Same-sex marriage, civil unions, and country-club bigotry

Elizabeth Marquardt responds to my post “Why Are Gay Interests So Easily Sacrificed?” In that post, I wrote:

Elizabeth says she’s not bigoted against lesbians and gays, and I believe her. Nonetheless, her argument is premised on bigotry against lesbians and gays. It is only in the context of a bigoted society that a reasonable person like Elizabeth could advocate treating gays as objects to be sacrificed for others’ benefit.

I agree that reducing divorce would be a good thing. I agree that children’s welfare would improve if more heterosexual parents stayed together in healthy marriages.

But I cannot, will not agree that lesbians, gays and their families are appropriate objects for sacrifice. I cannot, will not agree that their interests should be trashed for someone else’s ends. Lesbians and gays are not pawns fit for sacrifice – and to suggest they are is an endorsement of bigotry (whether or not the speaker is personally bigoted). There are other possible approaches to saving het marriage. Let’s pursue those approaches, and allow same-sex families the equality that should be their birthright.

Elizabeth responds:

He takes my arguments seriously, and I appreciate that. But I don’t think excluding SS couples from marriage is “sacrificing” them, as he repeats many times. If anything, I think legally including them so that our entire language of marriage would have to be gender neutral — husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, become “spouses” and “parents” — would be sacrificing the needs of straight people and particularly their children to satisfy the desire of a very small number of gay and lesbian people. In public schools, the public square, and polite conversation, all we will be able to say is children need “parents.” Saying they need mothers and fathers will be offensive and possibly ruled discriminatory. How do I make my case that family structure matters to children when I’m not allowed to name the specific parts of the structure?

Besides, I don’t deny that SS couples and their children need the legal benefits and obligations of marriage, which is why I support civil unions.

Gee, remember when just a few months ago it put one comfortably on the left to say you supported civil unions?

A few points:

  • Elizabeth doesn’t explain why, given that there are multiple possible approaches to trying to save heterosexual marriage, it wouldn’t be better to stop fighting gay marriage and concentrate instead on approaches that wouldn’t harm lesbian & gay people’s interests. I’m sorry Elizabeth didn’t address this, since it was the main point of the post she was responding to.

  • In the context of my post, “sacrificing” same sex couples (and their children) means sacrificing their and their children’s best interests in order to provide straights with a marginal and dubious benefit. (I discuss this a bit more in this post). Elizabeth seems to deny that her policy sacrifices same-sex familiies’ interests; after all, she’s offering them civil unions.

    Elizabeth is implicitly claiming that marriage won’t provide anything significant to same-sex couples that civil unions won’t also provide. This claim reduces marriage to just a piece of paper, an empty word; it is only if the word “marriage” is meaningless that civil unions and marriage are interchangeable.

    If Elizabeth thinks marriage is more than a word, then she must admit that same-sex couples sacrifice quite a lot when they are denied marriage. If Elizabeth is saying that there’s no significant difference between civil unions and marriage, then she isn’t considering “marriage” to be anything significant. I don’t think she can have it both ways – not with any intellectual consistency.

  • Frankly, I don’t think the “sacrifice” Elizabeth thinks straight people would be making exists at all. Nothing about same-sex marriage will prevent people from referring to “husbands” and “wives,” or from claiming that the ideal situation for kids is being raised by a biological mother and father. These ideas will still be subject to criticism, of course – but that’s true whether or not SSM is legally recognized. SSM will not be the end of free speech, as Elizabeth seems to believe it will be.

    As Stentor writes in the comments, “If she feels unable to advocate a position different than what’s enshrined in law, that’s her problem, not mine — after all, I’m more than willing to say that kids can be raised just fine in a same-sex household even though the law says otherwise.”

    I’d discuss this further, but Tom Sylvester has already criticized this aspect of Elizabeth’s argument (here and here), and Elizabeth seems to have conceded that she might be mistaken about this.

  • Elizabeth points out that same-sex couples are a tiny minority. But there are probably even fewer Jews than there are same-sexers in the USA; no one would suggest that Jews are therefore less deserving of equal rights. If anything, the fact that lesbians and gays are a small minority makes it even more essential that their rights be protected.
  • I hesitate to bring this up, as I don’t want to offend Elizabeth. But so far her “support” for civil unions has rarely (if ever) gone beyond bringing up civil unions to oppose SSM. Elizabeth does not, to my knowledge, publish pro-civil union arguments, or criticize attacks on civil unions from other marriage-movement folks, with any frequency. Until she does, her support for civil unions is less than persuasive.
  • Finally, both Elizabeth and Tom lament the unfairness of people linking the anti-SSM position to bigotry. No doubt some accusations are unfair; there’s a gulf between outright gay-bashing and merely opposing SSM. However, the question isn’t as clear-cut as Elizabeth and Tom think it is.

    Discussing anti-Semitism, William F. Buckley once made a useful distinction between “hateful anti-Semites” and “country club anti-Semites.” A country-club anti-Semite may not hate Jews, and may even have close Jewish friends; but he’s nonetheless willing to live with and even advocate rules that discriminate against Jews (such as gentile-only country clubs). A country-club anti-Semite isn’t a Jew-hater, but he’s still an anti-Semite.

    Not all SSM opponents are driven by hatred of gays and lesbians (although some are). But all SSM opponents are “country club homophobes”; regardless of their personal liking for gays, they’re willing to support a policy that discriminates against gays. It’s not unreasonable to consider this a form of bigotry (although presumably Tom and Elizabeth would disagree).

    It’s understandable that Elizabeth finds being accused of bigotry uncomfortable. Nor do I believe that she has animus against lesbians and gays in her heart. Nonetheless, there’s a legitimate argument that supporting unequal laws for straights and gays is a bigoted position, and advocating this position is only acceptable in the context of a homophobic society. SSM supporters shouldn’t have to refrain from making this argument out of sensitivity to opponents’ feelings.

[Edited to improve the wording here and there, and to add in Stentor's comment, a few hours after the initial posting.]

This entry posted in Same-Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. 

66 Responses to Same-sex marriage, civil unions, and country-club bigotry

  1. 1
    Charles2 says:

    Amp, I’m continually amazed at the impenetrable blinders that opponents of SSM wear in regards to their own bigotry. The old trick of replacing “homosexuals” with “African-Americans” or “Jews” in their statements seems singularly ineffective. I think this indicates a much deeper and broader bigotry than they are willing to face or admit.

    The canard about religious definitions are just that – a canard. The conversation is and always has been around the legal rights afforded to citizens. Attempts to “play the religion card” are only further evidence for their bigotry – as it always has been in the past: e.g. slavery, miscegenation, women’s rights, etc.

