “two” people, hilarious…… You also called into question whether homosexuality is a medical “defect”. You did after all raise the question of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which ironically, Min had to clear up for you but you neither acknowledged nor referenced again, unsurprisingly…..

    “Otherwise he wants to take his bat and ball and go home”

    I think we both know this not to be true…….Having had more than one exchange with you Lotharsson (which can go on for days as you chase your own tail and trip over your own examples then deny it anyway) we inevitably always come to an “impasse” (as with Legion or Mobius). Your argument like other proponents on this matter exists in a vacuum while simply ignoring or denying the social and legal implications that will undoubtedly follow or deeming said implications as “red herrings” so as not having to deal with them. Again, homosexual marriage is a pursuit that will simply benefit a “want” and nothing else and servers no purpose outside of that want….. In this case I simply had to make the decision to “disengage” temporarily or risk sleeping on the couch!

    My original contention before being sucked in to the numerous diversions…..

    June 4th, 2009 at 12:34 am

    June 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    -which you have, as usual distracted from, in favor of the debates you would “like to have or make” which is your MO………..

    “Maybe you need to consider that sometimes you don’t clearly elucidate what you wanted to ask, rather than your respondents being idiots…”

    I won’t disagree with that. I undoubtedly do at times but then perhaps some should as much…..When they respond with the “I don’t think you understand….” line to begin with, I tend to assume they are just being condescending which I consider to be just as insulting………

    In related news, the Governments “discriminatory” policy “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is upheld……

    The topic in the link below of course raises more questions for me. Courts on the one hand deem “heterosexuality” on par with “homosexuality” in regards to receiving government endorsement of the “relationship” but deem it “different” on the other…….

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gY0fGi1hLfp2_NW6yO6Iblm2l16QD98MHP6G0

  313. “Kind of like Obama will only support court trials for the detainees that he’s sure he can convict; for the rest he’ll only support military commissions with lowered standards of evidence for those who he’s sure will thereby be convicted; for the rest he’ll only support changing the law to keep them in detention forever without any trial-like process.”

    No, that analogy is closer to your interpretation of homosexual marriage where the reasoning behind said justification for, are not applicable to polygamist because of number, more than “two”…..You simply want to create a parallel universe where the polygamist scenario taking hold right now that I have argued and linked to no less, does not exist………

  314. Sparta of Phoenix, AZ USA, on June 9th, 2009 at 2:35 am

    You simply want to create a parallel universe where the polygamist scenario taking hold right now that I have argued and linked to no less, does not exist………

    C’mon, be brave. I’ve acknowledged it does exist explicitly and still say, “so what?”, to you and your arguments.

  315. I’ll make it easy for you. Here is my position. The ‘best society’ is the one in which the family is recognised, protected, and celebrated regardless of its composition. On the flipside, the ‘worst society’ is the one in which the family is not recognised, is not protected or is destroyed, and is not celebrated or is denigrated because of its composition. In both instances, the legal vehicle of marriage is still available as society’s peak signal indicator of the right to found a family and to participate in civic life as a citizen, as a family of citizens or as citizens comprising a family, and as part of a society which does or does not recognise, protect and celebrate those things.

  316. So, where does that leave Sparta’s arguments about a ‘better society’ consisting of only married families comprised of a ‘mom, a dad, and 2.1 children’, which he freely admits by implication doesn’t exist in the real world outside the recursive world of normative legal bootstrapping, and which bears very little resemblance to what ALL citizens are doing or might wish to do when a majoritarian tyranny isn’t enforcing self-similar and circular notions of family onto others; and otherwise nodding approvingly when a Court refuses to hear an appeal, without giving reasons for their not doing so, challenging a continued pandering to homophobes in a public institution because there might be homophobes in uniform who can’t deal with their homophobias?

  317. Legion,

    “C’mon, be brave. I’ve acknowledged it does exist explicitly and still say, “so what?”, to you and your arguments.”

    So what, that says much I am afraid………….I think the most obvious reason being the rationale behind “heterosexual” monogamous marriages receiving government endorsement to begin with, the most beneficial environment in which to raise children (plenty of data on that one chief)……..the legal nightmare (for example: multiple children by multiple women and who will support them when these relationships fail, the tax payer of course), and the reality of a social “arms race” to secure a wife/husband (just look at China with its lack of women). I think unrest in the Middle East might also be a good example…… The genetic aspect (A “bottleneck” comes to mind) is another. Brave enough for you?

    “ majoritarian tyranny”

    You mean like a “Republic”…..LOL…..Yes, having individuals in black robes or minority lobby’s or groups supplant the majority is much more productive and beneficial to society as a whole, geez……..

    In short, your world or rationalization is one that caters to are most basic drive, the “pleasure principle” and denial of that is somehow a “majoritarian tyranny”?

    -“better society”, never said one was better than the next but I am in suport of a “stable” one……..What a radical concept indeed…….

  318. But just as with abolition and desegregation, equal rights for gays is an idea whose time is way overdue—especially the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the policy that bars known gays from serving in the military. The question is whether President Barack Obama will lead the way to its repeal—as he promised he would during his campaign—or back-pedal to political safety, as he seems to be doing….

    But while both public opinion—and evidence—are lining up in favor of repealing Don’t Ask, President Obama is going in the opposite direction. The White House’s civil rights Web site in recent weeks has significantly watered down the strong language it was using to signal its commitment to scrapping the law. Even more troubling, Obama did nothing—not so much as utter a whisper of protest—when West Point grad Dan Choi, an Iraq veteran and an Arab linguist, was fired recently for revealing that he was gay.

  319. Tony,

    “To foster that, they insist, the military needs flexibility to set its own rules even if these rules are at odds with fundamental constitutional values and social trends.”

    at odds with “social trends” I would agree….”Constitutional Values”, is this like marriage being a “right” now?

    Cohesiveness, well then such advocates should have no problem allowing the grunts in the field to shower with their female counterparts…….In that case, Hooah!!!!!!!!! Just kidding…….

  320. There seems to be information overload here. Lets consider a rather simple aspect.

    Presently if someone is asked whether they are married or not, and they acknowledge they are, it then goes without saying that the spouse is of the opposite gender.

    However, if laws were changed, and someone is then asked if they are married, and they acknowledge they are, does the person asking then have the right to enquire as to the gender of the spouse, or should the person being asked have the obligation to reveal the gender themselves.

    I suspect most married people would both feel that obligation, and object to having such an obligation imposed upon them.

    It’s almost Catch 22.

  321. Sparta,

    Cohesiveness, well then such advocates should have no problem allowing the grunts in the field to shower with their female counterparts…….In that case, Hooah!!!!!!!!! Just kidding…….

    It might save water, too, but sadly, no:

    Rules against sexual fraternization—both among homosexuals and heterosexuals—will still remain in place, meaning that troops will have plenty of reason to maintain decorum and discretion.

    😉

  322. Tony,

    “Rules against sexual fraternization—both among homosexuals and heterosexuals—will still remain in place, meaning that troops will have plenty of reason to maintain decorum and discretion.”

    Will never happen Tony….Fraternization is as common as masturbation in the military…….The only fraternization scenario that is even somewhat enforced is between officers and enlisted but this is routinely ignored…..Still, if we are to believe the concept of openly gay in the military as harmless, by logic why not allow the scenario I propose or risk having to devise a completely seperate protocol just because……

  323. johnd,

    Information overload, you got that right…..

    Anyway, no logical deductions allowed here john….LOL

  324. Sparta

    Why do you insist on saying that “no logical deductions” are allowed when it is something that supports your arguments?

    BTW – I am still waiting for an answer to what the other “alterative lifestyles” are that we would have to consider if allowing gay marriage (and not your polygamy one).

    And – you asked us to provide what rights I am denied, I listed some of them and you failed to answer.

    I would have thought that someone who is capable of a “cake walk” in supporting their arguments would have been easily able to rebut those points.

  325. Joni,

    In regards to your obsessive question about “other alternatives” I have on more than one occasion already mentioned polyamory………Regardless, the number is hardly relevant to the crux of the debate…….

    “Just on your post – how about the fact that hospitals can (and do in my case) deny partners next-of-kin rights.”

    I think I have already said I was in support of “civil unions” have I not, in which case this would not be a situation? My apologies Joni, but with the number of posters in disagreement with me it is easy to overlook a question here or there…….

  326. johnd, on June 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am

    Why do you continually feel the need that people have to give up information on their private lives?

