A right wing moron tries to sound rational on gay marriage

[Jack Rabbit]

NOTE: posting time are EDT.

This discussion is taking place at the website of The Nation. See page 4. The Nation is my second favorite website at which to post. There, I get to take on real, live Bush Bubbahs.

What business does the government have in officially recognizing same-sex marriages? Society has absolutely no interest in fostering same-sex marriages. In contrast, the fostering of stable conventional marriages, with the ideal of producing and nurturing physically and emotionally healthy children, is about as vital an interest as society as a whole can have.

Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition. But society has no more interest in recognizing, let alone subsidizing, such relationships than it does in recognizing and subsidizing friendships, private clubs, or other free association activities.

Tolerance for gay lifestyles? Fine. Gay marriage on the same par as conventional marriage? Nope.


Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/20/2006 @ 1:18pm

To Pontificus:

Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition.

That being the case, what business does the government (or "society") have in banning same-sex marriages?

And do you believe that a constitutional amendment should prohibit not only the federal government from recognizing them, but any state as well? If so, why?

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 1:27pm

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 1:27pm

Gays have always been with us, and always will. It's part of the human condition.

That being the case, what business does the government (or "society") have in banning same-sex marriages?

I just don't see any reason why society should provide some recognized status for homosexual relationships. Society has no particular interest in recognizing such relationships, any more than any other relationship between people. As I said, only a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children. Thus, society only has a vital interest in providing some sort of exalted structure for heterosexual marriages.

With regard to non-productive heterosexual unions, traditional divorce grounds have always provided an out in the case of sterility. Laws and conditions regarding marriage have always been created with an eye towards fecundity and the rearing of healthy children. There's no other purpose for marriage at all, at least in terms of a compelling societal interest. I think non-fecund relationships between men and women are beside the point.

Putting homosexual relationships on the same par with heterosexual relationships, which fulfil a vital (some would say the only real vital) societal need, is just absurd. It's political correctness gone to the degree of absurdity.

And do you believe that a constitutional amendment should prohibit not only the federal government from recognizing them, but any state as well? If so, why?

I think that marriage should be defined as a societally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, and that the sole reason for such recognitions is for the creation and rearing of healthy children.

I guess states should have the right to redefine marriage if a majority of voters in each state want to do it, so I guess I'm against a federal amendment. But no state should be forced to recognize a homosexual marriage, so I'm not sure how allowing each state to go its own way would work, or even if it would be practical.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/20/2006 @ 3:40pm

To Pontificus:

Thank you for your reply.

Putting homosexual relationships on the same par with heterosexual relationships, which fulfil a vital (some would say the only real vital) societal need, is just absurd. It's political correctness gone to the degree of absurdity.

That is a judgment, but you give no valid reasons to support it.

I just don't see any reason why society should provide some recognized status for homosexual relationships. Society has no particular interest in recognizing such relationships, any more than any other relationship between people.

The question was posed by another, but since it applies to me personally, I'll ask it. I had a vasectomy twenty years ago; two years ago, I married a post-menopausal woman. What interest does society have in our marriage? It certainly isn't the one you give.

With regard to non-productive heterosexual unions, traditional divorce grounds have always provided an out in the case of sterility.

You obviously don't live in California, where the only grounds for divorce are irreconcilable differences and incurable insanity. It has been that way for about forty years. Sterility doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

I think that marriage should be defined as a societally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, and that the sole reason for such recognitions is for the creation and rearing of healthy children.

I am not going to disagree that raising children is an important matter. It is still not a valid argument against gay marriage.

My wife and I are acquainted with a lesbian couple who have fostered many hard-to-place children and adopted some. They are excellent parents to these children. Should they be denied to marry? Even as it is, they are fulfilling the capacity that you seem think is most important.

Which brings up a point: does the government have an interest in recognizing any marriage at all?

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

I'll keep all here posted on what Pontificus replies.

Any comments?

[Warpy]

1. Pontificus is well named

and I get the distinct impression he speaks down the full length of his long blue nose in real life, too.

Ask him exactly what it would do to him and every other married couple in the country if long term gay relationships were afforded the protections of marriage, meaning visitation rights in intensive care units, claiming the body after a partner has died, and custodial arrangements with children they have brought up together. The financial stuff can already by handled by civil contract. These are all rights that are afforded to non blood kin only through marriage.

Ask him if calling it civil union would make him feel better.