  2. 2
    Stentor says:

    Maybe I’m missing something, because the argument about not being able to talk about “husbands” and “wives” strikes me as not just wrong, but bizarre. If she feels unable to advocate a position different than what’s enshrined in law, that’s her problem, not mine — after all, I’m more than willing to say that kids can be raised just fine in a same-sex household even though the law says otherwise.

  3. 3
    JRC says:

    Right on, Charles. Furthermore, the thing that folks playing the religion card never seem to acknowledge is that opposition to SSM is, in itself, religious discrimination. MY religion allows and performs same-sex marriages. MY WIFE’S religion (not the same) allows and performs same-sex marriages. MY GRANDFATHER’S religion (still not the same) allows and performs same-sex marriage.

    By refusing to recognize those ceremonies in the same way that the government recognizes ceremonies perfomed by other churches, the government is deliberately offering preferential treatment to certain religioms over others.

    Now, all howling aside, I’m actually okay with this as a basic matter of principle . . . I think the churches need to adhere to the laws, not the other way around (That is, Mormon churches are free to perform polygamous marriages to 13-year olds, but that doesn’t change that polygamy and child molestation are illegal, nor should it.), but it is worth pointing out every time someone says “well, I oppose same-sex marriage, because I’m religious.”

    “Oh really? And you believe everyone in America should be forced by law to abide by the strictures of YOUR chosen faith, regardless of what faith they’ve chosen themselves? This isn’t bigotry because . . .?”

    —JRC

  4. 4
    Hestia says:

    The whole “sacrificing the needs of straight people” thing strikes me as ridiculous. What, exactly, do straight people “need” out of marriage, and how would it be harmed by legalizing SSM? The language won’t change; “mother” and “father” will always be acceptable, probably even preferred, terms. Many people still believe that married parents are best for children, and they aren’t accused of discriminating against divorced parents.

    I keep going back to divorce. People still believe in the value of marriage despite the fact that something like 40% of Americans will get divorced at least once sometime during their lives. The fact that what used to represent a lifelong commitment can be so easily broken worries me a lot more than letting any two other people marry.

    That’s one reason why I don’t think marriage is all marriage supporters think it’s cracked up to be. I can’t speak for everyone in my age bracket, but it seems like people I know who consider getting married (for the first time) struggle with the question of whether it’s really worth anything anymore. No wedding could ever change how they feel about their partners, and they don’t think marriage will make it any harder for them to separate if that feeling changes, so why bother?

    Seriously. All you married couples out there: How has marriage affected your relationship with your spouse? Why did you decide to get married in the first place?

    (My reasons for asking these questions are entirely selfish; it’s something I’ve been thinking about more than usual lately…)

  5. 5
    Tishie says:

    What an odd argument she gives.

    People can always say “husband” and “wife.” As for the concern that we won’t be able to say (without sounding bigoted) that children fare best when raised by a mother and a father… well I’d venture to say that that’s been true for some time, and would continue to be true whether SSM becomes the norm or not.

    Plus, what she’s saying just doesn’t make any sense. How would marriage, as opposed to a civil union, change how we talk about families? If two women are raising children in a civil union, it’s not as if we refer to them as “mother and father.”

    She might not like getting called on it, but her opposition to SSM smells just like bigotry to me.

    Hestia: I never wanted to get married until I met Larry. Then, a lifetime of social conditioning kicked in – I wanted to make our commitment official and so did he. For us, it’s been wonderful. There have been ups and downs, but over 10 years later, I think we are in the best place we’ve ever been together. For me, marriage means being on the same team.

    I want everyone who wishes to to be able to feel this way too.

    The fact of the matter is, we raise all children in a society that says, “if you really love someone and are really committed to that person, you get married.” This is the “traditional” way. Why do traditional folks object when their values are accepted?

  6. 6
    Linda says:

    This reminds me of an annoying and circular argument I was in recently with an opponent of SSM. He was quoting figures about every subject but the one that was most important to him; opposite sex marriage. He felt that SSM threatened OSM. NO! What threatens OSM are the current societal standards and lack of community aid for couples to work through challenges. So, I began asking him why he doesn’t focus his energy toward programs for married couples in crisis. No response.

    I went on to say that I wished that people would work on their own insecurities and fears instead of using that as an impetus to pry into other people’s lives. He then insisted that it had nothing to do with fear or insecurity. Uh hunh.

    Can we please just call this what it is?…FEAR

    If you don’t agree with homosexuality, you teach your children that it’s wrong, thus bad. Those children are being taught that some people are bad and not deserving of love. The opposite of love is not hate, like some believe, but fear instead. What’s wrong with teaching your children to love all kinds of people? What about teaching them to make informed decisions about the internal qualities of people, instead of the external qualities of people?

    And, what is wrong with having two mommies or two daddies??? It doesn’t have to be spouse and parent. Think outside the box a little!

    RE: Hestia’s marriage questions…
    I don’t think marriage has affected our relationship, per se. The extraneous effects are tax benefits, insurance benefits, less red tape having a child, etc. I would say that we got married to make a very personal commitment to one another, public. That is the simplest answer.

  7. 7
    Marty says:

    What i find so interesting is all the people — who are psychologically incapable of creating children according to the law of mother nature — dismissing my concern for my children and my childrens children as “bigoted paranoia”.

    Charles touches a very revealing point with:
    I think this indicates a much deeper and broader bigotry than they are willing to face or admit.

    Call it by whatever name you want, but it is vast, deep, and broad. Are you really ready to face it?

  8. 8
    ms. jared says:

    just a brief side note in regards to JRC’s comment “(That is, Mormon churches are free to perform polygamous marriages to 13-year olds, but that doesn’t change that polygamy and child molestation are illegal, nor should it.)”

    mormon’s (LDS) don’t practice polygamy any more. those who practice polygamy may call themselves mormon, but they are not recognized by the church and are in fact excommunicated.

    their (LDS) overall guideline is “obey the laws of the land” and since polygamy is illegal in the U.S. mormons are not allowed to participate in it. which basically speaks to JRC’s point that religion should abide by the law, not the other way around.

    (but that’s also not to say that the LDS church doesn’t already have or want a lot of power and control over many of the “laws of the land”.)

    xoxo, jared

  9. 9
    Jake Squid says:

    I couldn’t figure out which side Marty was coming from, so I checked out the link. And my conclusion is that Marty would be less likely to be called a bigot if he was not ignorant of the facts (or lying about them). He makes claims about the “unknown effects of same-sex parenting…”, yet those of us who have read Amp’s posts on this blog know that the effects are not unknown. And I would think that those who wish to make this an issue would do their research.

    Or I could have totally misunderstood both the referenced studies & Marty’s argument.

  10. 10
    Marty says:

    Jake, i checked your studies and what stuck out more than anything else was the constant repitition of “small, non reprasentative sample”

    50 tiny studies are not going to convince me to toss out 5,000 years of natural evoloution and 37 years of personal experience. I may be a technocrat – but not THAT technocrat!