    If marriage for two consenting adults is legal and is defined as that, and then if someone replies that they are married then nothing else is required. If the respondent elucidates further it’s their prerogative, not an obligation at all, nor is it for the person asking the question to believe they are obligated to find out more personal information about the marriage.

    Using your logic people would be obligated to know and tell the age difference between the spouses because that would have a bearing on what they thought of someone.

    Or why just stop at asking about the partner in marriage?

    “Are you married?” “No, I’m living with someone in a relationship.”
    “Oh, male or female?”

    Sparta logical deductions are allowed here if you would just give some.

  327. Just read this article with a “polygamous” relationship in mind there Joni………Hmm…..how to determine time with multiple parents…….Just one example of the “legal” chaos I have alluded to…..

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25606681-28737,00.html

  328. Mobius,

    “Sparta logical deductions are allowed here if you would just give some.”

    Your right, I should concentrate more on NON-essential sexual behaviors of “monkeys” when making my case……

  329. However you are now professing marriage a “right” on par with the “rights/benefits/privileges” that come with the government endorsement of or as a consequence of (

    I’m not sure the discussion of rights is getting anywhere.

    As I posted quite a bit earlier, there is a distinction between the right to marry and the rights that attach to marriage.

    And I was pointing out, via the 1138 rights argument – AND the Proposition 8 argument, that your assertion that rights by definition CANNOT be taken away without consent of the rightholder is clearly not correct. There are a great number of rights – including the rights TO marry certain classes of potential spouses, that HAVE been created by or removed by legislative action.

    As I stated many times, I believe there is a right to marry the single adult partner of your choice, based if nothing else on the principle espoused by Judge Warren in Loving v. Virginia; if this is repudiated in court then I think legislatures should explicitly create such a right. Feel free to disagree with either or both of those beliefs.

  330. Sparta

    And so your only objection to gay marriage is that polygamy may follow.

  331. Geez……..Joni….

    NO….the “legal precedent” it sets and the “unknown” social implications from that “legal precedent” in short……..

  332. Sparta of Phoenix, AZ USA, on June 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am Said:

    Your right, I should concentrate more on NON-essential sexual behaviors of “monkeys” when making my case……

    How to misrepresent an answer, another sop for you.

    That sourcing of monkeys using homosexual behaviour as a societal tool was as a direct answer to you stating there was no use of homosexuality as a societal tool in humans or in nature. There are examples of it being used in nature and in the past in human societies as well.

  333. A brief mention about polygamy. This is not going to happen in Australia in our lifetime. Changes to the law would require amendments to The Marriage Act (Cth) ’61 re bigamy which has a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Currently a subsequent marriage while the person is still married is voided except where the person has married overseas in a country polygamy is legal.

    Gay marriage on the other hand is at the cusp of legal recognition with good results re polling of attitudes..that is until the popular press tries to muddy the waters by bringing religion into the equation.

  334. How are any of these examples not representative of the kind of “discrimination” you say exists by denying homosexuals government endorsement?

    Sparta, no-one is denying that governments pick and choose how to bestow rights and benefits.

    (BTW, your baby bonus example does not support your case. The “right” or “benefit” attaches to the baby, for the benefit of the baby. Your affirmative action argument does not support your case. It is clearly intended to redress actual discrimination. If it should, as you contend, fall short of that mark, that does not imply that all actual discrimination should simply be ignored.)

    But we are saying that the right to marry the partner of your choice is a fundamental civil right, regardless of the “rights and/or benefits” that attach to marriage. Denying this civil right is clearly discriminatory (although no doubt you disagree). And this determination stands regardless of the set of benefits/rights that attach to marriage, and is only strengthened by noting the set of rights and benefits that DO attach to marriage.

    It’s YOU who has argued (without presenting any evidence, mind you) that gays just want marriage to get all the “benefits” that attach to marriage. And then YOU disingenuously argue that the right to marry can be denied BECAUSE the government has the right to decide who gets the rights and benefits that attach to marriage.

    And in doing this, you have amply illustrated my contention that you inadequately distinguish between the civil right to marry the partner of your choice, and the rights and benefits that attach to marriage.

  335. When they respond with the “I don’t think you understand….” line to begin with, I tend to assume they are just being condescending

    Wow, that’s a particularly harsh assumption. That line can be (and as far as I know mostly is) used to indicate merely that you don’t appear to have understood what the commenter is saying, without a trace of condescension.

    You also called into question whether homosexuality is a medical “defect”. You did after all raise the question of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which ironically, Min had to clear up for you

    Once more, this is not the case.

    I never suggested or agreed that homosexuality was a medical defect. You suggested it.

    Min didn’t clear up the notion that Androgen Insensitivity Disorder was a defect – that was self-evident already. (You clearly didn’t comprehend why I raised it though.)

    I think we both know this not to be true

    You misunderstand. Your argument based on the slippery slope is that whilst gay marriage might be justified by some principle, but because you/some people are afraid that the same principle may lead to something you sufficiently disapprove of – such as polygamy – then we should not apply the principle to gay marriage. That is what I meant by a man of principle taking his bat and ball and going home.

    You simply want to create a parallel universe where the polygamist scenario taking hold right now that I have argued and linked to no less, does not exist.

    No, you continue to (willfully?) misrepresent my position. I have not said that no-one wants polygamy, nor that it does not exist (although in the legal sense it does not exist in the US and Australia).

    I have furthermore noted and pointed out to you a number of times that – if nothing else – the argument against polygamy is DIFFERENT to the argument against gay marriage, and therefore the latter does not inevitably lead to the former. This is Logic 101, and yet you appear to either ignore or misunderstand it.

  336. the rationale behind “heterosexual” monogamous marriages receiving government endorsement to begin with, the most beneficial environment in which to raise children (plenty of data on that one chief)

    Speaking of data, do you actually have any data that supports your claim that the purpose of government endorsement of straight marriage is to support child-raising? Some debate on the issue before passing marriage laws, perhaps? A preamble to legislation explaining the rationale?

  337. Min,

    “Gay marriage on the other hand is at the cusp of legal recognition with good results re polling of attitudes”

    I have already made this point Min, when have the majority ever voted for “gay marriage”? In fact, its whole existence in my country has come at the hands of unelected officials or back door legislation (just recently) “Toonen v. Australia” ring any bells? It has been routinely defeated time and time again when put to a vote…….. ……..Polling is not really indicative of good policy, wouldn’t you agree……..Besides, Canada’s High Court will be making a ruling on this “impossibility in our lifetime” very soon which undoubtedly have global ramifications……

    Even more to the point, you already honor polygamous relationships formed outside the country…..Not in our lifetime? It is already here!
    (Lotharsson…..hello…..)

  338. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – because nothing says “we’re highly trained professional soldiers in the most kick-ass military every known to man” than “Oh sh*t, if one of us comes out as gay, we’ll disintegrate into a totally dysfunctional mess” 😉

  339. Lotharsson,

    Chasing your tail again I see and picking the arguments you would like to have while ignoring those you have already lost………..

  340. I have on more than one occasion already mentioned polyamory

    Polyamory is merely consensually “loving many people”. It is not a marriage arrangement, and is therefore not relevant to this issue.

    Perhaps you meant “polyandry”, a marriage arrangement where the wife has more than one husband, or “polygyny”, the marriage arrangement where the husband has more than one wife. Both are instances of “polygamy”.

  341. the “unknown” social implications

    Yes, we shouldn’t give women the vote – who KNOWS what the social implications will be.

    We shouldn’t let blacks marry whites – who KNOWS what the social implications will be.

  342. .Besides, Canada’s High Court will be making a ruling on this “impossibility in our lifetime” very soon which undoubtedly have global ramifications

    You mean, beyond the cases where polygamy was rejected in the US, India and the EU?

  343. I came across this one, looking for info about the 2011 Census (re genealogy resources).

    http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/05/12/census-to-count-gay-marriages/13107

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) plans to release data on same-sex couples who tick the ‘married’ box on the 2011 national census.

    Previously same-sex couples who tried to declare a legal marriage conducted overseas in countries like Canada or the Netherlands were counted as de facto.

    And apologies for not keeping up..one heck of a lot of reading here.

  344. Polling is not really indicative of good policy, wouldn’t you agree

    Certainly – look at Proposition 8, for example 😉 (That concept cuts both ways.)

    But polling may give politicians room to move that they didn’t feel they had before.