Remind him that no religious official can be compelled to perform ANY marriage, gay or straight.

Then remind him that the existence of gay civil unions doeesn't mean he has to enter into one, that he'd likely never run into one in his lifetime (he will, but most couples will be aware of what he is and pass for roommates).

Then tell him the rhetoric he's spouting about gay civil unions is exactly the same that was used 40 years ago when Jim Crow laws against interracial marriages in the south were being challenged.

Equal access to contractural law is guaranteed us all. This should be a nonissue.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. A couple of points

I'll probably get around to asking him about the civil unions matter if this keeps up.

His assertion is that marraige is a way for the state to susidize child rearing, in which society has a vested interest (something with which few would disagree). The problem is obviously his linking marriage to child rearing, which he asserts is the sole reason for marriage. Obviously, there are reason people that have little to do with child rearing and unmarried couples and even single parents are also capable of raising children into productive adults. While a stable family setting is the ideal environment to raise children, the marriage and child rearing do not equate.

[Warpy]

12. That opens an interesting door

Will he force men who are married to women beyond the childbearing years to divorce and find young wives? Will he force couples who have elected to remain childless to divorce for not holding up their end of the state bargain?

What sort of interference in personal lives is he willing to tolerate to ensure breeding?

Have fun.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. There are a lot of flaws in his argument

It's easier just to point out that he's full of baloney than to try to list them all.

[Chomp]

2. You spelt moran wrongly...n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Just tell him to get down to brass tacks.

The real reason he doesn't want gays to marry is because he is a bigot.

He can rationalize to his heart's content but ultimately allowing gays to marry takes nothing away from him and does NOTHING to affect his day to day existance so the only real reason he could have for making up such odd leaps of logic to support his disapproval of gay marriage is that he is prejudiced against gays.

[gratuitous]

5. He seems awfully concerned about children

Ask him if he's in favor of a government mandate that requires parenting classes for anyone caught having kids. After all, if society is to have an absolute interest in the rearing of physically and emotionally healthy children, then shouldn't society require parents to be as good as they can possibly be?

[svpadgham]

6. This a stupid point for Pontificus to bring up

"As I said, only a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to provide society with what it needs, which is children. Thus, society only has a vital interest in providing some sort of exalted structure for heterosexual marriages."


The last time I checked, nobody needs to be married to have kids. All marriage does is help prevent inbreeding. Well, in most places it does.

[tulsakatz]

7. he's asking the wrong question........

He said: 'what business does the govt have in officially recognizing same sex marriages?'

But the real question, in my opinion, is: what business does the govt have in telling it's citizens who they can and cannot marry? It's really none of the govt's business who I marry or if I marry at all! Especially in a society that claims to be free!!

It's a pretty limited view to believe that the only benefit of marriage is raising children. I think the real reason why people marry is to be connected to someone whether or not they have children.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I could have asked that

However, in one sense the burden of proof is on advocates of gay marriage in that, whether it is right or wrong, the state (well, nost of them, any way) only recognizes opposite-sex marriages now and we are the ones suggesting the accepting of something new.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Another exchange with a right wing moron

EDITED to fix tag.

Same thread.

Friday night and we have all the leftwing extremists who want to promote perversion.

Well I say let the leftists continue, let them have all the perveted homosexual relationships they want. It should only take 1-2 generations to remove this stain on our nation as they combine the failure to reproduce with contracting AIDS and other STDS to a point where the whole debate will become moot. They won't be here to make it an issue any longer.

Because the converse is that if they get their way, God might be forced to treat our Nation like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe he'll first send a warning by destroying Sodom Francisco to see if people will repent. If this country doesn't change, it deserves God's wrath and judgment.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 12:44am

To LL:

Friday night and we have all the leftwing extremists who want to promote perversion.

Perversion? Nothing like begging the question, LL. Or arguing in circles. Why is homosexuality perverse? How do you know? Because the Bible says so? And on what authority does the Bible rest? If I may anticipate your argument, you would say because it is the word of God.

Suppose I don't accept that. You may say that I don't count because I am going to Hell, but you would be wrong. You see, this is a democracy, meaning a saved person and damned one have an equal voice in public policy. I count as much as you.

So, if you want to persuade me that I'm wrong, please find some common ground. As a citizen, I am under no obligation to accept Christianity as my faith, and let alone your private view of what that means.