  11. 11
    Mychelline says:

    Hestia,

    Part of why I married my husband was to pick my own next-of-kin. Unmarried, my NOK was my parents, and that wasn’t ideal for a lot of reasons. Being married also makes J and I a self-contained unit in the eyes of the world, and our separate families. Our loyalties now lie with each other first and foremost. I think marriage is great, if you can find the right person. I support SSM as a civil right. Why shouldn’t everyone have the chance to be as happy as I am?

  12. 12
    Patrick O says:

    I thought that the most telling argument in the
    “for the children’s/familys good” category was made
    by the MA supreme court.

    How can it be good for children in gay families
    to be deprived of the legal protection and status
    afforded those is straight families ?

    I could add – how can advocating discriminating
    against those children be anything other than bigotry ?

  13. 13
    JRC says:

    Right, Ms. Jared, you’re absolutely right. I was just using Mormons as a well-known example of nonstandard marital arrangements, and I apologize if I implied that the modern mainstream Mormon church still engages in this practice.

    After all, it’s not as if there are so few reasons to dislike the Mormons that I need to make stuff up. ;->

    —JRC

  14. 14
    Raznor says:

    Joseph Smith was called a prophet DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM!

    Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. I can’t hear about mormons anymore and not think about that episode of South Park.

    Anyway, where were we?

    Marty, you make some bizarre and arcane arguments there. It’s like a fun happy word puzzle sifting through your logic. Unfortunately that word puzzle is concluded by some intensely ignorant and bigoted statements.

    So I’ll dissect your last sentence piecewise.

    50 tiny studies

    Starting off disqualifying a whole lot of studies because, what, your prejudiced against their results? But hey, we can’t expect you to actually question your own beliefs can we? That’s for everybody who isn’t you to do.

    So moving right along:

    are not going to convince me to toss out 5,000 years of natural evoloution

    Excuse me? What do social institutions have to do with natural evolution? But judging from that 5,000 figure I’m guessing you’re a fundamentalist creationist, so “evolution” is as foreign a concept to you as “logic”.

    and 37 years of personal experience.

    Right, we should all listen to you and only you because your experience is key. I’m guessing your gay, right? And have been gay-married for 37 years? This is why your 37 years of experience you reference here has anything to do with the debate at hand. Or are you just referring to being 37 years old, and being a bigot for those 37 years and therefore that’s where your experience fits in. Either way, I hope you’re enjoying all that man-sex.

    And then we conclude with this gem:

    I may be a technocrat – but not THAT technocrat!

    Man, I’m not even going to touch that one. The rest of the Alas readers should feel free to trudge through this one at their leisure.

  15. 15
    bean says:

    are not going to convince me to toss out 5,000 years of natural evoloution

    In addition to what Raznor said, the only conclusion I can come to is that Marty doesn’t know the first thing about anthropology or evolution. Cuz the “one man and one woman +children” family has only been in existence in a small portion of the world for a relatively short period of time.

  16. 16
    Nick Kiddle says:

    What i find so interesting is all the people — who are psychologically incapable of creating children according to the law of mother nature — dismissing my concern for my children and my childrens children as “bigoted paranoia”.

    If I were to say that I’m afraid for my children (OK, I have no children, but let’s say my young brothers) because the evil Republicans will drag them off to the stake for not being sufficiently Christian, that would be concern for the children. Would you call it bigoted paranoia?

    That’s how your arguments look from this side.

  17. 17
    sailaway says:

    I’m still trying to figure out what mother nature has to say about the *psychological* capability to have children. Um, Marty? I do not think that means what you think it means.

  18. 18
    Raznor says:

    I’m not sure if anything means what Marty thinks it means. His comments on this thread are not what you would call “not idiotic bigotry.” Oh well.

  19. “50 tiny studies are not going to convince me to toss out 5,000 years of natural evoloution and 37 years of personal experience. I may be a technocrat – but not THAT technocrat!”

    The 5,000 years of natural eveloution that showed that human beings don’t actually tend to be monogamous? If we went that route, then we wouldn’t have marriage at all. Monogamy is a very concious choice humans make. I’m for it being enshrined in marriage no matter who I marry. I’d rather my partner be able to see me in the hospital, make decisions regarding my care, and care for our children if I were to die.

    I don’t see how banning SSM protects heterosexuals. I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my gay friends who have been together for years making it official and having the rights and responsibilities of marriage. They’ve got a better track record than most het couples I know. And even if they didn’t, we give hets who creep like dogs in heat the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

  20. 20
    Hestia says:

    Thanks, Tishie, Linda, and Mychelline, for your responses to my question. I want to make clear that I do support marriage and everyone who decides to get married, which is one major reason why I think it should be available to same-sex couples. I’m just questioning my own personal intentions, and for me, marriage is coming up a little short. But your responses help.

  21. 21
    Karen says:

    I found this from a link on an adoption blog I read, Daddy, Papa and Me. Hestia, in response to your question, the main benefit that my husband and I get out of being married is being a part of each other’s lives in some pretty heavy-duty ways. If one of us is hospitalized, we don’t have to rely on the good graces of a hospital staffer to let us see the other – even to be informed of their condition. I dont’ have to worry about what will happen to our daughter if either K or I die separately. I dont’ have to go on Medicare to have medical benefits since I’m not working outside the home. That’s just a few of a whole lot of reasons. “Civil unions” dont’ seem to offer the same protections as marriage – just another reason for the unfairness of this whole thing, and another reason to fight for SSM’s.

    Oh yeah, the woman that my ex is now partners with…I refer to as her wife.

  22. 22
    Marty says:

    FWIW, if anyone’s still reading way down here:

    “Based on his review of the studies, Professor Nock concludes “1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those
    studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.”

    “In their 2001 monograph entitled No Basis, Drs. Lerner and Nagai provide a detailed quantitative analysis of 49 empirical studies on same-sex parenting. Finding numerous flaws, Lerner and Nagai also conclude that the studies provide no basis for good science or good public policy.”

    from http://www.marriagewatch.org/issues/parenting.htm

  23. MarriageWatch has a decidedly anti-SSM agenda. And they haven’t been able to show that SSM is somehow harmful to society at large except to say that it bothers them personally. So what?

    If you want to read another account of these so-called studies and these arguments, go here. Granted, it’s got an agenda as well, but if you’re going to use groups with agendas as sources, be well-rounded about it.

    Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai are statisticians who were paid by anti-gay groups to do the study you cited. It’s ironic that Lerner thinks the studies aren’t exaustive enough, considering the fact that he himself concluded, after studying a paltry five jury trials, that Black men are more likely to get acquited in rape trials than White men. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t put much stock in these conclusions. Lerner and Althea’s research has been dismissed by real academics as junk science.