  345. Even more to the point, you already honor polygamous relationships formed outside the country…..Not in our lifetime? It is already here!
    (Lotharsson…..hello…..)

    You seem to think this is a killer argument against gay marriage – and that I’m hard-core anti-polygamy. I’m not. I generally think it’s ripe for exploitation and probably shouldn’t be performed in Australia, but it’s hard to argue with a straight face that we should throw people in jail who were legally polygamous overseas merely because they came here.

    And…if “it’s already here”, we can happily approve gay marriage knowing that it WON’T be the reason for ratifying polygamy, can’t we?

  346. Mobius,

    It really becomes tedious having to point out to some of those that just pretend one cannot scroll on up and see what was actually said…..

    “direct answer to you stating there was no use of homosexuality as a societal tool in humans or in nature”

    You brought the “societal tool” line into it genius. I said “Homosexual behavior is found in all species, so in that sense it is normal but trying to “breed” with someone of the same sex is neither productive nor serving any crucial role in society or nature.”

    Your highlight no less…and you said:

    “Well sorry Sparta, that is plainly wrong as non-reproductive sex, including homosexual sex, does play a crucial role in society and in nature.”

    Again, what is that crucial role in society or nature? You have failed to answer over the last 2 days and I imagine will continue to do so….

  347. picking the arguments you would like to have while ignoring those you have already lost

    Ignoring the strong whiff of Pot. Kettle. Black…

    …you’re saying that if you think I’ve lost a particular argument, you want me to continue with the incorrect position? You have some very strange ideas…

  348. but trying to “breed” with someone of the same sex is neither productive nor serving any crucial role in society or nature

    And as has been pointed out to you (if you yourself were to scroll up), you are correct in a narrow sense about breeding, but incorrectly ignore the larger point.

  349. -Yes, we shouldn’t give women the vote – who KNOWS what the social implications will be.

    -We shouldn’t let blacks marry whites – who KNOWS what the social implications will be.

    No brainer, inalienable rights to begin with and “rights” enshrined in the Constitution. Rightfully corrected …….

  350. inalienable rights to begin with

    You seem to forget they were NOT considered inalienable rights during the many decades AFTER the Constitution was signed and before they were “granted”.

    Times change, and our understanding of the scope of applicability of inalienable rights grows…

  351. Sparta, you are obviously talking about the US Constitution as there are no ‘inalienable rights’ specified in the Australian Constitution. Our law regarding marriage and defacto relationships comes from Commonwealth and State legislation.

  352. Min,

    Yes, indeed……

  353. “You seem to forget they were NOT considered inalienable rights during the many decades AFTER the Constitution was signed and before they were “granted”.”

    Umm……no, not at all…..It is well known that many of the founders (Especially Jefferson) considered them as such and many believe had slavery in mind specifically when choosing the wording….This is not a point of contention my friend, very widely accepted…..

  354. slavery, excuse me….the plight of the African American…….

  355. It is well known that many of the founders (Especially Jefferson) considered them as such and many believe had slavery in mind specifically when choosing the wording

    So, apparently because of this, you believe that no-one was arguing against the repeal of laws prohibiting blacks from marrying whites (because who knows what the social consequences will be) during the almost 200 years between the Constitution and the case Loving v. Virginia?

    Don’t be silly.

    (Never mind what this says about inalienable rights – apparently they are indeed alienable, for about 200 years in some cases, a state of affairs which needs correction…either that, or our understanding of their applicability evolves.)

  356. “It’s YOU who has argued (without presenting any evidence, mind you) that gays just want marriage to get all the “benefits” that attach to marriage.”

    What is it then, love? So why are civil unions not enough then?

    “And then YOU disingenuously argue that the right to marry can be denied BECAUSE the government has the right to decide who gets the rights and benefits that attach to marriage. And in doing this, you have amply illustrated my contention that you inadequately distinguish between the civil right to marry the partner of your choice, and the rights and benefits that attach to marriage.”

    The problem is Lotharsson, you keep insisting and I keep denying, “marriage” endorsed by government is a right to begin with!!!!!!…..I have both argued why I feel it isn’t a right and if granted as such what is likely to follow legally. The high court in Maryland has already upheld for example, at great length, why it is not a “right” and I could not agree more……

    http://volokh.com/posts/1190149576.shtml

    The actual ruling below from the link above…..

    http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf

    Gays currently have access to civil unions etcetera but they want GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT that amounts to that of marriage and I firmly say and provide ample examples that (I can provide many more if your unhappy with those provided thus far in which somebody is discriminated against and hence can make the same argument) being denied GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT is not a denial of RIGHTS! This, we will never agree on as you cannot seem to grasp the concept……(Poeple routinely benefit from affirmitive action policy without the benefit of any evidence…..get real already….)

    June 9th, 2009 at 2:27 am post pretty much sums up my point of view and your responses to my original contentions although it meant addressing your “straw-men” throughout (as always), which I enjoy doing instead of just claiming such. I consider this whole thread “progress” regardless though…….On other blogs this debate wouldn’t even be entertained…..……

  357. Gays currently have access to civil unions etcetera but they want GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT

    Er – civil unions are ALSO government endorsement, just a different kind. And unless everyone is not “married” but in a “civil union”, they lead to subtle and not so subtle forms of discrimination.

    And they also cost society a whole lot of unnecessary money – something I would have imagined you would oppose – keeping track of who is in what type of government endorsed relationship, and making sure laws (and forms!) are written to handle both of them. It would be a lot simpler and cheaper to just let gays marry and save the expense.

    So why do you think “civil unions” are enough, but “marriage” is too much?

  358. Sparta, perhaps at that point we are going to have to disagree on the fundamental point.

    I think there is – and if not, there should be – a fundamental civil right to marry whichever adult you like. You argue there IS no such civil right – hoping thereby to imply that there SHOULD not be, a position that I can’t see you have addressed as a matter of civil rights.

    On that question, I firstly note that history amply supports the fact that recognition of civil rights is an evolutionary process, and they are certainly not written in stone at the beginning of time (or at the drafting of the Constitution).

    As secondly, as I have pointed out, I would expect that something like the principle cited in Loving v. Virginia and rooted in your Federal Constitution will likely be found to apply, although it may take 10, 20, 30 years or more in the US (demographics are leading to noticeable shifts towards supporting gay marriage).

    And thirdly, despite Maryland’s ruling, I note that (IIRC) five other US State courts have already agreed that prohibitions on gay marriage were unconstitutional under their State Constitutions (although two subsequently passed constitutional amendments), so it may yet spread State by State. And then there are three more State Legislatures…

    Now you think there should not be a civil right to marry, but this is based primarily on the ideas that:
    – it would lead to gays getting “benefits” from the government that they “should not” get (for various reasons),
    – that it will necessarily lead to polygamy which we just can’t entertain, so marriage for gays has to be sacrificed for the good of society
    – and who knows what will happen to society if they do.

    Your arguments are logically incoherent, largely because they don’t connect to the case that gay marriage is a civil right. And besides that:
    – your reasons why gays “should not” get benefits don’t stand up to scrutiny
    – the case for/against gay marriage is plainly quite different from that for/against polygamy
    – you haven’t demonstrated a plausible negative consequence that gay marriage will bring about, that all the gay cohabitation and gay child-bearing and gay child-rearing that exists today will not.

    Worse still, I fail to see how your position coherently supports gay civil unions but opposes gay marriage.

    But that doesn’t stop your strong belief in them, and I doubt any of that will change.

  359. Meanwhile Sparta – I am still waiting on a simple answer to what are the other ‘alternative lifestyles that you refer to in this comment of yours that is not polygamy.

    Now Muslims/Mormons and Hollywood are pushing polygamy, the next phony “civil rights” argument but hey, once you open the door to one alternative lifestyle, there simply is no way to prevent other alternative lifestyles from taking root without violating their “purported rights” as well……

    You’d think that some who is a self proclaimed genius like yourself and who had a firm grasp of logic would be able to answer.

    And why is my wish for gay marriage a “phony civil right”?

  360. An interesting comment from the post about the Maryland decision that Sparta posted (my emphasis):

    The Supreme Court has stated that fundamental rights are “those liberties that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and have repeatedly found that marriage is included in the list of fundamental rights. Opponents to marriage equality argue correctly that same sex marriage has never been apart of our nation’s history or tradition.

    Marriage itself, has. Herein lies the distinction. Same sex couples are not asking for the right of some special same sex marriage, they are asking for the right to be included in the preexisting institution of marriage, pure and simple.