Even if Biblical injunction persuaded me that homosexuals burn in Hell, I would still support gay marriage. Why? Because church and separate in America. Which means in order to deprive one of liberty to arrange his private affairs as he sees fit, I should have some practical, worldly reason for doing so. When it comes to homosexual, I can't think of one. I can no more think of a good reason to ban two homosexuals from uniting than I can to ban two Muslims or two Jews or two atheists or any two other people who don't share your idea of God from uniting.

Well I say let the leftists continue, let them have all the perveted homosexual relationships they want. It should only take 1-2 generations to remove this stain on our nation as they combine the failure to reproduce with contracting AIDS and other STDS to a point where the whole debate will become moot. They won't be here to make it an issue any longer.

As if AIDS were caused by homosexuality. Any scientist would tell you, it's caused by a virus. In North America, it was spread by the activities one homosexual man in particular, a Canadian air line steward name Gaeton Dugas. This information is documented in And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. I highly recommend the book, LL. In addition, in Africa AIDS is a heterosexual disease. That pokes a hole in your wretched God's curse theory, doesn't it?

Because the converse is that if they get their way, God might be forced to treat our Nation like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe he'll first send a warning by destroying Sodom Francisco to see if people will repent. If this country doesn't change, it deserves God's wrath and judgment.

Is that is another "scientific" judgment?

When we discuss whether or not there should be gay marriage, we are discussing public policy in a state that separates church and state. If you want to believe, evidence to the contrary, that AIDS is a Biblical curse from a wrathful homophobic God, that's OK with me. I'll defend to my death your right to worship God in your image. However, once again, your religious beliefs (or mine or the next person's, for that matter) are not the proper basis of public policy.

Sorry, LL, you'll just have to come up with more worldly reasons to ban gay marriage or otherwise proscribe homosexuality if you want to argue that point with me. Otherwise, it seems we have no common ground on which to base a discussion.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 12:08am

Sorry, LL, you'll just have to come up with more worldly reasons to ban gay marriage or otherwise proscribe homosexuality if you want to argue that point with me. Otherwise, it seems we have no common ground on which to base a discussion.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 12:08am

I have said before that marriage is a religious institution brought to America by Christians. We therefore retain the right to stipulate that a religious covenant cannot be changed by man. Even though my thoughts on homosexual relationships are obvious, I also acknowledge that the Constitution will end up supporting Civil Unions by Homosexuals, followed soon after by Polygamy. Those organizations that call themselves Christian and yet authorize Homosexual or Polygamist marriages are stepping outside of Scripture. They can continue to conduct such marriages but should not be considered as Christian.

I can certainly offer scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality as even to someone with a low IQ, it is obvious that this is unnatural. There is no amount of rationalization that can defend it as a natural act.

There is no historical record of a major civilization that began engaging in widespread homosexuality and did not fall into decay and corruption followed by a complete dismantling. Much of homoxeuality's history is marked by it's widespread use in paganism.

In the United States, the two leading causes of AIDS are homosexual sex and IV Drug use. Innocent men, women and children have been infected by the immoral actions of others.

You are certainly correct in part about Africa. I spent time working as a missionary in South Africa and saw first hand the destructiveness of AIDS there. I went into a local place that is something like a Costco here and was shown out in the lumber yard where the stacks of coffins for children were placed. But even there most of the spread of AIDS is due to men who go off to major cities like Durbin, Johannesburg or New London for up to a year at a time away from home. While away, they go see the prostitutes, get infected then come home and infect their wives. Even worse, the witch doctors tell them that the cure for AIDS is to have sex with a young girl, or even a young boy. It is tragic and not a situation that will end any time soon.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/20/2006 @ 4:40pm

To LL

I have said before that marriage is a religious institution brought to America by Christians. We therefore retain the right to stipulate that a religious covenant cannot be changed by man.

You mean Native Americans didn't have such an institution as marriage? That's news to me. I think it would be to a lot of Native Americans, too.

The notion that marriage was brought to America by Christians is a lot hooey. For that matter, the idea that it is Christian is a lot of hooey. Marriage has existed in every culture, Christian and non-Christian alike. Christians do not have dibs on it.

To allow Christians to define for the state what marriage is would be tantimount to the establishment of a state religion. Only a very twisted interpretation of the Constitution would permit that.

Even though my thoughts on homosexual relationships are obvious, I also acknowledge that the Constitution will end up supporting Civil Unions by Homosexuals, followed soon after by Polygamy. Those organizations that call themselves Christian and yet authorize Homosexual or Polygamist marriages are stepping outside of Scripture.