    As for MarriageWatch, their arguments against SSM are easily refuted–and have been, roundly.

    “The fact that same-sex relationships are a reality does not require the government to recognize them as marriage; the educative effect of the law goes far beyond a prohibition of homosexuality. To recognize same-sex marriage would constitute governmental endorsement of same-sex relationships.”

    It’s not the government business who partners with whom. SSM gives partners the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual married couples do. Next-of-kin rights, insurance, custody, and all that.

    “Legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ [sic] or civil unions would send a clear message to all of society: there is nothing unique about the community and families that men and women create.”

    There isn’t. It’s pretty common in this country.

    “Indeed, the message is even stronger: If one believes in such uniqueness, one is a bigot, and needs to be ‘re-educated.’”

    Oh, for God’s sake, let’s break out the reeducation camp PJ’s comrade. One is a bigot because one would deny a segment of the population the rights and responsibilies afforded to everyone else. This reminds me of people who whinged how unfair it was that they were called racist for promoting segregation. Sorry, but the shoe fits.

    “In addition, since the law will treat children conceived through a third party the same as children conceived through marriage, the law will send the message that fathers are irrelevant to child-rearing. Why should society encourage this when it needs to put greater emphasis on responsible fatherhood?”

    Huh? What about IVF and surrogate mothers that OSM couples use? And how can fathers be “irrelevant” to child-rearing when some kids grow up in families with two fathers? If these folks want to place greater emphasis on responsible fatherhood, maybe they could work to combat sexism and male entitlement.

    “These messages will translate into every government agency, including curricula in the public schools.”

    This is just paranoid. Guess what–a lot of kids in the public schools have SS parents. People already know about it.

    “These messages will be enforced through civil rights laws that will give penalties to any employers or organizations (like the Boy Scouts) that refuse to treat same-sex relationships like marriages.”

    Private organizations can do what they please. They simply cannot get government money if they discriminate. And if they don’t like adverse public opinion about their positions, well, that’s their problem. You can’t have it both ways.

    “Faith-based organizations that currently provide needed social services will be disqualified from receiving government contracts unless they agree to treat same-sex relationships like marriages.”

    Frankly, a lot of people have problems with faith-based organizations getting so much funding for these things. I have a real issue with transferring responsibility for social services from the public sector to the private sector for many reasons–economic and social. But that’s a whole different post. And honestly, if a church that was against interracial marriage was denied funding, would MarriageWatch freak out about it?

    “Children will receive the message that any kind of ‘sexuality’ [sic] is as good as another. This will result in more non-marital sex, including homosexual conduct, promiscuity, confusion, and teen depression.”

    Oh, well, of course these things don’t exist now. And of course there are no other causes of this, like the sexual double-standard, the low status of women, etc. Depression–there are a whole host of causes, some biological, some environmental, and both often intertwine. “Homosexual conduct” (What? Going to raves? Playing softball? Decorating??), also known as experimenting or living a lie for true gays/lesbians, has been around since humankind has been around. Preventing SSM will do nothing to change these things.

    “Since most citizens will not agree with this policy, there will be greater alienation from government.”

    “Most citizens” didn’t agree with desegregation or female sufferage, and the alienation from government wasn’t all that bad. Compare that to our misguided and brutal misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Central and South America, and Vietnam–these things have helped to alienate people from our government.

    But hey, why be reasonable when your emotions are so unreasonable anyway?

  24. 24
    Raznor says:

    Here’s my favorite part of what neko fisked above:

    Indeed, the message is even stronger: If one believes in such uniqueness, one is a bigot, and needs to be ‘re-educated.’

    and then

    Children will receive the message that any kind of ‘sexuality’ [sic] is as good as another. This will result in more non-marital sex, including homosexual conduct, promiscuity, confusion, and teen depression.

    Right, they cry crocodile tears about being referred to as bigots and then say one of the most bigoted homophobic things you can imagine. Poor guys.

    “I’m not racist, it’s just that whenever I see a person of ethnicity I instantly think ‘criminal’.”

  25. something about the above post got me wondering,
    is there any suport anywhere for civil unions for poly people? I mean, both pro and anti- gay-marriage groups tend to oppose marriage for more than 2. There’s some support for civil unions in the pro- camp, as a step in the right direction, and some support for civil unions in the anti- camp, as a sort of separate but equal arrangment.
    Would any factions support civilunions for polyamourous/polyfidelitous types, or should i go back in the closet till things settle down?
    This is of only theoretical interest to me at this point. I’m still unclear what benefits either civil unions or marriage offers that can’t be accomplished with a well-drafted partnership agreement. I’m not saying there might not be some, I just haven’t seen a list.

  26. 26
    bru says:

    Homosexuality does not cause a gay person to desire equality does it?
    Sex/gender has only two classes. Don’t homosexuals adamantly claim to have an unchangeable preference for their own class (sex) above the other class? Isn’t this called sexism and sex segregation, dividing men and women into different clans? In reality, homosexuality is a preference for ZERO gender diversity and thus ZERO gender equality.

    Our constitution has a codified preference for equality of genders, etc.

    We the people should adopt the same preference as the constitution. How can do this?…

    A. Homosexuality is a preference for Zero gender diversity and thus zero equality.

    B. Heterosexuality is a preference for 100% gender diversity and thus 100% equality.

    Binary logic dictates that two genders can only be equal one way. The only possible sexual preference is heterosexual: one man and one woman. Anything else is discrimination by diluting the perfect score of 100% equality contained in heterosexuality!

    Racism: “We’re doing just fine without blacks in our company’s all-white leadership”

    Same-sex: “We’re doing just fine without a woman in our gay family’s all-male leadership”

    An all-male-dominated same-sex union treats women like second class womb-donors and nannies.

    Same-sex families are completely dependent on heterosexuality by donors, etc. for their children. Same-sex families are essentially two single-parent families under one roof. Homosexuality has nothing to do with any “state interest”. Why should tax-payer funded benefits go to same-sex unions, when it is illegal to fund corporate partnerships that declare themselves as same-sex or same-race?

    Is our compassion for gay folks predicament clouding our judgment and making us totally lose our sensibility?

    Why Should the Family, the Building Block of Society, Become Codified as a Same-Sex Icon of Inequality and Legalized Sexism?

    Why don’t we put our efforts towards equality and rebuild one man, one women marriages and thereby rebuild our country from the ground up?

    From Same Sex Gay Marriage http://www.same-sex-gay-marriage.com

  27. 27
    Hestia says:

    bru, your so-called logic leaves a little to be desired. Perhaps you aren’t aware that quotas and legal definitions of discrimination don’t apply to personal relationships. And I’d really like to hear you defend your suggestion that a relationship can be sexist. Can it be racist, too? Man, I don’t want my taxes to go to any racist all-white couple.

    Alhough I started laughing a lot earlier, I stopped reading the link you posted when I got to “Nature itself demonstrates that opposite-sex diversity is the ONLY way to raise children, not same-sex unions that exclude diversity.” Sure it does. You go ahead and think that.

  28. 28
    Nick Kiddle says:

    bru: That is an amazing piece of satire. The idea that a same-sex union could ever be as sexist as the pink-box, blue-box marriage the traditionalists promote was right on the money. And the notion that diversity equals equality was a wonderful swipe at the muddled thinking we find in so much anti-SSM writing.

    It was satire, wasn’t it?

  29. 29
    Raznor says:

    bru, if you think that argument makes sense, you’ll love the logic at Time Cube.

  30. 30
    bru says:

    Hestia said: “legal definitions of discrimination don’t apply to personal relationships”

    So, you are saying that it was okay for someone to be racist in the past when interracial marriage was a problem??

    Racism: “I am white and I only prefer to marry my own kind, blacks can marry their own kind”

    Same-sex: “I am male and I only prefer to marry my own kind, women can marry their own kind”

    Homosexuality is not a preference by individual merit, it is a preference by class (same-sex). Illegal discrimination is preference by class.

    Nick said: “the notion that diversity equals equality was a wonderful swipe at the muddled thinking…”

    So what you are saying is that diversity does not create equal treatment of classes. According to your logic, equal treatment of the same thing is what the constitution demands: If I am white, I prefer to treat all whites equal to myself, blacks do not get equal treatment. Are you saying that this is good?

    Sexism: “We prefer to have only men as the leaders of our company, we feel that equality means equal treatment of only our own gender. Women will serve our needs or can be leaders of their own same-sex companies and make men serve their needs. We will be the icon of equal treatment and diversity for society.”

    Same-sex: “We prefer to have only men as the leaders of our civil-union, we feel that equality means equal treatment of only our own gender. Women will serve our needs or can be leaders of their own same-sex unions and make men serve their needs. We will be the icon of equal treatment and diversity for society.”

  31. 31
    Raznor says:

    Wow, bru, you’re an idiot.

    To all other Alas readers:

    Let’s all just ignore bru from here on out. Maybe he’ll go away.

  32. 32
    Nick Kiddle says:

    Yeah, bru, very good. We get the joke. Ha ha. You can stop now.

  33. 33
    bru says:

    Raznor, Nick,

    We all know what a lost argument looks like… It’s when the only counter-argument you can come up with is name-calling and nervous laughter.

    Come on now, be good sports and use some logic.

  34. 34
    Raznor says:

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    “Use some logic”

    Good one bru.

    Person 1: The moon is made out of cheese and 2+2=5!

    Person 2: You’re an idiot who’s out of your gorde.

    Person 1: You’re resorting to insult. Use logic.

  35. 35
    Darcy says:

    I think you’ve about got it there, Raznor…

    By the way, congratulations on your acceptance at NAU.

  36. 36
    Raznor says:

    Thanks, Darcy. Man, all the love. It’s great.

  37. 37
    Deep River Appartments says:

    Raznor sez:
    “Person 1: The moon is made out of cheese and 2+2=5!

    Person 2: You’re an idiot who’s out of your gorde.

    Person 1: You’re resorting to insult. Use logic.”

    This is practically how any argument with religious apologists turns out. It is also, sadly, impossible to argue with someone suffering from person 1 delusion since the very laws of common sense and reason have been suspended in their minds and they cannot be made to see this fact.

    “Beidelman to the Kaguru tribesman: How do you recognize a witch?

    Tribesman: Their eyes glow red, they levitate upside down, and they are followed by a skeletal hyena who serves them.

    Beidelman: So who in this village is a witch?

    Tribesman: [points to a normal young man crossing the village]

    Beidelman: But he doesn’t look like what you described.

    Tribesman: That’s because the hyena warns them when someone is going to look at them, so they start walking normally, their eyes become ordinary, and the hyena turns invisible. As soon as we turn our backs on him he’ll be as I described.

    Beidelman to his anthropology class many years later: You can’t argue with that!”

  38. 38
    Dave says:

    Wow, I haven’t seen one counter-argument to Bru’s posts besides Hestia’s, who never responded. I think Bru made some good points. Maybe instead of insulting him like little children you could try at least make an attempt to refute him. All you have done is shrug him off. Nice open-mindedness.

  39. 39
    Hestia says:

    Well, Dave, the reason I didn’t respond to bru (and plan to continue not responding) is that I have better things to do with my time than waste it on people who decide to believe nonsense. In my experience, they’re less interested in well-reasoned, nuanced debate than they are in protecting their own worldviews, however incredible.

    I mean, why should I waste my time explaining to anyone that consenting adults can pretty much love whomever they want without having to adhere to any rules or regulations; that the relationship between any two particular individuals in and of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination; that under such reasoning all couples that consist of two white people are racist and should be banned (a point that bru never considered, you’ll notice; I think I can expect the same refusal to address opposing arguments throughout any discussion of the matter with him (her?)); and that all of the above is so achingly obvious that I can’t believe anyone would even attempt to defend such a position as “Gay/lesbian relationships are sexist,” when that person is just going to respond with another insane claim, such as the idea that the reasoning behind a gay relationship is “I am male and I only prefer to marry my own kind, women can marry their own kind,” which doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t even in the realm of possible considerations as far as the foundations for any marriage are concerned, and that it should actually be “I am male and I only prefer to marry other men, everybody else can marry whomever they want” (or, for that matter, “I am male and I only prefer to marry women, everybody else can marry whomever they want”)?

    Sorry to disappoint you. This is one losing battle in which I am just not interested.

  40. 40
    Raznor says:

    I’ll add, we’re not responding to bru because he or she is laughably ridiculous. I don’t have the time to argue with someone who redefines all the terms in such an extreme way in order to confirm with one’s worldview.

    Tell you what though, disprove the Time Cube and I’ll disprove bru.

  41. 41
    Sheelzebub says:

    The Time Cube is satire, right? Right?

    It would have been much funnier if he just kept it to a page or so.

    Please tell me that’s satire. Because I did laugh my ass off.

  42. 42
    lucia says:

    Since Dave complained no one answers!. What the heck: I’m always willing to respond to posts, particularly any framed as questions. I like answering questions!!!

    Nick, hestia, please correct me if I misinterpreted the quotes Bru repeated!

    Hestia said: “legal definitions of discrimination don’t apply to personal relationships”

    Bru: So, you are saying that it was okay for someone to be racist in the past when interracial marriage was a problem??

    My translation of Hestia for Bru, and MY answer to Bru’s question:

    I assume Hestia is saying that, individual racists, presbeterians, felons and Luddites may marry their own kind if they so desire. Or, they may marry the “other” kind, if that is their choice.

    She in no way implies that their freedom to choose their own mate “makes” being a racist, Luddite, felons or presbeterian “ok” or “not ok”.

    I presume she thinks both saints and sinners get to choose their mates. Their right to choose tells us nothing about whether these people are “good” or “bad”. (Although, I am reading in here.)

    My answer: Being a racist was always bad.

    -
    Skipping down past Bru’s examples I now translate Nick for bru and answer THAT question.:


    Nick said: “the notion that diversity equals equality was a wonderful swipe at the muddled thinking…”

    Bru: So what you are saying is that diversity does not create equal treatment of classes. According to your logic, equal treatment of the same thing is what the constitution demands: If I am white, I prefer to treat all whites equal to myself, blacks do not get equal treatment. Are you saying that this is good?

    My translation of Nick’s statement for Bru:

    I think Nick said: That you are equating two things (equality and diversity) that are not equal. Period. That’s all he said.

    I don’t see any connection between your (bru’s) re-interpretation of “what Nick said” and what Nick said.

    In your first sentence “retranslating” Nicks simple statement, you replaced “equal” with “create”. The words ‘create’ and ‘equal’ do not mean the same thing. Period. So, Nick didn’t say that.

    You then continued on some tangent introducing some sort of mysterious constitutional issue about… something.

    But. to answer the final queston: No.. I don’t think giving equal protection to whites and not giving it to blacks is bad.

  43. 43
    Raznor says:

    Sadly, sheelzebub, I think the creator of Timecube is dead, dead serious. And insane. Either that or he is taking an elaborate joke way, way too far.

    In any case, it’s his seriousness that makes him so funny. Go ahead, try and disprove him!

  44. 44
    lucia says:

    No.. he’s wrong. There are 6 revolutions in a 24 hour day, not 4. He suffers from the “flat earth” delusion…Notice that his sketch is 2 d. In 3 D we get 6….

    That’s my proof. He owes me the money!

    Raznor, I suspect either you are correct and the creator is serious, or the creator is many people who assembled the page as a joke. Possibly, it’s some sort of subtle group reponse to creationists insisting that creationism be taught in schools?

  45. 45
    Raznor says:

    No no, the earth has four sides like a cube, and a human head has four corners, like a cube. Don’t question it! Oh sure, you’re educated stupid and think that cubes have 6 sides and 8 corners but that’s wrong. For some reason.

    Remember Gene Ray is the wisest human on earth.

  46. 46
    lucia says:

    Did I say cube?! No!!!! 6 points! 6 points!! Surely, you don’t think human heads have more points than sides?!

    I was thinking of an octahedron
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Octahedron.html

  47. 47
    Raznor says:

    I’m thinking of starting a math-oriented superhero comic. Once of the characters will be called “Octo-hedron”. I’m not sure if he should be a hero or villain though . . .

  48. 48
    lucia says:

    Raznor,
    Will he be gay?
    Lucia

  49. 49
    Lilith says:

    A very interesting blog here, and a very fascinating thread. I thought I’d add a few datapoints from my point of view and let people mull it over as they wish.

    First, my partner and I are already in what should, for all realistic purposes, be considered a same-sex marriage. I am a male-to-female transsexual and married “legally” because, as a Texan by birth, I will never be able to change my birth certificate to reflect my physicial or psychological realities. Nonetheless, I am generally treated as female in all ways that matter. My wife has a 12-year-old boy who calls me “Momma” and calls her “Mom”–and there is no confusion on anyone’s part. Together the three of us make for a very well-adjusted, healthy, fun family. So naturally, I tend to think arguments against SSM are pretty weak and exist only to hide bigotry–and not too convincingly at that.

    A huge part of the problem with SSM arguments is that they presume that people only come in the form of men and women, and that the natural order is to combine the two. True, as neko has already pointed out, opposite-sex monogamous nuclear families are a relatively recent social development. But there is a deeper premise which really does not stand based on what we know about sex and gender–to wit, there is a *lot* more to sex and gender than male and female, social conventions and language restrictions aside.

    Let’s start with sex chromosomes. Most of us learned in school that men are XY and women are XX, and therefore we presume there are only those two options. However, there are *five* combinations of sex chromosomes which create viable people: XX, XY, XXY, XYY, and X0. While there is a tendency for such people to have either male genitals or female genitals, if one basis biological sex on chromsomes, then you have five de facto sexes. So the Texas Supreme Court aside, that’s out as a determination of birth sex.

    The natural tendency, even amongst doctors, is that genitals determine sex. But then you run into a distinct set of *six* combinations–male, female, male intersexed (having outward male genitalia but partial or complete female gonads internally), female intersexed (outward female genitals, partial or complete male gonades inside), completely intersexed (having both male and female genitals outwardly and inwardly), and biological males with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (which prevents male gonads from developing in the womb as well as preventing male pubesence, and which causes them to develop physically and mentally as female).

    I digress to apologize for the parentheses–but I warned you this was a complex subject!

    And I have yet to bring up transgenderism, and how this isn’t as simple as men dressing up like women or vice versa, and transcends hormones and surgeries as well. Quite simply, our existence challenges the notion that the sexes and genders known in this society are rigid, finite, limited to a polarized binary equation, and sacred. And I am only now mentioning past or current societies which recognize more than two sexes or genders, of which there have plenty.

    Sorry–not only is opposite-sex marriage not unique, neither are the “opposite” sexes. If there are more than two sexes and two genders, then attempts to limit marriage to one man and one woman will affect far more than the legal status of homosexual relationships. Wake up and smell reality, bigots!

    Lil

  50. 50
    Nick Kiddle says:

    *applauding Lilith*

    From somewhere towards the other end of the pink-blue continuum, let me add wholehearted agreement. I cannot grasp the arguments against SSM because it seems so silly, so arbitrary, to make this distinction between male and female, when a few drops of hormone in utero can turn one into the other. But so many people have invested their whole identity in this distinction, and won’t hesitate to crush the identities of others in an attempt to make theirs secure.

  51. 51
    BRU says:

    Please don’t confuse normal relationship choice by individual merit with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a preference/orientation/bias that is claimed to be genetic and unchangeable. This strengthens my argument. It is acting upon the genetic preference/bias where the choice comes in.

    Genetic alcoholics did not choose their preference for drink. However, if a genetic alcoholic can avoid alcohol, then a person afflicted with a genetic gender-bias can avoid sexist preference.

    dis·crim·i·nate: show preference (bias) on the basis of class (sex, race…), not by individual merit.

    By definition, homosexuality is really just genetic (preconceived) gender-bias. It is not a choice by individual merit. Gay folks don’t hate the opposite sex, they just prefer those that are just like themselves. In fact, the majority of same-sex unions are white-male-dominated. ZERO gender diversity and ZERO racial diversity.

    When it comes to love, homosexuality causes a person to always reject the diversity of the opposite sex (without regard to individual merit). Thus, homosexuality is, by definition, anti-diversity.

    Wherever diversity does not exist, equality can not exist either. Thus, homosexuality is anti-equality.

    In contrast, HETEROsexuality is a bias for gender-diversity and equality. Our constitution also contains a codified preference for equality.

    Conversely…

    Same-race preference is racism.
    Same-sex preference is sexism.

    Racism is not a new form of diversity and sexism/homosexuality is not a new form of diversity. This is just common sense.

    Our constitution discriminates against racism and sexism and gender-bias, etc. Therefore, homosexuality is unconstitutional genetic gender-bias or same-sexism.

    Tell me where you can find a genetic (preconceived), unchangeable preference for one’s own kind that can be justified as a good thing?

    prej-u-dice: a preconceived preference.

    big·ot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, [gender,] religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

    By definition, a homosexual is a person who is strongly partial to their OWN gender and their own group and they are intolerant of those who differ with them, calling them hate mongers, etc.

    In addition, if a male-dominated same-sex union wants to bear a child, they need a woman who is treated as a second-class womb-donor or nanny and gets none of the marriage benefits. It’s the unqualified, non-productive male partner that gets the taxpayer funded benefits! There is also unfair favoritism in lesbian unions.

    Why don’t we all work together to overcome prejudice and bigotry, genetic or otherwise? It’s man’s perversion that has not treated the complimentary sexes equally and with respect in the past. Let’s keep one man + one woman which is the oldest equal-rights institution in history!

    Learn simple ways to cut through the confusion about Same Sex Gay Marriage at http://www.GeneticGenderBias.com

  52. 52
    Sheelzebub says:

    I myself am for marriages of ten men and one woman, who should rule them all.

  53. 53
    zuzu says:

    Genetic alcoholics did not choose their preference for drink. However, if a genetic alcoholic can avoid alcohol, then a person afflicted with a genetic gender-bias can avoid sexist preference.


    You’d have to accept that there was such a thing as genetic alcoholism to make that analogy work.

    By definition, homosexuality is really just genetic (preconceived) gender-bias. It is not a choice by individual merit. Gay folks don’t hate the opposite sex, they just prefer those that are just like themselves. In fact, the majority of same-sex unions are white-male-dominated. ZERO gender diversity and ZERO racial diversity.


    There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. By the same logic, heterosexuality is also a preconceived gender bias AGAINST members of the same sex without regard to individual merit and is therefore discriminatory. Because after all, if the right woman came along, I shouldn’t reject her just because I prefer men, right? Because that would be discriminatory.

    Where are you getting your information that the majority of same-sex unions are “white-male-dominated?” Is there a white male in every same sex couple? Where are the lesbians at? What are you using for your population? The US? North America? Europe? Hey, looky — that’s where the white folk are.

  54. 54
    mythago says:

    What are these “needs” of straight married couples that are harmed by same-sex marriage? The “need” to believe that Daddy must always drive on vacations, shattered by a two-woman couple?

  55. 55
    alecs swinger says:

    Hello, my name is alecs swinger. Good site. my regards. im not sex. alecs swinger Thank you very much.

  56. 56
    diana porn says:

    Hi this is message will be public? or hidden diana porn thank you

  57. Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me

  58. 57
    BRU says:

    zuzu said: “There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. By the same logic, heterosexuality is also a preconceived gender bias AGAINST members of the same sex without regard to individual merit and is therefore discriminatory. Because after all, if the right woman came along, I shouldn’t reject her just because I prefer men, right? Because that would be discriminatory.”

    I suppose you are saying that it would be wrong for a company to say “We prefer diversity in our company so we are going to prefer both a man and a woman as the president and vice president in the leadership of our company”. If that was printed in the newspapers, it would be applauded! In fact, all companies are legally required to prefer diversity in order to receive government support. Companies preferring same-sex or same-race are not allowed. Heterosexuality is just a requirement for diversity and equality. However marriage can’t be fairly compared with a company because gender usually doesn’t matter when it comes to company leadership. However, it DOES matter when it comes to the family. In fact, diversity of gender is REQUIRED. No human on earth ever existed without the diversity of one man + one woman. Nature has proven that genders are complementary and necessary for the birth, nurturing and completeness of a child both physically and psychologically.

    For a male-dominated same-sex ‘family’ to say that a woman is unnecessary to their family, is far worse than someone saying that a woman or black person is unnecessary in the leadership of a white or male dominated company (or vice-versa). Yet we have all been deceived into thinking that being against sexism when it comes to same-sex marriage is homophobia.

    No one on this blog seems to have an understanding of what discrimination is. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The US constitution requires equality, just like heterosexuality does (man + woman). Our constitution discriminates against racism, sexism, murderers and felons, etc. This is good discrimination.

    Racism is a preconceived preference for same-race, i.e., whites always preferring whites above blacks in certain circumstances. Sexism is a preconceived preference for same-sex, i.e., men always preferring men above women in certain circumstances (and vice-versa).

    Racism: “I am white and I always prefer whites above blacks in the leadership of my institution”.
    Same-sexism: “I am male and I always prefer men above women in the leadership of my institution (marriage)”.

    It is good to discriminate against racism and it is also good to discriminate against same-sexism when it comes to the government supported institution of marriage. However, no one should make fun of or put down a homosexual, obese or alcoholic person, just becasue they are different.

    However, if a genetic alcoholic or genetically obese person can abstain from alcohol or over eating, then a homosexual can abstain from their sexist preferences.

    Learn more about Same Sex, Gay Marriage.

  59. 58
    karpad says:

    first of all, sexism and racism don’t require you to prefer your same gender. It DOES require you favor a particular group that holds power (believing in the superiority of a group not in power is possible, but is a personal bias, lacking the systemic element that the various isms really require).
    A woman is quite able to be sexist in favor of men. the anti-feminists are very solidly in this camp, though they often disguise their rhetoric as being egalitarian.
    there are black racists, and some of them really give me the creeps. I recall an article in Intelligence Report (SPLC’s bimonthy magazine) about a particular Klan/Slavery apologist, but that was a few years ago.

    any actual removal of racism or sexism in such choices would require personal ads to limit themselves to maritial status, age, and hobbies. “Single person seeks non-smoker who enjoys cats, movies, and relaxing evenings at home.” would be an actually non-sexist ad.
    obviously, if one expects sexual/romantic relationships, people have preferences: sexual, dietary, hobbies, health, appearance, and so on. Sex is one of those things were it’s perfectly OK to discriminate based on personal preferences. Expecting someone who dislikes fur to date the hirsuite is unfair. You may miss out on some really great people if you’re picky on superficial things, but its entirely within your right.
    a company is a different matter. phyisical appearance and hobbies have no impact on how well you can do the job. since the job isn’t “get someone’s mojo going,” the application of superficial personal preferences is inappropriate.

    And no, your hypothetical company who declares “we’re going to have a man and woman as president and VP” would NOT be applauded. they would been seen as shills trying to get publicity for announcing something so shallow. The only qualification announced is that they have different genders. yippie. It’s a high corperate office. any company would announce each seperately, and make clear each decision was made based on merit, even if the merit for either was “they’re the kid of the company founder” they’d say something about “continuing the vision of our founder, _______” or something like that.

    Your understanding of equality is rediculous. It doesn’t mean “the exact same number of each group represented in any group” since that would REQUIRE all marriages take place between a descendant of Nazis and crippled black jewish lesbian, or something to those effects. and wouldn’t someone who lives alone be discriminatory, since one hundred percent of the occupants of that single apartment are white and male?
    equality and diversity is about giving everyone a fair shake under the set of criteria provided. if the criteria is “spouse,” pretty high on the list would be “I find this person sexually desirable” along with “I enjoy spending time with them” and “I think we’ll be stable together.”
    If you’re straight, the screening process for “sexually desirable” is going to weed out people of the same gender. if you’re gay, opposite gender folks will get screened. And such choices are just as personal and private as deciding if you want to date a furry, a blonde, or someone who enjoys classical music.

    “it is also good to discriminate against same-sexism when it comes to the government supported institution of marriage.” no. the government has no business involving itself in a private dicision like that, any more than they have the right to determine that two people who both enjoy listening to Barry White while having sex are entitled to marry.

  60. 59
    Hestia says:

    Same-sexism: “I am male and I always prefer men above women in the leadership of my institution (marriage)”.

    Then it’s also “same-sexism” to say, “I am male and I always prefer women above men in the leadership of my institution.” If a man isn’t willing to consider other men for the position of being his significant other, he’s clearly being sexist. And if he only dates and/or marries individuals of the same race, he’s being racist. And if he refuses to build relationships with anyone from a different religion, well, that’s discriminatory, too. So he should choose his partners based solely on a list of objective criteria determined by society at large.

    No, wait, that can’t be right…

  61. 60
    zuzu says:

    I suppose you are saying that it would be wrong for a company to say “We prefer diversity in our company so we are going to prefer both a man and a woman as the president and vice president in the leadership of our company”.

    You suppose wrong.

    Marriage isn’t a corporation. And, hey, discrimination in personal matters is allowed in some situations, even in housing where it’s an owner-occupied small building.

    And even though it takes a man and a woman to make a child, it doesn’t take a child to make a marriage.

  62. 61
    alsis38 says:

    Hestia, will you marry me ? I’m tired of not doing my part to frustrate and confound the Martys and brus of the world. Don’t worry. We can clear the whole thing with our respective partners later, I’m sure.

  63. 62
    silverside says:

    Two issues I hate to see confused or conflated are SSM and the exploitation of women as surrogate mothers. I think one can support SSM and still have concerns about women (too often the very young, poor, or vulnerable) being used as wombs-for-hire. I also have concerns when this is done with entirely different eggs and what this means in terms of the potential fragmentation of identity. I have concerns about the potential misuse of a lot of other birth technologies, too. For that matter, I also have concerns about international adoptions that don’t even verify that the birth parents are in fact dead, but involve kidnapping or some kind of fraud.

    That said, I don’t think that gay males are the main perpetrators or drivers of this. Wealthy western straight couples, often past the age of child bearing themselves, too often display a sense of consumerist entitlement. That they in some sense deserve a child when they are barren themselves, even if it means exploiting others. That you should always be able to buy what you want, and that human beings can be trafficked like any other commodity.

    Lesbians who give birth to children don’t fall into this category at all, unless you are really of the opinion that utilizing somebody’s sperm or bodily fluids is really equivalent to using a woman and her body and emotions for nine months, and then telling her she has no moral or legal right to the child she just gave birth to. If you believe that, I think you are really trivializing the miracle of birth and what it means for woman and child, or should mean. More than a commercial transaction, one would hope.

    In that sense, I would have more respect for a marriage of lesbians where the children were brought into the family by birth, than wealthy married straights, who pull a confusing contract on an illiterate 14-year-old girl, then ripped the baby out of her arms.

  64. 63
    Tyrannus Evisceratus says:

    Democrats are pretty much ready to cut the Gay portion of their base off. I mean it makes no sense to keep them.

    They have no other choices, what are they gonna do vote Republican?

    They are a pretty small portion of the population. They claim 10-25%. Science tells us 4% counted transgendered individuals who make up 1.8% of that. Science is such a downer for the queer cause sometimes.

    To top it off anywhere they are in a position to swing a congressional or senate race the republicans are gonna lose anyway. San Francisco shall be forever lost to the conservative side of the force.

    Why would any intelligent politician anger the Religious Right (our power is great and our number is many) for such meager returns. Even liberal leaning Christians need to make a values check(do you roll that on a D20 or a D12 and can I add my wisdom modifier) everytime an issue like gay marriage comes up.

    Basically they are the interest group you don’t want on your side openly and who can’t turn against you no matter what.

    Money + Votes you can contribute= how much politicians care about your cause.

  65. 64
    Charles S says:

    Demonstrating that Democratic politicians are not nearly as craven and venal as good Christians like yourself. Your analysis fails completely when put up against reality, where Democratic legislatures have passed marriage equality laws in numerous states in the past 2 years (Delaware, New York, Washington, New Jersey (blocked by a veto)), and where Democrats have been joined by many Republicans to fend off an attempt to restore inequality in New Hampshire. It is possible that people less stoppered up by bigotry are able to see that justice and equality are goods even where they aren’t simply service to interest groups.

    Taking a less positive view of Dem politicians, you are forgetting that the number of homophobic bigots is shrinking, and the number of people who value justice and equality is growing. Dems aren’t answering merely the interests of the LGBT minority, they are answering to the tens of millions of straights who want justice and equality.

  66. 65
    Tyrannus Evisceratus says:

    All states where the measure is popular and the politician is unlikely to lose his seat.

    Also they are reacting to tens of millions of straights who also want gay marriage(therein the votes and the money) if they are taken away support for gay marriage vanishes like magic.

    Watch what happens when the issue comes up in a moderate state where the politician’s reelection isn’t guaranteed. I am betting on it never coming up or them voting against it to avoid an uncomfortable reelection campaign where a yes vote could be used against them.

    I can see the writing on the wall gay marriage will probably pass one day, but it doesn’t mean the Democratic party isn’t ready to drop the gays at the first sign of trouble.

    Maybe they help them this time, but what happens when an issue comes up that doesn’t have millions of voters knocking down the doors of politicians, but that is important to the gays?

    Will the great democratic party risk seats and votes to make it happen?

    When it comes to politics and you bet on the side of corruption you always win in the end.