    The way that a right is defined plays a huge role in determing if its is in fact a legitimate right or no. The more broadly defined, the more likely it is to fit within tradition, thus being upheld, and vice versa.

    Imagine if this ‘most specific’ methodology had been applied in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage. Had the Lovings claimed that the right to a mixed race marriage was rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, they would have been instructed to review the long history of America’s antimiscegenation laws. The first antimiscegenation law in North America was enacted in Virginia in 1691. Thirty one states maintained such laws by 1945; sixteen states still held them by the time Loving was decided.

    Further, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney cited the long standing antimiscegenation laws in his decision to deny citizenship to blacks, stating, “intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes” The Lovings’ claim was upheld, because they called upon the more general right to marry, rather than the specific right to marry someone of a different race, which clearly went against the longstanding traditions of the United States.

    The Loving decision provides an important comparison for those who support same sex marriage. First it establishes that one of the most basic decisions in family life is the decision of whom one chooses to marry. It shows that the right to marry is not limited to longstanding legal or cultural traditions of exclusion. It also provides a framework by which the right of gays to marry should be addressed.

    Just as the Lovings petitioned for, and the courts recognized, the fundamental right to marry, rather than the fundamental right to marry someone of a different race, so too should courts recognize that gays seek the right to marry in the broadest sense, rather than the specific right to marry someone of the same sex.

  361. Thank you Lotharsson….but I personally like the “courts” ruling on this notion as opposed to that of a fellow blogger in “your camp” that heavily relies on the same case as you (race and sexual orientation, sorry just don’t see race as a amibiguous notion, unlike the later)…..

    “CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – DUE PROCESS – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – THERE IS
    NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY A PERSON OF YOUR OWN SEX”

  362. “Your arguments are logically incoherent, largely because they don’t connect to the case that gay marriage is a civil right.”

    Lotharrson, with all due respect mate…………

    Perhaps to somebody with nothing more than a “claim”, nothing more; evidenced by what and set by what precedent? Proponents with a bit more of a legal acumen understand the need for such a precedent (and so do you) as you cling to the feeble attempt to compare the plight of homosexuals with the African American experience; insulting and complete rubbish that has not gained any ground for a reason. I can sight many such scenarios where Governments deprive some of benefits (you call them rights), which you do not deny, on multiple fronts and in doing so could all be made into a “cause” or easily make the kind of “claim” you have. Even when presented with the most obvious example (affirmative action policies) which undoubtedly does deny others affirmed rights simply on the basis of being born into the wrong race and gender you simply state “it’s there to redress actual discrimination”, as if this addresses my point at all. Much like “you” deciding Polygamy will not happen because you affirm marriage should be between “two” people only? Frankly, it is your prerogative to keep affirming how marriage is a civil right (while dismissing the blindly obvious example above) as do other proponents and why we should endorse (on the same level as hetero marriage) such relationships simply because “two” people love each other.

    “I think there is – and if not, there should be – a fundamental civil right to marry whichever adult you like. You argue there IS no such civil right – hoping thereby to imply that there SHOULD not be, a position that I can’t see you have addressed as a matter of civil rights.”

    This is where we part completely I am afraid. Oddly you agreed that the courts could also strike down “heterosexual marriage” and it would be fine in your eyes or that of proponents for “nobody” would have them? How is this the case if you feel it to be a civil right so strongly on par with race? Civil rights do not exist in a vacuum either or on the basis of “what others have”? Civil rights in my country being enshrined in the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution or through acts of Congress provide nothing for or guarantee in any form of marriage or what government can “endorse” from what I can recall. I simply say that you are confusing government “endorsement” with “rights”…….as the High Court of Maryland found…

    “On that question, I firstly note that history amply supports the fact that recognition of civil rights is an evolutionary process, and they are certainly not written in stone at the beginning of time (or at the drafting of the Constitution).”

    Herein lies the strategy of the homosexual movement and yours to boot….. “evolutionary process”. Well, I find this a perplexing statement for one simple reason, there is nothing evolutionary about your cause (you have already received civil unions, which provided the protections proponents originally sought). Your cause simply seeks government endorsement that recognizes a union that serves no other purpose then gratification of the parties involved while discounting the biological realities behind support of heterosexual relationships. What is the crucial societal role that would be served by endorsing homosexual unions? You seem to think having your feelings hurt is a “grave violation” warranting government redress? Fine, you can start by giving Australia back to the Aborigines or would an “apology” do?

    Procreation and family building is at the heart of the government’s endorsement of heterosexual marriage. It is not a complicated task to make that case mate, but like all proponents you seem intent on ignoring the facts in favor of what makes you FEEL good……Perhaps some of us are not willing to “role” the dice on issues bigger than ourselves…..

    “As secondly, as I have pointed out, I would expect that something like the principle cited in Loving v. Virginia and rooted in your Federal Constitution will likely be found to apply, although it may take 10, 20, 30 years or more in the US (demographics are leading to noticeable shifts towards supporting gay marriage).”

    Why do you keep citing a case on racial discrimination? You have to prove first that homosexuality is “innate” to begin with mate if you’re going to make such a case. You may laugh all you like but there is nothing to prove it is any more innate than bisexuality is. (Although I believe there is a stong case to be made, we shouldn’t be making law based on “popular belief”)

    You can avoid the reality by deeming one a “lifestyle” and the other innate, but again, your “opinion” is simply that. You are pissing up the wrong tree by insisting you have a cause on par with that of the African American movement/race, in my opinion. Again, it is a gross trivialization of the pain and strife that community has gone through…It is also well known that in your country, the push for a “Bill of Rights” has no other purpose other than providing legal language with the ambiguity needed to give credence to your cause where currently there is none…..Simply put, why not put the issue to the people instead of using the courts if it is this ground-swell? We both know the answer to that one……

    “And thirdly, despite Maryland’s ruling, I note that (IIRC) five other US State courts have already agreed that prohibitions on gay marriage were unconstitutional under their State Constitutions (although two subsequently passed constitutional amendments), so it may yet spread State by State. And then there are three more State Legislatures…”

    Via the courts, which is where the proponents would like to keep it at all costs, but thankfully the people do have a way around judicial fiat……California voters passing prop 8 certainly doesn’t bode well for your cause……The people seem to recognize (especially the African American vote which was the deciding factor that is conveniently ignored) the difference between real and created “civil rights”.

    “Now you think there should not be a civil right to marry, but this is based primarily on the ideas that:”“– it would lead to gays getting “benefits” from the government that they “should not” get (for various reasons)”

    No, I think I have made the case at nausea……..If you haven’t got it yet, not much I can do to assist…

    “– that it will necessarily lead to polygamy which we just can’t entertain, so marriage for gays has to be sacrificed for the good of society”

    Please, it is already happening (in your country) as I have pointed out on many fronts and anybody with half a brain knows that once “gay marriage” gets through because “two” people “love each other”, there is no “legal argument” to prevent other “loving” relationships from seeking endorsement. (Again, polygamy already enjoys endorsement in your country! What a stretch to think it will have a case in the future for full recognition)

    “– and who knows what will happen to society if they do.”

    Hmm, then why do you insist the definition be redefined but kept at “two” people?

    “Your arguments are logically incoherent, largely because they don’t connect to the case that gay marriage is a civil right. And besides that:”

    I am sorry Lotharsson, but that is just laughable. Shall I make another list of your contradictions and hypocrisy one more time?

    1) Marriage between gays is good, polygamy bad because more than “two” people; discrimination on the basis of number is ok with you……
    2) Bisexuality a lifestyle, homosexuality is innate because (well because I Lotharsson says so….).
    3) Government endorsement of marriage is a “civil right” comparable to race/ the African American experience despite the obvious dissimilarities.
    4) Affirmative action policy (which discriminates by gender or race) is ok because of past injustices…..So government can endorse what it wants to even though doing so creates undeniable discrimination but so what, we still need gay marriage because that is a civil right. So I support the notion of marriage as a civil right but denial of equal protection on the basis of gender (in this case anyway) or race as legal….LOL

    Shall I go on……logically incoherent? Yes, I think so………

    “– your reasons why gays “should not” get benefits don’t stand up to scrutiny”

    I can’t imagine they will with somebody who simply “feels”, so it must be so…….Can you make the case “for” outside of rallying cries or without proclaiming a civil right has been violated, while admitting you feel such rights evolve?