So they are stepping outside the Scripture (or at least your personal interpretation of it). Again, it is not, as you wrongly assert, for Christians to define marriage in a secular society of laws that separates church and state. And no one is obligated to accept either one particular religious belief or even one person's idea of what that means.

I can certainly offer scientific reasons for condemning homosexuality as even to someone with a low IQ, it is obvious that this is unnatural. There is no amount of rationalization that can defend it as a natural act.

Elaborate, please. It would seem that homosexuality is natural to homosexuals.

I am heterosexual. For me, that is natural. I had no crisis of identity about it because I naturally fit into the societal norm. It wasn't a choice. I did not wake up one morning when I was in my teens and say "Gee, I think I'll orient my sexuality as straight. That would be just cool."

There is no historical record of a major civilization that began engaging in widespread homosexuality and did not fall into decay and corruption followed by a complete dismantling. Much of homoxeuality's history is marked by it's widespread use in paganism.

There are two problems with that remark. First of all, there is no record of a major civilization collapsing as a direct result of homosexuality. Second, there is no case on record of a major civilization not collapsing after a period of time for one reason or another. Your reason is simply a post hoc fallacy.

In the United States, the two leading causes of AIDS are homosexual sex and IV Drug use. Innocent men, women and children have been infected by the immoral actions of others.

I will agree that IV drug use is immoral, but what is inherently immoral about homosexuality? You've demonstrated how heterosexual behavior can be immoral and lead to AIDS; how is that different from homosexual behavior? AIDS is spread by as a result of risky sexual behavior, not homosexuality per se.

I worked with some gay men in San Francisco in the mid eighties. One of them explained that what the AIDS epidemic did was to change the gay community from one of anything goes sex to one of committed relationships. In other words, the response in the gay community to a disease that was spread by risky sexual behavior was to reduce risky sexual behavior.

That could be a better argument for gay marriage than against it.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/20/2006 @ 5:29pm

[area51]

10. "There's no other purpose {besides child-rearing} for marriage at all..."

What an fscking assclown. So he obviously (a) wants to forbid all people past the child-rearing age from getting married, and (b) wants to immediately force all people past the child-rearing age to get divorced. Talk about illogical....

Also, you might want to ask him if he's volunteering to pay the taxes of gay people, b/c if they can't have equal rights w/straights, they shouldn't be paying full taxes.

[W_HAMILTON]

11. You can tell him...

...that many (maybe most?) of the protections that come with being married have nothing to do with children.

For example:

********************************************************************

State Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage – a Sample

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Certain Property Rights
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Name Change if Desired
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Federal Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage – a Sample

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks for Married Couples
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

********************************************************************

Taken from: http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-quik.html

So as you can see, plenty of the protections offered by marriage have little or nothing to do with children. You need to tackle it from the point that marriage is not simply about children. Many heterosexuals choose not to have children. Many heterosexuals divorce, which puts undue stress on their children. If our nation cared so much about the children, they would worry more about limiting divorce rather than preventing two loving partners to marry one another.

Also, you can ask him if he thinks it is better for a child to be raised in an orphanage, or to be raised in foster care, rather than to be raised in a loving household with two gay partners. Gay people can, and do, have children. Some places allow them to adopt, and even if they can't, they can work out a private adoption, or work out something with a surrogate mother.

If he really cared about children, he would be pushing for gay marriage, and pushing for gay people to be able to adopt all these kids who are without parents.

[Orsino]

13. Not rational. Just foot-dragging.

Putting the onus on others to prove that he needs same-sex marriage. It's designed to distract, as he is afraid to tackle the real issue: when did our government get back into the business of discrimination?

Taxpayers are supposed to get equal access to the government. Has he never heard of "no taxation without representation," or is he simply unwilling to take the next logical step?

He's scattering caltrops to slow you down.

[Kerrytravelers]

15. Very well said.

:applause:

[Jack Rabbit]

16. The further adventures of a right wing Pontificator

Pontificus did not directly respond to my posts. However, he did respond to those of several others. I refer the reader to page 5 of the discussion.

My latest response to Pontificus:

To Ponitificus:

Are you writing satire? Your responses make a lot more sense if read that way.

You're picking a minor exception and trying to overturn the rule.

That remark is in reference to your "rule" that the "sole reason" for marriage is procreation. The "minor exception" is a couple that marry in their twilight years. Why is that exception any more minor than allowing gays to marry?