    “– the case for/against gay marriage is plainly quite different from that for/against polygamy”

    For the love of god how? Oh yes, because like bisexuality, homosexuality is innate and we know this because…well gays have said so for so long it must be… I mean, gays switching preferences in this day and age never happens, its innate, (they are all still stuck in the 50”s where they must hide such a reality and so many don’t come out until later ergo they were always gay to begin with)……..It is perfectly normal to want to “breed” with a member of the same sex when said act can produce no child. What is even more confusing and hardly helps your case are the many examples of one homosexual taking on the appearance and mannerisms of the opposite gender (of which the partner, do to innate reasons, is not purportedly attracted too). Anyhow, even if homosexuality is innate somehow, their LEGAL ARGUMENTS STILL APPLY TO ANY RELATIONSHIP ON ALL GROUNDS currently presented by proponents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “– you haven’t demonstrated a plausible negative consequence that gay marriage will bring about, that all the gay cohabitation and gay child-bearing and gay child-rearing that exists today will not.”

    What an oxymoron, gay child-bearing? Mate, again, you are suggesting evidence where there is none. Unfortunately, the effects will not be known for some time……You want to pretend men and women are exactly the same. That both genders bring exactly the same thing to a relationship/child bearing….I think this concept is ridiculous….I can just see a whole generation of teenage boys without any male role models……This even in the face of all the evidence that has looked at the effects of losing the male role model…..Again, you like to gamble, fine…….

    “Worse still, I fail to see how your position coherently supports gay civil unions but opposes gay marriage.”

    Civil Unions provide the same protections heterosexuals have but do not seek to “promote” the concept of a “homosexual family” or benefits which are meant to assist children. Gay’s want to deny their own biological realities because medicine now allows and hence continue to push for an “image” of “normalcy” they will never have. Is the next claim one that all people have a “civil right” to reproductive technology as well?

    “But that doesn’t stop your strong belief in them, and I doubt any of that will change.”

    What is obvious to me Lotharsson, is that you (and other proponents) seem to discount the complexities of what you ask for or wish and despite all the many plausible pitfalls that have been cited you simply want to proclaim gay marriage a “civil right” and to hell with what that really entails. You clearly have not thought this issue through much past that “gut” feeling in my opinion or worse, you have. You may disagree with me, label my logic false but your argument “for” boils down to very little….accept for that fundamental “gut feel” that there is some injustice you are looking to amend. I however see many complications beyond just “sympathetic language” and the realities of “changing the rules” in the middle of the game for no real reason other than to make some “feel” better about their sexual preference. Legal decisions have consequences/ramifications even if you would rather ignore or pretend they do not (in vacuum)? I see this position as a highly ignorant/naive one, with all due respect; but hey, much like homosexuality and its “crucial role in society”, “ignorance is bliss”…..

  363. It could be crucial to Chinese social stability, given the Maryland Court’s and Sparta’s notions of mutability and lifestyle choices; but ignorance is bliss, I spose. 😉

  364. Sometimes, Sparta, I think what is seen and what is not seen, what is agreed and what is agreed cannot be agreed upon, what is a dog chasing its tail and what is a god chastening its tale, is more a measure of incommensurabilities than anything else.

  365. Or, to put it another way: in my worldview, the values of kinship and descent implicit in the recognition (of the concept) of marriage are not co-extensive per se; the marriage itself at the point of union is about recognition of the relation of kinship at the point of union, and whether that kinship comes to be conferred via descent onto third parties, not presently in existence but within contemplation, is secondary to the establishment of that kinship for the two (or more) parties involved. That there is a persistence in conflating those two values as if they were one, or in using the latter to circumscribe the former or to assert that the latter is what enlivens the former, I do find perverse, for its diminution of what the relationship of kinship means, and what marriage means, between the parties to the marriage, and with or without descent of that kinship through secondary conferrals of kinship onto non-contracting third parties. I don’t require any reference to man-made law or argument from (non-)tradition to reach the conclusion that limitations on the inherent rights of persons to have their freely chosen relations of kinship recognised, at the point of entering into those interpersonal and legal obligations otherwise establishing the recognition of those relations of kinship, is ipso facto wrong, and especially where there is an established legal mechanism for recognition of those relations of familiar affinity akin to the kinship of family. I’m sure it’s possible to weight the evaluation of the value of descent variously, just as it’s possible to weight the evaluation of the value of kinship variously; I’m not sure that those weightings, evaluations or even those values are measurable in themselves or among and between themselves in any concrete sense, however; which is, arguably, what makes them most apt for the realm of personal conscience, and least apt for another to substitute or impose, or to call upon the State to substitute or impose, or for the State to substitute or impose. Again, arguably, it’s what makes others’, or the Courts’, or the Legislatures’ pronouncements on such matters so specious, when they are best vacating the field entirely for want of ability to second-guess all others’ personal consciences, and lest their substitutes and impositions be observed and found wanting by any, and especially when denying the possibility for the personal conscience’s recognition of the entering into of the (re)cognition of recognised relations of kinship.

    And just to couch things in more personal terms, once again Sparta demonstrates why he, Sparta, is a totalitarian ideologue living in the land of the brave and the home of the free, perfectly willing to convert all of a free people into brooding domesticated livestock on a nation-wide stud farm for sheeple, and is unprepared to accept the implications and consequences of genuine freedom for all for fear of what genuine freedom for self as well as others might entail if free choice were to be freely available. It really is as simple and as transparent as that, by one account; and a good measure on its own of just how tenuous that totalitarian regime happens to be (at least in Sparta’s mind, and perhaps the moral majorities’ collective culture, and perhaps a Court or Legislature drawing on that culture; reality might well still have the sheeple going about their usual businesses the same as ever, with or without the availability of same-sex marriages or polygamous marriages or whatever inevitably trashing American ‘civilisation’ as it’s presently understood, but who knows?).

  366. I personally like the “courts” ruling on this notion…

    Of course – wouldn’t we all?

    You missed the point of the blog comment. It was not to say what the courts have ruled, or even will rule, but to give some insight into how past rulings might apply if the same principles are taken into account.

    …race and sexual orientation, sorry just don’t see race as a amibiguous notion, unlike the later.

    Which shows you entirely misunderstood the point the blogger was making.

    They were pointing out that huge amounts of longstanding precedent would have allowed the court in Virginia v. Loving to rule against the plaintiffs if all they had argued was that they were seeking to overcome race-based discrimination.

    Instead they argued that the couple – not the individuals – were seeking access to the long-standing institution of marriage, and that despite precedent, that it was their civil right to do so. The parallels to gay marriage are obvious, even though different courts may take different views of the matter.

  367. What is obvious to me Lotharsson, is that you (and other proponents) seem to discount the complexities of what you ask for or wish and despite all the many plausible pitfalls that have been cited you simply want to proclaim gay marriage a “civil right” and to hell with what that really entails.

    What is obvious to me is that you have no respect for civil rights, and don’t really understand what they mean.

    If something is a civil right, you don’t get to deny it merely because “it’s complex” or “it may have pitfalls”.

    You can legitimately argue whether gay marriage falls under – or should fall under – existing civil rights, but you can’t legitimately argue “no civil rights for you lot because it’s too complex/hard/disturbing/unknown”.

  368. Oddly you agreed that the courts could also strike down “heterosexual marriage” and it would be fine in your eyes or that of proponents for “nobody” would have them?

    I was trying with that example to get you to understand the fundamental inequality in the application of the right. Obviously I failed.

  369. you have already received civil unions, which provided the protections proponents originally sought

    So how about them civil unions? You argue that they provide

    the same protections heterosexuals have but do not seek to “promote” the concept of a “homosexual family” or benefits which are meant to assist children.

    And yet, there are quite a number of gay families with children. So…what about them? Are you saying they live in 2nd-class families? That they deserve to be denied the government benefits that support other children?

  370. Why do you keep citing a case on racial discrimination?

    Because it was argued on the basis of access to the underlying civil right of freedom to marry the partner of your choice. I know you tend not to handle more subtle distinctions very well, but give this one a go.

    …a union that serves no other purpose then gratification of the parties involved while discounting the biological realities behind support of heterosexual relationships.

    Sigh, one more time for the terminally sand-headed.

    The biological reality that you are unwilling to face up to is that gays become parents both with and without reproductive assistance; just like straights become parents both with and without reproductive assistance.