You are doing worse than arguing in circles. You are making it up as you go along. First there is a "rule" that isn't a rule and then you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is an exception and what is not.

Bigotry? I don't think so. Bigotry is intolerance for other people's views, or groups of people other than one's own. Bigotry is what John McCain was exposed to when he attempted to speak at the New School, and was heckled by 'tolerant' leftists. Bigotry is what the left practices every day in college campuses across the country.

Lenin and Hitler, and Pol Pot, were atheists who took their beliefs to their logical conclusions in terms of public policy. It's not intolerance to point that out, just because you don't like the idea.

The reference to McCain's reception at the New School earns you yet another Red Herring Award to add to your growing collection (in fact, your discourse on the Plame case, apart from being inaccurate, is yet another; when are you going to bring up Clinton's cock?)

Speaking of inaccurate, Hitler did not espouse atheism. Even if he did, it has nothing to with the subject at hand.

I didn't think it was relevant. The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution by a number of years. It's in the Declaration that the basis of the Constitution is laid out, and the Judeo-Christian basis of the Constitution is set forth. I know you atheists like to ignore that, but that's your problem.

Do you take lessons in propaganda from Ken Mehlman or Rush Limbaugh? Not only is this irrelevant, it is inaccurate. The principle author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was a Unitarian and the religious references in the Declaration (e.g., "Nature and Nature's God") reflect that. If the subject itself isn't distracting, your inaccuracies are. The Constitution clearly separates church and state and the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of Christianity nor any specific mention of principles that can be narrowly defined as either Christian or Judeo-Christian.

The Declaration of Independence takes no legal precedence over the Constitution. Even if it did, it doesn't make any mention of homosexuality or marriage (neither does the Constitution, for that matter).

When you do address the matter at hand, you simply make a judgment to the effect that marriage is about only procreation and then simply reassert that statement in the face of clear refutation. A better thesis about marriage would be that it is about two people uniting to travel the path of life together.

You simply have not proved your case. Maybe there are reasons why we should prohibit same-sex marriage, but I remain ignorant of them and neither you nor LL have provided any here.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/22/2006 @ 10:52am

[Jack Rabbit]

17. His response and my reply (listen up, Mr. Hamilton, this one is for you!)

We are now on page 6 of the discussion.

I employed some of W_HAMILTON's ideas in my response. Thanks for the assist.

Are you writing satire? Your responses make a lot more sense if read that way.

Yeah, your mother wears army boots too.

You're picking a minor exception and trying to overturn the rule.

That remark is in reference to your "rule" that the "sole reason" for marriage is procreation. The "minor exception" is a couple that marry in their twilight years. Why is that exception any more minor than allowing gays to marry?

You are doing worse than arguing in circles. You are making it up as you go along. First there is a "rule" that isn't a rule and then you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is an exception and what is not.

My proposition is that the sole reason for marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. I believe the history of marriage laws supports this proposition, especially since never in the history of this country has homosexual marriage been allowed. Sure, exceptions have been made to my proposition, but they are incidental.

Disagree all you want with my definition of marriage, but it's not illogical or arbitrary at all. If marriage had ever been intended for two people of the same sex, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/22/2006 @ 12:52am

My proposition is that the sole reason for marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. I believe the history of marriage laws supports this proposition . . . .

Disagree all you want with my definition of marriage, but it's not illogical or arbitrary at all. If marriage had ever been intended for two people of the same sex, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

Not only do I disagree, but I believe you've been refuted twelve ways to Sunday.

It would be foolish to deny that marriage has a great deal to do with procreation, but that is not it's sole function. It seems to have a great deal to do with sexual attraction and the choice of a life partner, not solely with procreation.

This is a reasonable definition of marriage, alternate to yours and one I think is more universal. Your idea of marriage has quite a few moving parts to it, since you must make exceptions to your rule and justify why, for example, it is fit for a woman past her child bearing years to marry, but not for a gay couple. In neither case is the relationship based on procreation. You have not addressed this point.

You're definition of marriage seems like a convenient argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage and nothing else. You simply did not consider that it also becomes an argument for prohibiting other marriages, for which you must make exceptions that are, whether you admit it or not, arbitrary.

In addition to that, there are many legal benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. Married couples have survivor rights; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Married couples can jointly file income tax returns at reduced rates or file bankruptcy jointly; gay couples, because they cannot marry, cannot. Married couples have vi station rights in hospitals; gay couples, because they cannot marry, do not. Do you have any remedy for these injustices?

Moreover, the function of raising children is not always left to the biological parents. In Scandinavian societies of the Middle Ages, foster parenting was an institution. I pointed out that of all the couples I know, one of the most dedicated at raising children is lesbian. The evidence is anecdotal, but the point remains that there is no reason to suppose that no gay couples can be good parents. You have not addressed that point.

In addition, it is also a fact that even without the benefit of marriage, lesbian couple choose to have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners. Here, the responsibilities of child rearing are being assumed by a family that just doesn't fit your idea of a man and a woman having children. It doesn't have anything to do with the traditional idea of marriage as a man and a woman because until relatively recently it wasn't possible. How do you address this phenomenon of the modern world?

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

[W_HAMILTON]

18. Nice

I'm not sure that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage can make a reasonable argument against it. I've heard plenty of people try, and you can pretty much refute all of their points. If these people really cared so much about the children, they would advocate recognizing gay couples as "equals," and allow them to adopt the thousands of kids who are without parents in our country today. Whether it's seen as being ideal or not, having two caring gay parents who love and take care of you is better than having no parents at all.

And it's so silly to reduce us down to being creatures who are just put on this earth to procreate. Tell him to watch a few episodes of Maury Povich; Lord knows we aren't in any danger of becoming extinct because no one wants to have kids. The global population is booming, if anything, too many damn people want to have kids.

And he can think that marriage's sole purpose is to create and raise kids, but that doesn't mean it's the truth. You can marry, and not have kids. You can marry, and not even be able to have kids. We don't demand that child-bearing be a prerequisite for marriage.

People like this just don't make any sense. I wish these type of people would care as much about the kids when they grow up as they do when they are fetuses, or when they are young. Those "kids" that they care so much about, they're the ones who are going to die in this war in a few years. Those "kids" that they care so much about, some of them are going to realize they're gay, and grow up knowing that they'll be relegated to a second-class citizen in our society. Some of those "kids" are going to grow up in a broken family, because their gay father/mother felt pressure to live the stereotypical life, until they realized they could no longer live a lie and they get a divorce. Some of those "kids" already have gay parents, and they'll feel the pain and ridicule that is placed on their parents because of who they are. Some of those "kids" will have gay friends that commit suicide because of their sexual orientation.

When you don't treat someone as equal, that's what happens. All this bullshit about trying to demean and degrade homosexuals because of who they are, that's all stuff that can come back to bite the "kids" -- the kids they care so much about! -- in the ass.

[MaryBear]

19. Ah, digression!

My understanding about marriage is that it is about property. Human and other property. A way for the male of the human species to assure that he maintained control of his lands, coins, and sperm end-products.

The concept of marriage in the western world as romantic and designed for societal continuation through controlled coital coupling is new and came along when those organization development fellows in the Roman church noticed that the best way to grow world christianity, aka catholicism, would be through high birth rates among believers, along with real property acquisition through other means.

The case for gay marriage is a case about property. The case against it is rooted in the romantic view promulgated through PR by whomever might profit from that view at any particular time.

If I may be so bold as to speak for Mrs. Rabbit, I would guess that she bought into some view of the concept of marriage that was not related to sperm end-products -- although it may have been desired as a way of protecting shared property from end-products of earlier coital coupling with others of the species.

The concept of marriage is just the concept of marriage. Vaguely undefinable in the way of understanding intelligence tests in that intelligence tests test what intelligence tests test. At this time among some circles, defining marriage as not gay is profitable.

The argument you have entered is a non contest in that the speakers (you and pontificus) each define their own words, define them differently, and then use them as though the definition is shared. And then they define each other as bush bubbahs, right wing morons, and worse. At what point does the discussion become a lingual misuse. But I digress.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. "Marriage is about property"

:loveya:

[Odin2005]

21. I'm sick of the bigots using St. Thomas Aquinas to rationalize thier crap.

They do this all the time. claim Gay Marriage is "unnatural" because it doesn't lead to procreation, basically the same BS logic the pope uses to denounce contraception. Enlightenment scholers rightfully declared Aquinas's ethics to be BS because they fall for the naturalistic fallacy (is = ought, or natural = good, basically that any action that gets in the way of "natural ends" like procreation is immoral), a fallacy that has it's roots with Aristotle.