    And your attitude here – that gay life partner relationships “serve no purpose other than gratification” precisely illustrates the discrimination that gay couples suffer, which lends weight to the argument that their relationships should be recognised.

  371. Via the courts, which is where the proponents would like to keep it at all costs

    Er, dude, are you in that much self-denial that you failed to comprehend me pointing out several times that three of your States have legislated gay access to marriage?

    California voters passing prop 8 certainly doesn’t bode well for your cause

    So will you accept the will of the voters if they reverse Prop 8 next year, or the election after that?

  372. What an oxymoron, gay child-bearing? Mate, again, you are suggesting evidence where there is none.

    I personally know gay parents of both sexes. You denying it doesn’t change that fact, it just makes you look like…well, fill in the blank.

    Wrap your head around that concept. Gay people father and mother children. In doing so, they create families with children, which you reckon the mere possibility of doing qualifies all straights for marriage, whether or not they are past child-bearing age. And in doing so, they have just as much biological claim to be a family as any single-parent family.

  373. “the case for/against gay marriage is plainly quite different from that for/against polygamy”

    For the love of god how?

    How can you have failed to comprehend the argument that has been made several times – INCLUDING in the article that you posted a link to?

    Go back and READ. Polygamy is:
    (a) a fundamentally unequal relationship in the eyes of many.
    (b) polygamy does not qualify as “access to the existing institution of marriage”.

  374. Again, it is a gross trivialization of the pain and strife that community has gone through.

    Don’t be stupid.

    You clearly don’t understand civil rights. A civil right is a civil right, regardless of how much or how not-so-much pain its denial causes.

  375. I mean, gays switching preferences in this day and age never happens, its innate, ……..It is perfectly normal to want to “breed” with a member of the same sex when said act can produce no child. What is even more confusing and hardly helps your case are the many examples of one homosexual taking on the appearance and mannerisms of the opposite gender (of which the partner, do to innate reasons, is not purportedly attracted too)

    Are you truly this ignorant and illogical…and yes, prejudiced because you’re making judgements based on ignorance that could easily be dispelled, especially since you claim to know so much about the topic?

    Go and read Kinsey – it’s been well known there is a spectrum of sexual orientation for decades. While you’re there, investigate the difference between gay and bisexual. And, as pointed out to you above, note that there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour.

    And there is a difference between sexual orientation and gender role; we don’t say people have a “gender orientation” for a very good reason.

    You’re marking yourself as stupid or ignorant or both by saying that gays are trying to create a child when they have sex with a same-sex partner.

    And you’re indicating you fail to understand basic logic when you argue that “there are people who are less than 100% consistently gay in their behaviour, so I conclude that no-one is actually innately gay”.

  376. To those that say that gay marriage should not be allowed – remember that this issue actually affects my life directly. If you think about what I have told about my bf then you might be able to work out why.

    If I was straight marriage could solve a big problem.

  377. You want to pretend men and women are exactly the same.

    Geez, surprise surprise, more lies….

    That both genders bring exactly the same thing to a relationship/child bearing

    Well, feel free to advocate dissolving the families of, or forcibly marrying off all those straight single parents. Think of the children and the lack of access to the other gender role model! When you advocate something like that, I’ll take this argument more seriously.

    Oh, and BTW, in gay couples it’s not entirely unheard of for one to have the opposite gender role to the other. Gender roles are distinct from biological sex.

  378. That there is a persistence in conflating those two values as if they were one, or in using the latter to circumscribe the former or to assert that the latter is what enlivens the former, I do find perverse, for its diminution of what the relationship of kinship means,…

    Precisely.

  379. Lotharsson,

    Sigh…………………….If only I cared at this point…..

    By the way, is this a record yet, for the number of posts on a given thread? Has to be close…..

  380. Sparta…is unprepared to accept the implications and consequences of genuine freedom for all…

    What Legion said.

  381. If only I cared at this point

    Easy for you to say. Your position or it’s converse doesn’t directly negatively affect you.

    Unlike joni.

  382. I know more than one homosexual there Lotharsson and trust me, not all share the “pro-marriage” view….quite the opposite….

  383. Sparta

    I care because it directly affects me. For you it is a philosphical discussion. Do you see why it is important to me?

  384. …a union that serves no other purpose then gratification of the parties involved while discounting the biological realities…

    I think it’s really interesting that the only two reasons Sparta appears to be able to provide for marrying are gratification and procreation. I guess given those limited dimensions to the relationship, that he’s not particularly attached to his actual spouse then – any suitable replacement who can provide the appropriate gratification + procreation capabilities should do equally well, no?

  385. I know more than one homosexual there Lotharsson and trust me, not all share the “pro-marriage” view….quite the opposite….

    And again, you prove that you’re highly susceptible to the logical fallacy.

    The fact that some don’t want gay marriage doesn’t mean
    (a) that all gays don’t want gay marriage.
    (b) that the option should be denied to all gays.

  386. BTW, you attribute this to me:

    Bisexuality a lifestyle, homosexuality is innate

    You are mistaken. I explicitly said bisexuality is NOT a lifestyle, it is a sexual orientation.

  387. Joni,

    Of course I do mate, but I also understand that we do not have a perfect system. With the state of marriage as it is, I would be ok with government getting out of the “endorsement” business all together……..Abuse being as rampant as it is in the realm of the heterosexual……However, this simply isn’t plausible….

  388. “And again, you prove that you’re highly susceptible to the logical fallacy.”

    No Lotharsson, just speaking from a personal perspective……..

  389. “I think it’s really interesting that the only two reasons Sparta appears to be able to provide for marrying are gratification and procreation.”

    You are confusing “why” we marry with government endorsement of……..

  390. So now your objection is because the system is not perfect, and because the system has flaws then I should be punished?

  391. You are confusing “why” we marry with government endorsement of…

    No, I’m not. Your quote here is a subtle misrepresentation of what you’ve argued.

    AFAIK you’ve never argued that the government endorsed straight marriage for the purpose of endorsing straight “pleasure”, but you argue that gays “want” government endorsement of their chosen “pleasure” as if that’s pretty much all that matters about gay life partnerships.

    Pretty much all the other “whys” for straight marriage apply equally to gays, but you argue that the government does and should ignore all of that. And yet, your government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (let alone the “land of freedom” and “pursuit of happiness” bit).

    Arguing that the government ONLY endorses marriage for the purpose of procreation fails the laugh test, given that (a) gays procreate, and (b) straight couples who can’t procreate can still marry, but more importantly (c) there are many more legitimate interests (supporting all those other “whys” that people marry for) than just procreation.

  392. And we should also ban all marriage cause I know some straight people who object to marriage.

  393. The other strange thing with Sparta’s argument is “the dog that didn’t bark”.

    If marriage is ONLY designed to benefit procreation, then US government is horribly horribly misguided here. It gives out all sorts of “benefits” to people who NEVER HAVE procreated (and some who CANNOT), merely because they marry, and it denies those same “benefits” to those who HAVE procreated because they are not married. (At least in Australia we have recognition of de facto relationships so this is not as extreme.)

    So, if marriage is ONLY there to support procreation, we should see the US conservative political wing screaming from the rooftops about the horrible government waste and inefficiency, and advocating that marriage benefits ONLY accrue to those who successfully acquire offspring.

    Funnily enough, I haven’t heard anyone even whisper such a thing…

  394. Lotharson

    Maybe you need to pay (by yourself) for a trip to a Heartland conference – maybe they have that POV (marriage only for people who have babies).

    😉

  395. Sparta, you assert that civil unions provide

    …the same protections heterosexuals have but do not seek to “promote” the concept of a “homosexual family” or benefits which are meant to assist children.

    How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you have anything I can read that supports it?

    There is no US Federal (or Australian Federal) gay access to civil unions. If this page is current, then there are 9 US States that have gay access to civil unions, along with 6 US States with (or soon to have) gay marriage in some form. So the first point is that civil unions seem unable to provide the “same protections heterosexuals have” at the US Federal level, and in about 35 US States because they aren’t even recognised in the first place.

    Secondly, who checked the 1138 Federal rights, benefits and privileges that the GAO found applied to those who are married to determine that those that aren’t meant to assist children or imply a “homosexual family” are all granted to gays in civil unions? How many such rights/benefits/privileges are there? How exactly do those in civil unions or State-sanctioned gay marriages get access to these Federal rights/benefits/privileges, given that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly rules out Federal recognition of gay marriages and doesn’t seem to recognise civil unions at all?

    How many of the State civil unions defined to have “all the benefits of marriage” except for the name “marriage”? For the remainder, where is the audit showing that all of the rights/benefits/privileges that don’t pertain to assisting children or “homosexual family” are granted to civil unions?

    Or is this assertion merely another comforting statement that turns out to be unsupported by evidence?

  396. I am sometimes not as thankful as I should be, Sparta. So, I wanted to thank-you for your works on this thread. I was previously sure, before reading your pieces and especially your links, that Hercules could adjudicate on same-sex marriage from any position in the Legiverse, because it was the principle which was at stake, not its location. I now understand that Hercules must operate through the People if that principle is to become immortalised legitimised. That will take longer, but so be it.

  397. That will take longer, but so be it.

    Thankfully, Sparta has explained that the People understand that gays who want to get married are the new generation “Cadillac-driving welfare queens” – they’re only in it to rort the generous government-provided marriage “benefits” that weren’t intended to entitle “non-breeders”, yet generously provided with universally recognised “civil unions” that already provide all the “rights” that (non-breeding) life partners are meant to be entitled to.

    So it’s all settled already, and Hercules can cross it off his list…

  398. For those Aussies who don’t understand the role that the meme of “Cadillac-driving welfare queens” plays in American politics, here are a few pointers.

    Don’t forget your irony detector.

  399. Strange, that first link didn’t work. Try a shorter link.

  400. The Republican Case for Gay Marriage

    Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.

    For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant. But if you place yourself in this camp, consider whether you truly want a government that will enforce your personal values at gunpoint (this is what all laws effectively do). And if you surrender such power to the government — power to defend not your life or your property, mind you, but your values — can you live with the consequences when your officials are no longer in power and you are staring down the business end of that barrel? . . . . When you find yourself in a minority, as everyone does at some point, what protections do you imagine that you will have, other than our Constitution? One of the beauties of that document is that no citizen can undermine it without eventually putting his own interests in peril. . . .

    Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. . . .

    Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.

  401. So, can we now definitively conclude that all that cowering concern from Sparta about the inevitable slide into “government endorsement” of other “lifestyles” beyond polygamy…was fear-mongering hyperbole, given the complete inability to produce the name of even one such additional “lifestyle”?

  402. Hercules.

    I must admit, given my lack of knowledge in legal philosophy, that that reference went above my head. Thanks for the link.

    And thanks to Tony for his recent link – very interesting.

  403. Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

    And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.

  404. “So, can we now definitively conclude that all that cowering concern from Sparta about the inevitable slide into “government endorsement” of other “lifestyles” beyond polygamy…was fear-mongering hyperbole, given the complete inability to produce the name of even one such additional “lifestyle”?”

    Yes, thanks for that Tony, I simply didn’t want to go there as I felt my point had been made with polygamy. Amusingly, Lotharsson/Joni and others are now not so keen to deam such an assertion as a “red herring” as they were just a short year or so ago, now its “fear mongering”, how very typical (reminds me of being a AGW skeptic)….but instead now suggest I must provide more “relationships”….LOL?

    It is funny how bisexual relationships/family units with multiple women and men seems to be missed as a possiblity here, despite being mentioned on more than one occassion. I guess for some, it is no different from polygamy. Again, perhaps the government should just get out of the “endorsement” act all together……Some here also seem to think that the language of “two” only is as binding in law as asserting “gender” specifics was until recently but ironically cannot see how that might be “discriminatory” with such an adjustment. Or they just refuse to admit it…..Muddying the waters is all some can do in trying to defend such a position…..

    One more time, once the precedent is made/set for homosexual endorsement, there is nothing legally to bar “other” life styles from getting government endorsement, as any of them could easliy make the same claims as that of the homosexual community…case closed!

  405. Tony,

    Yes indeed……great link in regards to DOMA……

  406. I simply didn’t want to go there as I felt my point had been made with polygamy.

    Wow. After oft repeated questions – BECAUSE you expressed concern about “other lifestyles” that you wouldn’t name – you NOW say it’s incest and child marriage (which are total red herrings in this debate)?

    And you say you “simply didn’t want to go there” – but were happy to invoke bestiality in your first comment on this post? That’s both cowardly, and just not credible.

    And since your post implies you don’t understand why incest and child marriages are red herrings, here’s an explanation.

    If you bother to read the link, you’ll find that incest and child marriage are used as examples of legal overseas marriages which are NOT recognised in the USA, in order to argue that the DOMA is Constitutional because the Federal Government has the right to not recognise some kinds of marriage that are legal where they are made (e.g. US States). They are not being held up as REASONS why gay marriage should not be allowed anywhere; nor is the implication that you promote – that gay marriage will inevitably lead to incestuous and child marriages – made there. In fact, the filing acknowledges that the gay plaintiffs are legally married in California.

  407. So Sparta, given this lawsuit filing, are you now going to show us how civil unions (or even State-legal gay marriages) provide the benefits you said they provided – you know, “all the benefits of marriage” except the name, the concept of family, and those designed to benefit children?

  408. Child marriages are allowed in the US.

    http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

    So one State does not allow marriage under a cut off age because they consider them children, but another State allows marriages under that age because with parental/guardian permission they consider them not children.

    Wikipedia:

    In at least 125 countries children may be taken to court and risk imprisonment for criminal acts at an age between 7 and 15, often the age range for compulsory education. Moreover, in the same country, it is not rare to find that children are legally obliged to go to school until they are 14 or 15 years old but a different law allows them to work at an earlier age or to be married at the age of 12 or to be criminally responsible from the age of 7.

    Up until 2008 child marriages and polygamy were allowed in the US, until the law was changed and this church changed its practices.

    Until 2008, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, practiced child marriage through the concept ‘spiritual (religious only) marriages,’ as soon as girls are ready to bear children, as part of its polygamy practice and laws have raised the age of legal marriage in response to criticism of the practice.

    The minimum age in Texas with parental consent is 14
    In Alabama, South Carolina and Utah, girls can marry at 14; in New Hampshire it’s 13; in Massachusetts and Kansas, 12.

    In Australia the minimum age with a court order under exceptional circumstances is 16.

    So I guess my question is that at what minimum age will child marriages be allowed just because gay marriage is sanctioned considering for legal matters imprisonment can be as young as 7 and for marriage it can be 12?

  409. Amusingly, Lotharsson/Joni and others are now not so keen to deam such an assertion as a “red herring” as they were just a short year or so ago,

    Again, you misrepresent my position. Whilst that makes arguing against it easier for you, that does not make it correct.

    Here, let’s make my position clear.

    The possibility of polygamy stemming from gay marriage IS A RED HERRING.

    Why?

    Because the combination of arguments for/against are DIFFERENT from those for gay marriage, even though some polygamy proponents would use SOME of the arguments for gay marriage for polygamy.

    (Never mind the fact that those arguments are far less likely to get accepted for polygamy’s case. Let alone, as you pointed out, that Australia generally declines to prosecute polygamy undertaken legally overseas – a position which was NOT arrive at by applying the arguments for gay marriage.)

  410. And finally, the other reason why polygamy stemming from gay marriage arguments is a red herring is this. If the application of the just principle that leads to gay marriage also leads to polygamy, then so be it. You can’t deny a just principle because you feel you don’t like the results. (Well, in Sparta’s case you can – you come up with the results you like first, and then try to argue for them.)

  411. Some commentary on the DOJ’s filing. No doubt there will be more.

    While you’re at it, some commentary on the California Attorney General’s filing in the other major case. Compare and contrast…it’s quite stunning the admissions that are made, in direct opposition to the contentions in the DOJ’s filing.

  412. Lotharsson,

    From your first link:

    Frankly, this leads me to the belief that the campaign promise was empty, hollow, as actions are louder than words as we all know.

    Like I’ve said before: Don’t listen to what (candidate) Obama says, look at what he (President Obama) does.

  413. Tony, I’ve said the same. In a lot of matters (such as expanding Presidential power and undermining checks and balances) he’s been more radical than Bush and Cheney thus far – which is really saying something.

    Obama supporters argue he’s playing “11-dimensional chess”, i.e. making moves the rest of us don’t understand in order to achieve suitably “good” goals.

    That _could_ turn out to be true, but I currently don’t buy it – there’s little evidence to support that hypothesis.

  414. Lotharsson,

    I recently read that same chess analogy somewhere in relation to Obama and North Korea. It went something like: Obama’s an intellectual, so he plays a good game of chess, but he doesn’t have the instincts to play poker, which is what Kim Jong Il is playing with him.

  415. The DOJ says the filing is merely fulfilling their duty to “defending existing law”.

    Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn’t mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.

    This idea that they must file defense of existing laws in this manner is 100% bogus, as history contains various examples of Presidents declining to defend laws – and they could have merely filed in this case on their argument that the couple who filed the lawsuit have no standing in this particular court.

  416. Lotharsson,

    Notwithstanding Obama’s backflip, the filing itself makes for very interesting reading, with some very rational-sounding arguments for the case to dismiss. This bit from the introduction (p14) caught my eye:

    Individuals are born into, or form, a broad spectrum of human relationships, founded in kinship or affection, whether of spouses, siblings, parent and child, cousins, companions, partners, or otherwise. Yet of all these relationships, Congress has long extended certain federal benefits and protections on the basis of just one — that between a husband and wife (and their minor children). Congress is entitled under the Constitution to address issues of social reform on a piecemeal, or incremental, basis. It was therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges it has afforded to this one relationship without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize. Its cautious decision simply to maintain the federal status quo while preserving the ability of States to experiment with new definitions of marriage is entirely rational. Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, but its decision to reserve judgment on the question does not render any differences in the availability of federal benefits irrational or unconstitutional.

  417. It was therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges it has afforded to this one relationship without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.

    Tony, if that’s all you read it does sound compelling, because of the presumptions that are embedded in the frame.

    Note how the lawyers cunningly mix in relationships by virtue of birth to those that are chosen, before arguing that Federal benefits accrue just to marriage between man and wife (when that’s clearly false – there are plenty of benefits awarded to children, via their guardians, whether those guardians are married or not).

    And note that gay couples say they are asking – just as mixed race couples did in Loving v. Virginia – for access to the existing institution of marriage as a civil right, not for creating “new forms of marriage” (which I believe polygamy would fall under). That’s why the DOJ filing went to such lengths (some seemingly a bit tortured) to argue that the main premise of Loving v. Virginia – that access to marriage is a fundamental civil right – does not apply to gay couples.

    Citing “scarce government resources” is a bit of a joke, given the scale of corporate welfare handed out lately which utterly dwarfs any Federal financial benefits that might accrue to gay married couples, but it sounds good to the casual reader. (And if access to marriage is a civil right, then this is a complete red herring. What happened to “government for the people”?)

    Asserting that DOMA is rational may be necessary to argue as a point of law here, but it’s not addressing the main argument.

    And the DOJ asserting that DOMA is constitutional does not make it so (and Obama’s law professor emphatically disagrees). It should prove an interesting court case – but the filing is very damaging because it gives an official veneer of approval to many of the anti-gay arguments floating around, even those that are inaccurate or irrelevant to the case.

  418. Yes Lotharsson,

    As I said, rational-sounding, but their arguments do fall down on the basis of logic on several counts.

  419. Tony, did you also read the California Attorney General Brown’s filing in another of the Federal cases?

    He correctly notes that while it is his duty to enforce the law, that he is also free to challenge it – as is the DOJ.

    In response a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign says (basically) “We voted for it, so no fair challenging its Federal constitutionality!” I think he needs to go back to law school on that point.

    And speaking of the DOJ filing arguing that the government needs to conserve “scarce resources”, they go even further arguing for “neutrality” – the idea that taxes collected from states with no same-sex access to marriage should not go to states that do. This is a weird idea of neutrality (and ties back into the insulting idea that they are merely seeking access to Federal benefits they don’t deserve), given that same-sex couples generally pay MORE Federal tax than opposite-sex married couples, money which is used to support…straight marriages.

    Some further commentary on some of the arguments in the DOJ filing.

  420. Rational: arbitrary.

  421. Tony,

    Yes, very logical…… However, didn’t you know, we should never consider the possible long term ramifications of our actions, never, just go with what “feels” right and deem those that raise obvious questions/complications as “mean spirited, homophobe etcetera”……………

  422. we should never consider the possible long term ramifications of our actions…just go with what “feels” right…

    There you go again. You can’t post more than a couple of comments without making up strawmen…

  423. And another Republican has changed his point of view on gay marriage. Former State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno of NY.

    “As a Republican, I believe in personal freedom,..I opposed same sex marriage largely because the overwhelming majority of my caucus opposed it…However, that view really does conflict with the rights that are afforded all of us.”

    But hey, what would a legislator know about rights.

  424. “There you go again. You can’t post more than a couple of comments without making up strawmen…”

    Would you get a new one already….It is not a distraction to revisit what I have already put forth in the form of a “comment”…….You are not being challenged here…..Stop making the claim of “straw-man” and acutally articulate with clarity for a change on “why” something isn’t or is a “straw-man”…to begin with if your going to make a claim of…You “homophobe”…..LOL…..

  425. Legion, on June 15th, 2009 at 11:21 am Said:

    Rational: arbitrary.

    Just a roundabout way of highlighting that they’re all talking in a kind of tacit code which affects the heuristic process and which has the effect of pulling legal levers; which may or may not have anything directly to do with natural uses of language or logics outside the paradigm within which they’re operating. ‘Rational’, imho, goes to a claim per the applicable standard of review and a suggestion that even a hint of ‘rationality’ means that a Court should observe due deference to the Legislature and not apply any strict scrutiny to the innate ‘reasonableness’ or the innate ‘logic’ of the proffered ‘rationale’.

  426. It is not a distraction to revisit what I have already put forth in the form of a “comment”…….You are not being challenged here…..Stop making the claim of “straw-man” and acutally articulate with clarity for a change on “why” something isn’t or is a “straw-man”

    As you wish.

    No-one is telling you that – as you claimed – that:

    …we should never consider the possible long term ramifications of our actions…

    or that we should:

    …just go with what “feels” right…

    To argue this is to argue against a strawman, because that’s not the case that’s being made.

  427. What I find most interesting about the DOJ’s defense of the Defense Of Marriage Act is how that defense undermines opposite-sex marriage.

    The DOJ argues – as Sparta does, IIRC – that gays are not being denied the Federal benefits that attach to marriage. They are entirely eligible for those benefits – as long as they enter into an opposite-sex marriage.

    So the DOJ is saying that, in order to “defend marriage”, that people should form sham marriages to get the Federal benefits! Wow!

    It’s bad enough (and yes, Sparta, this is one of the “long term consequences” that is worthy of consideration in this debate) that some gay people already attempt straight marriages in order to try and fit in with societal expectations. These marriages are almost always either very unhappy – or fail (sometimes after producing kids – remembering that sexual behaviour is not the same as sexual orientation), leaving behind broken families.

    Or one or both spouses will start sleeping with people of the sex they are actually attracted to, often without their spouse’s knowledge – which can result in communicating nasty diseases to their spouse, who may not be sleeping with anyone outside the marriage.

    To suggest that in order to “defend” opposite-sex marriage we should motivate people to form fake opposite-sex marriages defies reason in a kind of “We had to destroy marriage in order to save it…” fashion.

  428. New Report: Rise in support for gay marriage in Australia

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage-20090616-ce8k.html

  429. Interesting revelation from one of the self-proclaimed “defenders of traditional marriage”.

  430. So I still don’t see Sparta documenting his claim of civil unions that provide “all the benefits of marriage” except those aimed at child-rearing. (Because as we all know, gay people don’t have functional sperm or ova, and all straight people do, for life…)

    I admit I’m starting to have disheartening doubts – i.e. that Sparta’s assertion about these civil unions that should be good enough for gays may not have been entirely truthful.

  431. Daphon..great minds and all that. I posted similar via The Australian on the Monday Magazine thread.

    As per mentioned (lots!) most Australians are in support of gay marriage as long as churches are not ‘forced’ to perform ceremonies. And this forcing to perform ceremonies has been the scare mongering thing hanging over the issue. However, if the question is: Do you agree in gay people being able to be married in a civil ceremony, then the answer is in the vast majority, a Yes.

    Of course there will be some churches/some ministers who say no, but then many priests/ministers still will not marry Catholics to non-Catholics. But who would want to be married in that church anyway.

    I can’t see how the barring of marriage can be delayed for much longer given that gay couples are now recogised as defacto in state’s legislation (given that defacto is state and marriage is federal, with the exception of registration of marriage which is state).

    That is, if a couple are recognised as being in a defacto relationship, how can you stop them from marrying?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: