Sorry, but state recognition IS approval. Human societies have given benefits to marriage, in part, because they recognize that they have a stake in marriage that they don’t in other forms of human relationships. In Bowers v. Hardwick, practitioners of gay sex won the right not to have gay sex criminalized, but in the minds of the majority of Americans there is a world of difference between accepting that someone might do something they consider repulsive in the privacy of their own homes and having to change a beloved and ancient institution to accommodate people seeking to do it. What gay rights supporters have never understood is that there is no human right to have society condone their personal sexual behavior and declare it to be a good thing.

“Sorry, but state recognition IS approval.”

So the state approves of casino gambling? Or it merely allows it?

“What gay rights supporters have never understood is that there is no human right to have society condone their personal sexual behavior and declare it to be a good thing.”

No, it’s the opponents of gay rights who fail to understand. Allowing gays to marry does absolutely nothing to anyone else’s marriage. It merely broadens access to a right where there’s no compelling practical reason to restrict that access. Opponents of gay rights what the state to explicitly exclude gays, so that their personal opposition to gays and gayness is reflected in official state policy. It’s no different at all from, say, anti-miscegenation laws of the past.

And the argument that (opposite-sex) marriage as we know it today is some sort of etched-in-stone ancient institution that has existed in its current form for centuries (or even decades) has been debunked so thoroughly and so frequently that it’s hardly worth addressing.
tgirsch´s last blog ..What the Maine Vote Really Means

Actually tgirsch, society DOES approve of gambling and yes, any state that allows casino gambling DOES approve of it.

Also, exactly what “right” is being accessed? The “right” to have society give their stamp of approval to your sexual relationship. As was already proven in Canada, it is not necessary for a gay couple to be married to have equal status to a married couple. If equality was the issue and not societal approval, it would be much easier and much quicker for gay rights groups to push for changes to the civil union laws as it worked VERY effectively in Canada without much, if any, fanfare. Clearly, equality is NOT the over-riding issue – forced societal acceptance is.

“They want gayness to be relegated to second-class status or worse, because for reasons I’ll never understand”…
Power. That’s all.
“Libertarian” right wingers want to be free to prey on whomever they can.
The “Religious Right” is enveloped in some kind of Dominance/Submission authoritarian fantasy.
Operating outside of that construct (God dominates man, man dominates wife & children) makes any noncomformist a threat to the construct itself.

TG, I think there’s a sort of asymmetry in legal recognition. To ban something is definitely disapproval, but I think you’re mostly right that recognition is not itself approval, but is in fact neutral.

However, to be fair, it’s been quite a while (what, a century or so?) since what American government did with marriage was “recognize” it. There are definitely many benefits now associated with marriage.

Nevermind the arcane and historically contextual legal rights like spousal immunity. Nor even administrative short cuts like probate law. There are direct tax benefits to married couples (in certain cases). There are various government programs that are only open to married couples. There are private institutions that offer some of their benefits only to married couples.

So, there are real consequences to legal recognition of marriages, not because of the recognition, but because of other existing policies. And while there’s a certain appeal to having no marriages get active benefits, this is simply not the case at present. Those of us who support marriage equality must be up-front about these facts.

Now, do these various benefits, both active and logistical, actually constitute approval? Can they be considered instead pragmatic? (For example, do families with children get larger tax deductions because the state endorses child-bearing or does it just recognize the reality that children are expensive?) I’m willing to accept the assessment that they do constitute approval (as well as the assessment that they are pragmatic; I don’t much care to reify society’s opinions).

Of course, this just pushes the question forward: What human rights protect fairness in such benefits and approval, and which of those human rights need to be protected by legal rights?

“The message he will receive is that it’s not okay to be gay.”

That is a correct message.

…sucks for your pastor, Lou.

Who gives you the right to say anything at all about whether or not a person is gay? (or bisexual, or transgendered for that matter)

I’m not even gay Lou, but I have no intention of seeking your approval for a damn thing.
Welcome to the future. The one where nobody kisses the church’s ass anymore!

Big U:

You’re using “allow” and “approve of” as if they’re synonymous, when they’re not.

That the state allows gambling in no way forces you to approve of gambling. You can even speak out publicly against gambling if you want to, and campaign to get gambling banned. So there’s no “forced societal acceptance” involved.

As Dan M rightly points out, there’s a certain asymmetry involved: in the case of same-sex marriage, it’s not enough for you to personally disapprove of it; you want the government’s official policy to reflect your disapproval by relegating it to a separate status. (And, I suspect, you’d happily do away with same-sex civil unions if you could.)

tgirsch´s last blog ..What the Maine Vote Really Means

Big U:

Just to make sure I’m understanding your position and not putting words in your mouth, do you consider the institution of marriage to be special, sacred and in need of defense, or is it the word “marriage”?

Nigel:

I’m a libertarian right winger. On whom do I seek to prey?

What is indisputable is that the Bible says that not only is homosexual sex a sin, but it is also a punishment for sin. (Romans 1:18 – 31) Further, it is also a sin to give approval to those who are committing sin (Romans 1:32). Gays can get as offended as they want that we will not say it is OK for them to live that lifestyle, but it is far more offensive for them to ask others to commit a sin in order to justify their lifestyle choices. We will not do it, so stop asking!

THAT is why the majority of Americans are opposed to giving any sort of approval to homosexual activity in the form of legalizing marriage (which should not be the state’s business anyway) or other legal or moral edicts that would confer approval on a sinful and immoral lifestyle.

Conservative libertarians, like myself, don’t really care what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. There should be NO LAWS at all regarding marriage – who can do it, who can’t, how is it defined, etc. If a couple (or group) wants to declare themselves a civil union and reap the financial and legal benefits of such, that’s fine. But marriage is a Godly institution – the state has no stake in it.

Christians, like myself, consider marriage to be a Covenant of God in which a man and a woman make a vow TO GOD to be bonded to each other, to become one flesh, for the remainder of their earthly days. To be married before God does not require a couple be married before any state, at least as far as the Final Judgment goes.

If a gay couple wants to call themselves “married” that’s fine. It is entirely up to them what they do, and if they believe that when they stand before the Judgment Seat of God that their definition will pass, that is between them and God.

Not believing in God or the Bible does not make either of them nonexistent, it only means you are a nonbeliever subject to all consequences pertaining therein.

Mary:

On the flip side, believing in a god doesn’t make him/her/it existent. The fact you personally believe in whatever form of hocus pocus you’ve chosen does not mean that then dictates the rules for the rest of us. Your entire belief is predicated on the belief that the mystical sky-dwelling avenger you’ve selected is the right one and that that particular passage from the Bible is one we’re going to choose to uphold after we’ve junked all the others that don’t comport with a modern lifestyle. Now go find some women who’ve been raped, force them to marry the man who did it to them (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) so you can say you did something pious today.

Judd – you STILL don’t get it. I DON’T want to make the rules for gays. They will face their own judgment in their own time. Whether you or they believe it or not, there IS a God (how anyone with at least half a brain could deny this is beyond comprehension and defies all logic and reason) and everyone will face His Judgment one day.

HOWEVER, I also REFUSE to be forced to say that it is OK to engage in sinful and immoral activities, such as homosexual sex. I also will not commit the sin of saying it is OK to murder, steal, lie, cheat, or engage in any kind of sexual immorality. It is offensive to ask me to do so.

Live and let live. Hate the sin, love the sinner. We are all sinners, we all are condemned for our sins. However, the difference is, Christians have accepted the awesome gift of the Grace of God and His offer of Salvation and a place in His Eternal Kingdom. If you don’t mind going to Hell, that’s your business and God gave you the free will to make that choice. You will know the folly of that choice at the very moment it becomes too late to change it. (And at least if I am wrong, it’s no big deal, right? Just POOF and its all over, no hell, no heaven, just nothing, right?)

And your quoting of an Old Testament passage such as this only shows your ignorance of the Bible and Christianity. What you have quoted further proves that sexual immorality is hateful to God, and that we should all – men as well as women – should keep ourselves sexually pure, and not give in to our fleshly lusts. Everything that is wrong with the world, especially these days, can be directly attributed to mankind giving in to lust, greed and desire, everything – from killing our offspring that result from sexual immorality to businesses failing as a result of unbridled greed and desire. This is the same path that many previous civilizations found themselves on, right before they were destroyed.

1 Corinthians 1:18 – if this has no meaning to you, it proves itself true.

tgirsch “(And, I suspect, you’d happily do away with same-sex civil unions if you could.)”

This indicates to me that either you are calling me a liar or you have not really paid attention to anything I have said. Kindly let me know which it is.

For a group (the political left) that is supposedly so open and welcoming you guys sure do a good job of making assumptions about people and trying to make them fit your stereotyped perspectives. What I am seeing more and more is the left trying to impose their will and attitude on society and anyone who gets in the way will get abused and pay a severe price (e.g. Carrie Prejean).

“Nigel Patel:
Who gives you the right to say anything at all about whether or not a person is gay? (or bisexual, or transgendered for that matter)

The same person gives me the right to say that homosexual acts are an abomination as the person who gives you the right to say otherwise. The browbeating by you and other narrowminded liberals will not change the facts.

Mary:

Ah. You’re just a messenger. It’s all carrying out someone else’s will. You wash your hands of this deed.

Because you’re wrong your abridging someone else’s liberties is a huge deal. If this existence is all there is then how we spend it is critical and so wasting both our and other people’s precious time stepping in the personal matters of consenting adults is a dastardly thing.

I also find somewhat amusing that you are critical of me for pulling a behavioral prescription from Deuteronomy but then give me a litany of things you won’t do (murder, steal, etc.) that come from Exodus.

Though if you are in to picking and choosing I would strongly suggest you head on over to Conservapedia. They’ve got a project going on and they need strong minds like yours to help them with it.

Big U:

I’m a libertarian who votes Republican far more often than not and I consider myself as very open, welcoming and tolerant. Tell me why your attitude is the one we should impose on society rather than mine.

Big U:

Throughout all of our discussions of the matter, you’ve made it pretty clear that you view homosexual activity to be somehow morally wrong; it logically follows that you would do away with all formal recognition thereof if you could. If that’s an incorrect presumption, by all means, feel free to clear the air. If it makes you feel better for me to retract the parenthetical part of that comment, I’ll do so, since it really doesn’t alter my overall point.

What I am seeing more and more is the left trying to impose their will and attitude on society

We’re probably never going to see eye-to-eye on that one. People on the right, you included, seem to routinely conflate allowing people to do things you disapprove of with requiring you to approve of them, i.e. “imposing their views” on you. I don’t know how to fix that.

tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

For a group that is supposedly so open and welcoming you guys sure do a good job of making assumptions

Translation: “You’re the real bigots!”

He just can’t help himself.
LarryE´s last blog ..Footnote to the preceding

LarryE:

Thanks for catching that. I meant to address it, but forgot.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

Judd – you have not read anything I have written here. You only read what you want to read, and project your own bigotry on me and others here of like mind.

Once again, and I am typing slowly so you can follow along: I do not want to make any rules, laws or whatever on gays. None. What. So. Ever.

Got that?

Their judgment will come, like everyone else’s, from a much higher power than anything here on earth.

What I, and many – the majority of Americans, BTW – oppose is gays and their advocates telling me that I must not just tolerate but also accept and even condone their lifestyle choice.

For Christians, that is a sin. Do NOT ask me to sin for the sake of your feeling “OK” with your lifestyle. Do not call me a bigot or hateful or any of your other liberal pet insult names because I refuse to disobey the Lord.

I will not ever say that it is OK to participate in homosexual activity. I will not say that any kind of sexual immorality is OK. I won’t say it is OK anymore than I would say that it is OK to lie, steal, kill ….

Can I make myself any clearer than that?

Mary Ellen:

So if we allow gays to marry, but explicitly state that individuals are allowed to disapprove, that would be okay with you? Because if the answer is “no,” if you would NOT allow gays to marry, then you ARE imposing your religious mores on gays.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

Mary:

I’m a right leaning libertarian who voted for Bush and McCain. Beyond that I’m a laissez faire capitalist and proud life member of the National Rifle Association. Label me a liberal if you choose to do so but you’re a ways off on that one.

I’m also a funny bigot. I don’t hate Christians or Christianity; the girl I’ve been dating for years is a practicing Catholic. As an agnostic I don’t agree with that part of her lifestyle but I am tolerant of it. What I do vehemently oppose is Christians (or Muslims or Jews or Hindus or pick your other superstition) who tell me or anyone else that I must comport my life to fit their religious beliefs.

Even if I accept your premise on the polling data on gay marriage, the fact a majority of Americans may agree with you does not mean your belief is correct or even acceptable. Should every person on earth be in favor of the reinstitution of slavery and I was the last one opposed I don’t think a vote on the matter would make me wrong even if I lost. If whatever the majority wants is always the best course of action and is justified because it’s the majority view then, well, I guess that’s just you.

And if what you really want is a Christian theocracy covered with a thin shell of a representative republic then you’re welcome to go somewhere and try to establish one. I, however, find the Iranian model of government to be reprehensible so I won’t be joining you.

Almost forgot this. I didn’t think I’d ever get to say the chance to say this on here and mean it so I can’t waste the opportunity.

Larry, I agree with you.

Mary,

you have not read anything I have written here

Guilty as charged. Now ban this bitch! Yes, I’m a bigot. When it comes to mentally deranged people telling me that invisible men who live in the sky are the authority on how to organize society, I just don’t want those people to be allowed to talk to me, at least not without a phone and through protective glass. Getting married “before god,” huh? Do I gotta invite this motherfucker to my wedding too, and does he need a guest? Listen, big shot, turn the water into wine and you can have all the fucking cocktail weiners you want.

For a group (the political left) that is supposedly so open and welcoming you guys sure do a good job of making assumptions about people and trying to make them fit your stereotyped perspectives.

Big U,

Nobody is stereotyping, Big U. They are extrapolating your personal views from the body of your commentary on this site over multiple years. If people don’t know what you’re about by now, that probably means you’ve done a shitty job of communicating it. Don’t turn this into something it’s not.

Digglahhh > Nice word play, but wrong. When people are unwilling to listen to what is being directly said, then their resulting perspective is stereotyping because they are not looking at the individual but rather trying to fit that individual into a group they feel more certain about.

Never once have I said or indicated I hate gays. However, in the past few days I have been accused of such by more than one person. Clearly an assumption not borne out by my actions or my words but rather the stereotype built in the minds of people on this site. Clearly some people are unable to accept that someone can disagree with an option (gay marriage) without hating a group (gays). This is possible in my world. Obviously it is not so possible in other people’s worlds.

I have been quite clear in stating that I have no problem with gays having equal rights. However, in the past few days I have been told that by disagreeing with them using the word marriage, I am denying them access to the rights married couples have. This is not true, but it keeps getting repeated. Over, and over and over. Again, an assumption or stereotyping.

I am lumped in with people who hate gays and who don’t want gays to have access to any equality simply because both those groups and I disagree with them being allowed to marry. Please explain to me how this is not stereotyping or making assumptions.

LarryE > truth is, there IS alot of bigotry on this site. The fact that you agree with some of the opinions does not mean the opinions are not filled with bigotry. Also, contrary to what seems to be common thought on these boards, bigot does not mean “white right wingers who don’t like blacks or gays”. The definition is much broader than that:

Bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Describes a number of people on here based on comments. Also describes alot of people on the right that you guys have issues with. Now, please explain how these definitions describe my comments. I can site comments by Dan M., KTK, LarryE and Digglahhh that fit into those definitions without looking very far.

Shorter Big U:

“I don’t hate gays — I simply want the state to deny them a status that’s available to non-gays, for no other reason than the fact that they’re gay. What could possibly be wrong with that?”

Or, we can try this:

“Clearly some people are unable to accept that someone can disagree with an option (blacks marrying whites) without hating a group (blacks).”

by disagreeing with them using the word marriage, I am denying them access to the rights married couples have.

No, what you’re doing is asking the state to officially brand them as different in kind. Perhaps not QUITE affixing a scarlet A or a star of David to their lapels, but it doesn’t seem all that far away from me. If you truly had no problem with them getting true equality, you wouldn’t have a problem with them using the same word. The fact that you object so strenuously to their use of the word seems to indicate that you view what they’re doing to be fundamentally different, not superficially so, and that you want that difference to be officially delineated by the state.

As for considering people who disagree with me on issues to be “bigots,” I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. I reserve the label of bigot for people who do their discrimination based on race and religion, and who ask the state to back them up on it. Truth to tell, I don’t find your position on this issue to be bigoted per se — I think ignorant or perhaps naive would be the more apt description.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

Judd -

I didn’t think I’d ever get to say the chance to say this on here and mean it

We must always be grateful for small favors!
LarryE´s last blog ..Footnote to the preceding

You’ll note tgirsch that I didn’t include your name in the list. There’s a reason for that. You may, at times, feel I’m an idiot or ignorant but I’ve never seen you take the attitude that I’m bigoted or shown an attitude yourself of being bigoted. You’re strongly opinionated but to me that’s a far cry from being bigoted.

Judd: “I’m a libertarian right winger. On whom do I seek to prey?”

I haven’t met a libertarian yet who wasn’t a vicious capitalist who despised the poor (that would be me and almost all the people I know).
Tell me, why do businesspeople seek to get rid of any and all regulations if not cheat, intimidate and pollute unfettered?

@Nigel:

That’s not fair. Most of the libertarians I know don’t despise the poor. Are they wholly indifferent to them and to their plight? Absolutely, but that’s not the same thing as despising them. Think of it like Americans and soccer: we don’t hate it, we just couldn’t give any less of a shit about it. That’s how libertarians feel about the poor.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

I seem to recall from the first lecture of my college ethics class that legal, moral, and ethical can be intertwined, but are NOT synonyms. Thus, something being moral as outlined in religious text is not necessarily ethical, and vice versa, nor does it mean that the belief should be protected by law. Look at Southern Baptists for example. Those guys don’t drink, and they’ll tell you and I that we’re defiling our bodies by inbibing booze, but I don’t see throngs of Southern Baptists lobbying for prohibition. Similarly, rendering something like gay marriage legal because it is ethical treatment of people to do so (bear in mind that this changes no part of religious tenets; so it’s not as if gay people will be knocking on the doors of catholic and baptist churches and insisting that their rights be recognized) does not force people to change their moral views.

As much as I think everyone should recognize that, in this modern time, with so much fucked-uppedness abounding, two people of the same sex being “married” is not in actuality a wrongness or a detriment, I think I have a realist perspective: some parts of society will never accept that. That sucks, but we can’t force people to like things, to change their moral views, or even to consider that gays should be allowed to marry due to ethics. Even if we can make gay marriage legal across the board, it still won’t evolve these folks into approving or condoning it. But, simply put, it is unethical to deny gays the right to be married.
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

Wow, Judd agreed with LarryE, now I suspect LarryE will agree with Barbie. The end of the world is at hand!
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

BigU:

In my opinion, it’s a misinterpretation of the constitution that the “institute of marriage” being protected by the governemnt means that the government allows only the judeo-christian religious definition of marriage into law. The government will not do anything to change this definition, thus, it is not threatened. Anyone who argues that legalized gay marriage translates into forced social acceptance of homosexuality should consider the repurcussions of that position: the government upholds judeo-christian marriage, but I don’t feel that I’m forced into accepting religious tenets. The government also upholds scientologists’ marriages, does that force you to accept scientology?

I’ve argued that it’s important to protect freedoms, even though it means allowing that pissant asshat who sells antisemetic parafenalia at the gun show to pedal his wares. The government also protects my right to say he is a bigot. Unfortunately, the moment the government steps in and says he’s not allowed to be there, it means the government is limitting the freedoms of belief. It might be considered a moral triumph by some, and I’d love not to see his shiney, fat head every month, but it’s a testy road that would open the door for unintended consequences later on, and it’s best not to go down there. The fact that the government protects nazi-boy’s right to being a bottom-feeding morally-defunct jerk doesn’t force me into approving his beliefs or choices, but we all (well, not all, but I’m guesisng you and I do) acknowledge that it is his protected right to believe whatever crap he chooses, and, no matter how much it stinks and offends my moral and ethical senses, he may continue doing his thing provided that he doesn’t violate any of our rights. It should be exactly the same with gay marriage. Forgive the comparisson, tis not my intention to compare two men or women marrying eachother to something as vile as neo-nazism (anyone who accuses me of such, beware: one word and I am on you like swine flu); the point is that legal acknowledgement that a person is allowed to believe and practice something doesn’t force another member of society into encompassing such beliefs and practices within their own moral or ethical grounds. So, really, when you equate “legal” with “forced social acceptance,” it’s an objection that boils down to the fact that you’re mistakenly believing that legalizing something means you have embrace it.
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

Nigel:

While I am an unapologetic capitalist I don’t hate the poor. I’m not even indifferent on them. I just have a wildly different idea about the cure for their circumstance. I don’t want to get in to all that now because I’m bound and determined to participate in at least one thread here without hijacking it, I was just trying to understand your earlier remark in the context of the current discussion.

Barbie:

Of course some segments of society will be slow to accept gay marriage. Screw them though. I have no time for people who think anybody should be denied their civil liberties solely based of the circumstances of their birth, be it because they’re black, gay or whatever. If I have to build a consensus without the morons in it then that’s fine by me. Take Mary a ways upthread. Best as I can tell she honestly believes she doesn’t get to have an opinion of her own on this matter. Nosir, she was lucky enough to be born in to the one correct religion and she’s got this self-contradicting book that has this one little blurb from with an inference can be drawn and dammit, that’s the way she’s going to vote.

Sooner or later some gay couple will get to SCOTUS with a copy of the Fourteenth Amendment in hand and undo the damage currently being done but it’s just sad that that’s what it’s going to take. Up until that point we have every right to mock, deride and ridicule the anti-liberty crowd and after it we can ignore them.

Judd:
While I am an unapologetic capitalist I don’t hate the poor. I’m not even indifferent on them. I just have a wildly different idea about the cure for their circumstance. I don’t want to get in to all that now because I’m bound and determined to participate in at least one thread here without hijacking it

Oooh, oooh, I want to hear this! I’ve given you a dedicated thread in which to explain it in detail.

Let me know if reCAPTCHA still hates you.
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

If the goal is equality, Canada already proved that legal equality can exist without changing any definitions of words. What is left then? And if people say “they are not equal because they can’t use the word “marriage”, what way are they unequal in? Strictly the use of that word? If so then the use of that word must carry some sort of significance with it and if that significance is not legal, then it stands to reason it is some sort of social significance. When laws are changed because of the social significance of something, then it is going beyond what is legal and is indicating to society what the government is willing to say is socially acceptable. And if anyone thinks that does not carry the weight of forcing social acceptance, then you have not followed history very well.

I do have something I need to understand however. Is the position of gay marriage proponents that there should be NO limitations on who can claim the right to be classified as married? And that any limitations of such are a violation of a person’s right to equality? Or is this strictly something that extends only to the homosexual community? (i.e. would you argue to extend the use of the term marriage to polygamists, polyandrists, adult siblings or relatives who wish to marry each other, etc. ?)

Holy shit, hell is freezing over! I agree with everything Barbie said (in this thread)!

Big U:

I can’t speak for anyone except myself so as far as that goes I don’t consider it any of my business how two (or more) consenting adults choose to order their lives. I’m fine with gay marriage, I’m fine with polygamy (so long as everyone’s an adult, not that sick fundamentalist Mormon shit) and I’m probably even okay with adult siblings. I find most of that personally repugnant so I won’t participate but if the state is going to start giving sanction and privileges to people then they can’t be allowed to discriminate. Some of my less libertarian and more liberal friends may have a different take on it but that’s where I stand. You’re free to fuck up your own life as much as you want provided you’re prepared to deal with the consequences.

One of my friends is the type of person I would define as “an enlightened catholic,” meaning that, while she embraces the catholic lifestyle, she seems to understand that it is one of many freely chosen lifestyles/system of beliefs, and also that catholicism, like any other religion, is a group of people guessing at what god wants and believes. Even though the catholic church’s position on homosexuality has been made clear, her view was that it is horribly pompous even for catholics to assert that their belief system is the one correct system, and that they *know* that their beliefs are representative of what god believes. To quote her:

“How can we possibly know what the real, supreme god believes and wants? For all I know, I’ll get to heaven, and god will be all like, ‘why have you scorned and shunned my people’?”
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

Judd,

In theory, I’m fine with polygamy too. The distinction I would make between the two is that from the standpoint of practically organizing a society, I can see reasons why “society” would not want to have to deal with the situations that marriages of three or more people would cause. From a practical standpoint marriage, as an institution, is supposed to make organizing a society easier. Polygamy, however, makes it more difficult. Whether that’s a viable reason to oppose it is an open, but different, question. The marriage of two people of the same sex, however, introduces no new wrinkles into the system, and, in fact, makes many of these issues easier to handle in a purely practical sense.

At the end of the day, there are many new adminstrative challenges associated with enacting a policy that allows polygamy, but no new such challenges to recognize unions of two same-sex individuals.

As is often the case, I’m in complete agreement with Digg, at least wrt polygamy.

I’d be curious how polygamy makes organizing a society more difficult what situations society would not want to deal with in regards to such. Care to offer examples? Also, it seems you guys are avoiding the other types of relationships….why?

Big U:

I answered them all. I didn’t address polyandrists directly because I thought polygamy as a catch-all would work but I didn’t shy away from any of it.

Sorry Judd. You did answer them all and were very consistent in your position. I apologize for not pointing out that you were the exception.

Ach, I didn’t see all the comments, somehow.

I’m under the impression that polyandry is a subset of polygamy, but in case the latter only refers to multiple wives, not multiple husbands, then explicitly, yes I consider the two forms equivalent, with the proviso that as far as I know, only multiple wives have any historical baggage of sexist spouse slavery, and I can see arguments for adjusting laws to take that history into account.

As for restrictions on blood relatives marrying, I don’t think any should exist, though I could see more extreme forms of inbreeding (close kinship over multiple generations) being considered presumptive liability in wrongful birth suits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain.

Now, what this is not equivalent to is marriages in which one spouse is a minor, or nearly a minor and very disparate in age from the other spouse. Wedlock is a strong contract and requires responsibility and non-coercion.

And marriages between humans and non-humans is right out for the rather obvious reason that consent is necessary. This is rather more obvious when you call the institution “wedlock”, since that implies actually swearing oaths (or affirmations for some of us). Sex, rather than marriage, with animals, on the other hand… Well, that’s a whole other thread.

As a simple example of how N-way wedlock can’t be a drop-in replacement to binary wedlock, consider a couple hypotheticals:

There are four spouses, one dies and leave an unpaid debt. One of the other three spouses divorces the others. How much of the debt do each owe? This would require at least additional tort precedent, and possibly new legislation.

There are three spouses, one turns into Terri Schivo. The other two disagree about whether to pull the plug. Who wins? Now, this is interesting insofar as that in binary wedlock, the answer is well-decided, except that Schivo’s parents sued the one spouse anyway. Of course they lost, but that was a lovely little debacle in which there were lots of groups that claimed that they got to fuck with the law and with the husband’s life and also made a point that it was their religious beliefs that made them fuck with other people’s lives. (Oh, and I have no idea how that would have or should have worked in Canada.)

A-mazing. After all I’ve heard about the left being a movement “of the people”, when the rubber hits the road they’re just as intolerant of diverse beliefs and just as evangelistic as they accuse their opponents of being.

Also, it seems you guys are avoiding the other types of relationships….why?

Um, maybe because we’re not going to let you get away with trying to change the subject?
LarryE´s last blog ..Passing thought

Nice try LarryE but it isn’t a change of subject. It is a very likely natural progression resulting from the current changes being pushed which is something that should be considered. Either everyone pushing for gay marriage is in support of marital recognition of ALL adult relationships which seek such status or they are guilty of what they accuse the pro one man/ one woman crowd of. In fact, in reality, they are more guilty AND they are truly hypocrites.

And actually Dan M, your legal issue arguments regarding N-marriages are horribly useless. Legislation continues to evolve to deal with nuances regarding marriage so to use something such as legislative problems is a moot point. If such an agreement is to be classified as a marriage, all that is required is new legislation to deal with such.

Ok, BU, so you got model legislation for full poly-wedlock? Then we can stop worrying about gay marriage and go straight for that. Oh, wait… you’ve been saying that you can’t even handle the idea of binary marriage for everybody. So what, exactly, was your point in saying that there are no complications to poly-wedlock?

It occurs to me that you probably have some stupid idea of trying to catch me out in some form of hypocrisy by my supporting equality in binary marriage but not currently supporting civil rights associated with polygamous marriage.

For the record, if anybody can express a set of civil rights and obligations that are entailed in the way that people currently form group marriages, then I’ll support that. Somebody’s already done that for gay marriage: “Don’t make any distinctions between spouses on the basis of sex or gender.” Full stop. That’s all the adjustment that’s needed to express the civil rights of homosexual couples that have married.

(it’s interesting to note that when the christian church was stealing jurisdiction over marriage from civil authorities back in the 1200s, they did so by claiming that marriages were made by the couple themselves and that therefore the state had no power to adjudicate matters regarding marriage. Instead, the church claimed that authority because they thought there god mojo let them tell when people were telling the truth about who they really married. Of course, I doubt they believed any of this; it was probably simply a bald power grab. Being the church, they also claimed that marriage fell within the jurisdiction of the church because it had been sanctioned by god; this is of course implausible since the scope of wedlock far predates any concept of an interventionist creator god, but the church has never really been known for its fidelity to history or the dignity of individual humans.)

Dan:

Tsk tsk.

Historical perspective and facts have NO place in a debate on gay marriage.

Nice try but it isn’t a change of subject

Of course it is: You don’t want to talk about same-sex marriage because you know you can’t defend yourself there, so you try to shift the focus to polygamy. Don’t be a weasel.

And don’t argue by extremes, i.e., “if you advocate A, you MUST also advocate B, C, and D,” positions which you think your opposite will reject, thus (supposedly) refuting A but actually not addressing it. That’s dishonest – especially when digg and Dan M. have shown the disconnects between A and the rest.

For myself, I have no philosophical objections to polygamy but I agree with others about the entirely new legal issues that arise, ones that are more than sufficient to make it entirely reasonable to dismiss the arguing-by-extremes tactic and say “we’ll deal with same-sex marriage now and if polygamy ever becomes an issue, we’ll deal with those legalities then.”

I’ll mention more or less in passing that I have a different issue with polygamy entirely apart from, and which would not affect, any legal recognition: I think such relationships are extremely hard to maintain. For a modern, two-person marriage to work, A must care about B and B must care about A: Two “lines of caring,” if you will. For a three-person marriage to work, A must care about B and C, B must care about A and C, and C must care about A and B. So, six lines of caring. You haven’t increased the emotional complexity by 50% by adding the third person, you’ve tripled it. Which is likely why most polygamous arrangements have been either a harem-type arrangement (A is the family head, B is all the others) or the “first wife” arrangement some American native peoples used, where a man might have several wives but there was a “first,” lead, wife and the rest were more like a cross between a wife and a servant attached to the household.
LarryE´s last blog ..Passing thought

LarryE,

Yes, you’re entirely right about the difficulties of polygamous unions. For a while I’ve been trying to advocate distinguishing not just the terms monogamous, and polygamous, but adding oligogamous. There are definitely triples as well as couples that try to share their lives together, but I’m not sure I’ve heard of more than 3 or 4 partners forming anything they would themselves consider a union like a marriage.

Addressing the polygammy issue, the historical background needs to be considered, imo. Imagine if this were 50 years ago. Homosexuality was far more socially taboo than it is today. Even though, currently, some parts of society still consider it very taboo, homosexuality has become mixed into the mainstreams of our culture far more than it was in the middle 20th century. Right now, I kinda see polygammy/bigamy/incest as being somewhat like what homosexuality was back in the mid 1900’s. I don’t know of a lot about the particulars of the lifestyles because they’re obscure. Homosexual relationships are not nearly as obscured. It’s become apparent that two men or two women in a relationship are capable of providing a stable household, and as stable and attentive of an atmosphere as straight couples for raising kids. As far as I can tell, the sexual or gender preferences of a person has no bearing on their parenting skills. BTW, little tidbit here, I have two dads. My non-biological dad has no biological children, but, amazingly, he is really good with kids, better than some heterosexual parents I know. Shocking, isn’t it (snark). The arguments that M/F marriages are better for kids (as opposed to M/M or F/F marriages) is obsolete; a sanctimonius religious marriage obviously doesn’t stop parents from abusing their children, both physically and psychologically. Whether a person is a congenital shmuck who is incapable of treating others well, of raising children well, is not dependant on sexual preference either.

So, to try to tie this into the “gay marriage allowance will lead to other types of curretly culturally obscured and taboo marriages later on,” perhaps. But not until and only if it become clear that those types of relationships do not jeapordize their constituents any more than standardy, “acceptable” relationships do. The whole point of marriage isn’t for the benefit of society, it’s for the benefit of the parties immediately involved: the adults who are to be considered “married” and their dependants, should they choose to have any. The idea that “marriage” stabilizes a community went out the window a long time ago; both men and women began living extended bachelor life-styles in which they would go to college or start a career path prior to getting married and conceiving children, and when society didn’t collapse as this became an increasingly popular trend, the convention that marriage stabilizes the community began to fall to the wayside. There can be social benefits to organization on the level of families, but it should be obvious to everyone nowadays that it is not necessary for the “good of society” to adhere to an olden-days definition of what constitutes a family. Today, any group of people who function cooperatively to share their resources and responsibilities with eachother is a family. There is already a legal basis for this, it’s that “number of dependants” thing you write in on your tax forms. If people want the further distinction of being “married” in name, and they can find an institution that honors that, and they can function as a family, I see no reason why the government should deny them that, nor why anyone thinks their rights are being infringed upon by the fact that the people petitioning for “marriage” are different from them.
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

For the record, Big U.

If there was a substantial “movement” of polygamists seeking legal recognition of their unions I would inquire as to how the propose to handle the difficult legal questions accompanying the expansion of their institution, and if it seemed sensible, I’d support them as long as they had a plan for the issues.

I don’t think I skirted anything. I said that personally, I’d be inclined to support these groups as well. I mentioned the legal issues as an example of why polygamy and homosexual binary marriages are not necessarily the same thing, and why one might be inclined to support the later not the former. I didn’t say those were MY views. I even explictly noted that whether the logistical complications of such arrangements were a viable reason to oppose them is an open question, even if you grant that such issues will be messy.

The one thing about polygamous marriages that seems like it could be scary is how more susceptible they seem to being used for fradulent purposes, to escape estate taxes, to hide money, or to transfer ownerships, etc. I could definitely see rich business d-bags turning this into a tax evading free for all.

LarryE – don’t argue by extremes? My gosh man, any time anyone disagrees with the left’s position on anything, they are stated to be part of the extreme. (i.e. the original poster’s contention that I HATE gays, an exteme position that you clearly have NO problem with endorsing and agreeing with even in the complete absence of any evidence.). So I guess left-wing hypocritical thinking dictates that extreme comments or positions are okay as long as they agree with the left. Sounds very tolerant of you.

Barbie – Can you site any studies indicating that stable marriages do not make a society stronger?

any time anyone disagrees with the left’s position on anything, they are stated to be part of the extreme

I was right before: You really just can’t help yourself. Every time you get criticized, your response is some form of “Omigod! It’s the LEFT that does THAT!”

As for judging you, note first that I didn’t say you “HATE gays.” I said you knew you couldn’t defend yourself on the issue of same-sex marriage so you tried to change the subject of polygamy. Here again, you just can’t help yourself, and respond with a claim that I “endorse” something else.

But as for whether or not you do “HATE gays,” I judge you by your words and over time. And that provides enough evidence to at least raise the issue.
LarryE´s last blog ..Passing thought

BU,

You’ve repeatedly said you don’t hate gays, and you’ve been very clear to claim that your support of their segregation and public disapproval is different from hating them. Could you cite any instance in which one of us accuse you of hating gays, rather that pointing out that you want to segregate them and apply public disapproval of them?

You can’t have it both ways. If you wanting gays segregated isn’t hating them, then you can’t claim to have been called a hater for only wanted them ghettoized.

Personally, I’m willing to leave up to you whether that’s the same as hate. Heck, I’m even willing to give you a pass on the word ‘bigot’ if that makes your feel better. But, you don’t then get to whine about being accused of hatred and bigotry when we just point out your pro-segregation, anti-equal-rights position.

“Commenters like Big U often like to deny that this type of fear and/or hatred is at the core of their reasoning, but their own arguments make this sort of thing abundantly clear.”

As quoted from the opening comment. How is this not saying hatred is at the core of my thought process? Was Dan M or LarryE who said it? No. But neither did they disagree with the original poster.

Do you want more spots where it has happened?

And LarryE, when a person on the left makes a claim, any counterclaim or indication of that poster’s actions very easily may include a reference to how they are doing exactly what they accuse others of. You continued “I knew he couldn’t help himself” simply proves that you are unwilling to listen to any opposing views on anything.

Dan M. > And as far as this “segregated” “anti-equal-rights” garbage, you either have no idea what segregated means or feel that since it is a word that conjurs up images of race issues that it is a good one to use in your argument. And public disapproval isn’t even an issue. The position is one of “in Canada, equal rights in all ways were available prior to the use of the word marriage, therefore the idea that the word marriage must be used to make all rights equal is a false argument.
It amounts to nothing other than trying to force societal acceptance of a specific chosen lifestyle”

That’s not hate. It’s just a position. The odd thing is, the gay people I know agree with me and are tired of having to explain to their activist gay friends why they did not push for redifining the meaning of marriage. In most situations, they simply wanted to be allowed to live their lives and more often than not felt bullied and put down by activist gays while feeling accepted and treated like one of the crowd by their straight friends. Of course now LarryE or someone will trot out the “oh, now he’s using the ‘I have gay friends’ argument” because that way they won’t have to respond to what I have actually said.

I’m sorry, Big U, but I guess I’m just not picking up on the nuance. “I don’t hate them, I just want the state’s official position to acknowledge that their status is different than / less ’sacred’ than mine” certainly fits the description I put forth. The “it’s just a position” is too clever by half. “Blacks should have separate drinking fountains, as long as they’re just as good as the whites-only drinking fountains” is also “just a position,” and just as defensible. You’ve made your position abundantly clear: you don’t want same-sex unions to be called “marriages” because you view them as not “real” marriages and as somehow less valuable than “traditional” marriages. You’d never say it in exactly those words, but that’s the point you’ve been dancing around for this entire thread. You’re willing to allow the state to give them something similar to marriage as long as they don’t actually call it marriage — how very big of you — but your position that what they call it is unimportant so long as the rights and privileges are the same is belied by your vehement insistence that gay marriages not be called “marriage.”

But you’re correct that fear and hatred don’t accurately sum up your position. I think “contempt” is the better word. You’ll doubtless object to that term, too, but I think it fits.

And the whole “redefining marriage” argument strikes me as utter bullshit. What’s acceptable and what’s not in a marriage has changed many times, even just in the last century. The other distinctions that have gone by the wayside are just as arbitrary as the gender distinction. (And actually, the idea of marriage as a voluntary, committed relationship between two loving partners is relatively new, historically speaking. There’s a much longer history of arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, etc.).
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

BU,

Of course I use reference to segregation for its connotations! I’m glad to see you agree that taking a position equivalent to segregation would make you look bad. Now, if you could explain how wanting to call gays’ marriages “civil unions” rather than the marriages they are isn’t trying to segregate them, you might have a point.

I admit, I didn’t see TG’s first use of the word “hatred” because I only did a text search for “hate”. I withdraw the claim that nobody’s accused you of hating gays. Likewise, he’s now withdrawn the accusation itself.

Rather than quoting “Oh, some of my best friends are gay”, let me instead point out, the gays who are still your friends are those who don’t see your position as offensive. Now isn’t that something? Somebody call Mr. Beyes.

What I find most impressive is that when you’re accused of having a position that supports the position of bigots (leaving aside whether your position itself constitutes bigotry and whether it is bigotry to find other bigots repulsive), your defense is to quote those same bigots’ talking points.

“It amounts to nothing other than trying to force societal acceptance of a specific chosen lifestyle.”

What, exactly is the lifestyle that is to be accepted by recognizing same-sex marriages? Let’s see, could it be being married?! Yes, there really is such a thing as the “gay lifestyle”. It’s just like the “straight lifestyle”, including that you fuck people you’re attracted to. Heaven forefend that we endorse that! Of all the asinine lies told about gays by the religious right, the idea that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” is the most appallingly stupid one to use in trying to prevent gays from getting to live their lives like the rest of us.

Was Dan M or LarryE who said it? No. But neither did they disagree with the original poster

Well, that’s interesting. So now I agree with everything that I do not specifically reject? On that logic, I bet by going back through comments on various threads we could find some pretty interesting things you must agree with.

You continued “I knew he couldn’t help himself”

Exactly. Because you responded just as I expected you would, the same way you all but invariably do. “Oh, no, you’re the whatever-it-is.” Consider, for example, that I had charged you with arguing by extremes. Your response was “My gosh man, any time anyone disagrees with the left’s position on anything, they are stated to be part of the extreme,” to accuse me of agreeing with an “extreme” position, and throw in “hypocritical” and some snark about “very tolerant of you” – all without even pausing to deny that you were, in fact, arguing by extremes. (Which, by your own argument, means that you must agree with the charge.)

Apparently, it’s true: You just can’t help it.

That’s not hate.

Okay, let’s leave the word “hate” aside as one too caught up in individual understandings of what constitutes the term. But it is bigotry. It is declaring that certain people are “other,” are “not us,” who must in some clear way be defined as separate, who must in some clear way be told that they are “other.”

Passive acceptance of a technically legally equivalence is no escape so long as it is attached to the conviction that certain people’s most intimate personal relationships are to be regarded as culturally inferior ones from which “approval” must be consciously withheld by society.

It’s just a position

There’s nothing “just” about it – in any sense of the word.

the gay people I know agree with me

I bet they do – ’cause if they didn’t, they wouldn’t stay around you. Using one’s own personal circle to assume the attitudes of a far wider community is extremely bad logic. (Did I just hear you mutter “the LEFT does that ALL THE TIME?” Please, if only this once, prove that you can restrain yourself.)

But yeah, “activists.” That’s always the problem, ain’t it? All those damn activists who are “bullying” the gays you know, who are satisfied with what they have, which they never would have had but for previous damn activists. I’m surprised you didn’t call them “uppity.”

Footnote: I laughed when I read this:

“now he’s using the ‘I have gay friends’ argument”

I laughed because I was going to say a few comments up that I was expecting you to come out with the “some of my best friends” argument but decided not to because it was too snarky. And then you did it!
LarryE´s last blog ..Passing thought

Dan:

Even if it’s unintentional, at least the folks on the religious right who proclaim homosexuality is a lifestyle choice are kind enough to be open and honest about how well informed they are.

Larry:

Thanks for the laugh.

Are people like these gay-hating segregational bigots too?

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
http://www.thegrio.com/2009/06/not-all-gay-people-support-same-sex-marriage.php
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2009/05/01/the-gay-case-against-gay-marriage-and-gay-bigotry/

the gay people I know agree with me and are tired of having to explain to their activist gay friends why they did not push for redifining the meaning of marriage. In most situations, they simply wanted to be allowed to live their lives and more often than not felt bullied and put down by activist gays while feeling accepted and treated like one of the crowd by their straight friends.

Aside from noting the selection bias, this is something of a valid point. And, I’ve raised on here many times. It’s quite possible that members of the gay communitiy would prefer not to replicate the hegemonic institutions of those who have oppressed them for so long and rather have something of their own they can define as such. The thing is, that doesn’t appear to be the consensus preference of the community as a whole, so I support what the general group may want, even though I remain sensitive to other enlightened opinions on the matter.

Here’s the important difference, you’re not agreeing with this alternative conclusion because you’re a postmodern deconstructionist or something…

Big U:

Let’s see, you’ve got a gay guy that thinks that the state shouldn’t recognize marriages of any kind. That’s not exactly a great start for buttressing your argument. Then you have a well-known star who essentially admits that he’s willing to pragmatically make the compromise because using the same term will “put people off” — notice he doesn’t defend their off-put-ness, he’s merely acknowledging it exists. (I’m sure racial segregation was an improvement over what came before it, too, but that doesn’t make it right.) As to your third link, I humbly suggest you should have read the full text before posting it here as though it supported your position. And the last link is a self-proclaimed provocateur, hardly worth taking seriously.

But at the end of the day, your collection of links is akin to an attempt to say that because this guy doesn’t have a problem with the confederate flag, nobody else should have a problem with it, either. I’m sure if you scoured Rwanda long enough, you could find some Tutsis who agree that the Hutus have been right all along. That a small minority feels that way doesn’t make it so.
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

“Barbie – Can you site any studies indicating that stable marriages do not make a society stronger?”

I really don’t need to. For one thing, I never claimed that stable marriages don’t make a society stronger; I said that the stability of society is not strictly dependant on marriage. It’s pretty much a given that stable anything will make a society stronger. I even said that organization on the level of families is beneficial to society.

Now, can you prove that hetersexual traditional marriages are inherently more stabling to society than non-traditional marriages? Operative word is inherent, mind you. And be careful; your argument could very easily be turned on it’s head with you being forced to accept that your position also postulates that marriage should be imposed upon all heterosexual couples.
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

Are people like these gay-hating segregational bigots too?

No, they’re not. To see why, consider what they said:

The first called marriage a “goofily baroque sacrament” and suggested that same-sex relationships sans marriage may actually be superior.

The second contained an observation by Elton John on Prop 8, who suggested using the word “marriage” was a tactical mistake because it “puts a lot of people off.”

The third was commentary by a black gay man whose issue with same-sex marriage was, like John’s, one of the politics of the matter, saying “I have never felt marriage was my number one political priority” before adding he was tired of trying to explain the “deep-seated homophobia” of the black community.

And the fourth author called marriage “an antiquated, failing institution based on inequality and traditional roles” that should be rejected entirely.

That is, unlike you, not one of them said same-sex relationships were of some sufficiently inferior or damaging kind such that “societal acceptance” of their “sexual” – an adjective I seriously doubt you would apply to heterosexual couples – relationship must be deliberately and consciously withheld.

What, did you think no one would actually look at the links?
LarryE´s last blog ..So, are you satisfied now?

Larry, I think you’re mistaken here. BU probably did expect us to read those links. And I think he honestly believes that everyone who doesn’t actively support gay marriage supports his position.

There’s a reason KTK coined “conservative reading comprehension disorder”. (And it does look like it’s an original coinage by KTK. Searching Google for the phrase turns out to be a pretty effective way of stalking him wherever he posts. Oh, and LeanLeft is getting quote, as near as I can tell, without attribution.)

Actually the reading comprehension failure seems to be on your part guys, sorry.

The bulk of the first link sites similar comments to what I have made and even ridicules the left for their position. He also cites very clearly that he thinks the push for marriage is a push for moral approval. Even the last paragraph he is telling people like yourselves to shut up.

The second article, Elton John says this: “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership”. So either he is lying and he is not happy with a civil partnership, or he is being honest and citing the fact that his ability to have equal rights is the important thing.

In the third article, this is quite telling: “I have been bothered by the arrogant and shallow invoking of the Civil Rights Movement that many white gays and lesbians have continued to bludgeon the Black community with, and the racist onslaught that has been unleashed since the passing of Prop 8 with Black voters in California being blamed for its passing.” So the people who are pushing for gay rights see no problem in being racist in their attacks on non supporters.

As far as the fourth article goes, I’m not surprised that you scoured the article looking for one line you could quote while ignoring the entire following section: “But instead, gay marriage zealots, many of whom admit that they themselves don’t wish to get married, insist on characterising civil unions as ‘second class’, ’social apartheid’ or ‘riding at the back of the bus’. I’d like to think it was merely a ploy to make fully-recognised civil unions more achievable, but many really seem to believe their own shrill propaganda. Worse, they’ve made even more of a fetish of the word ‘marriage’ than the religious right they rail against.

In the UK, where nationally recognised same-sex civil unions with the same legal status as marriage – called civil partnerships – were introduced in 2004 there is little or no appetite now for gay marriage. In my experience few lesbians or gays feel they are ‘riding at the back of the bus’. Maybe because in many ways they’re actually riding at the front.”

You see guys, rather than cherry picking one line here or there, I actually read the entire links and looked at the overall context of what was being said. The left is incredibly skilled at picking little pieces here or there while ignoring the actual entire context. It makes for great talking points, easy political scores and supposed support for your argument. But in reality, it shows just how shallow and narrow-minded you can be.

And LarryE > You say “That is, unlike you, not one of them said same-sex relationships were of some sufficiently inferior or damaging kind such that “societal acceptance” of their “sexual” – an adjective I seriously doubt you would apply to heterosexual couples – relationship must be deliberately and consciously withheld.” I have never said it must be deliberately and consciously withheld. What I have said is that societal acceptance should not be forced. Besides, if you guys are being honest, you don’t believe societal acceptance is what is being sought, but rather simply equality. Are you being honest? Or are you lying?

Big U:

So if I understand your summation of Elton John’s position correctly, it boils down to “I’m fine with not having that right, so why should anyone else be bothered by not having it?” Not exactly compelling.

With respect to the third link, you’ve got it wrong there, too. Generally speaking, it hasn’t been gay rights activist who have blamed “the Black community” for Prop 8. It’s been sneering conservatives who relish in the opportunity to pit one aggrieved group against another. (For the most part, the blame the Mormon church, and rightly so.) And for whatever it’s worth, minority voters didn’t cause Prop 8 to succeed — it was old voters.

As to the fourth article, I’ll go ahead and say it: that guy’s an asshole. But do you really think finding a few people who agree with you makes your position okay? I can find plenty of people who call for the destruction of Israel, and I’m glad to know my being able to do so makes that position defensible.

Finally, perhaps people in the UK don’t feel like they’re being “forced to ride in the back of the bus” because their nation doesn’t have a shameful history of actually forcing people to ride in the back of the bus, or a major political party, only very recently removed from power, whose official position is still to deny them any rights whatsoever. In the US, we’re not so fortunate.

The left is incredibly skilled at picking little pieces here or there while ignoring the actual entire context.

With that statement, you have revealed a stunning ignorance of the American political landscape and political discourse.

I have never said it must be deliberately and consciously withheld. What I have said is that societal acceptance should not be forced.

And that government recognition is tantamount to forced societal acceptance, and that as such, government recognition should be deliberately and consciously withheld. But that’s a flawed premise anyway. As I said way the hell upthread, the fact that the government allows casinos in no way forces you to approve of casinos, and in no way stops you from railing against the evil effects of casino gambling. Vancouver’s “shooting galleries” don’t mean that the entire population of Vancouver is forced to accept that there’s nothing wrong with shooting heroin.

reCAPTCHA: casual comme (which I initially read as “casual commie”)
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

Your last paragraph is interesting tgirsch because Canadian experience has proven that speaking out against gay marriage can very often result in persecution (including human rights tribunals which attack thought, and losing jobs for expressing a personal opinion on personal time).
And the “shooting gallery” issue is a strawman issue but just for you, here’s a link showing what happens when a person speaks out against something that left-wing activists advocate for: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Hedges_Donald_1287543106.aspx

If you do not believe governmental approval is pushing for societal approval, then the idea of the ten commandments being posted in legal institutes should not have bothered you or anyone else on the left. After all, just because they are posted it does not mean the government is forcing anyone to agree with it. Right?

…Yeah, except for that pesky little thing about the separation of church and state. And, you know, how it doesn’t mean they endorse one religion, or as you might call it, “lifestyle” over the other because they also erect homages to Islam throughout the halls of our court systems.

Geez, at least F/M, and maybe L, kept his tripe to < 50 words per post…

I have never said it must be deliberately and consciously withheld.

That’s complete bullshit from someone who can’t even summon up the integrity to stand by his own words when pushed.

In response to T’s suggestion of a difference between government approving something and merely allowing it, you said:

“Actually tgirsch, society DOES approve of gambling and yes, any state that allows casino gambling DOES approve of it.

“Also, exactly what ‘right’ is being accessed? The ‘right’ to have society give their stamp of approval to your sexual relationship.”

Later, you said:

“I disagree with them being allowed to marry.”

You specifically objected to same-sex marriage and the only reason you’ve offered is that it puts a “stamp of approval to your sexual relationship.” That is, “society” must deliberately refuse to put a “stamp of approval” on same-sex “sexual relationships” – again, an adjective I doubt you would apply to heterosexual marriages – by recognizing same-sex marriage. There is no other rational interpretation of what you’ve said here.

So I’m not going to accept any “we never said the specific word ‘imminent’” defense that tries to make the presence or absence of particular words the issue rather than what was expressed. You said that same-sex couples must not be allowed to marry because that would mean society is giving “approval” to same-sex “sexual relationships.” Period.

And don’t bother with the “cherry-picking” crap; I can’t be held responsible if quoting you makes you look bad.

(Here comes the “oh, no, you’re the real liar” post.)

Captcha phrase” 1/4 grind. That’s some weak coffee.
LarryE´s last blog ..So, are you satisfied now?

Big U:

The hole in your logic is so glaringly huge, I’m a little surprised you don’t see it. You’ve effectively just argued that the government recognizing your right to post the Ten Commandments is exactly the same thing as the government erecting an official monument on public land to the Ten Commandments. But as Digg notes, here in the states we have this thing called the Bill of Rights, the first amendment of which prohibits the government from prosecuting anyone for expressing unpopular views, which is why these shitheads are free to embarrass themselves and the country in public.

Finally, as far as persecution is concerned, there are shitheads both left and right who will engage in over-the-top rhetoric to trivialize and vilify their political opponents, but in the US, the right’s track record is far worse. It wasn’t that long ago that anyone who dared to criticize the president’s “war on terror” in any way was accused by prominent right-wing figures both inside and outside of government of aiding and abetting al-Qaeda, treason, etc. (Ironically, those same people are now the most vocal and shrill critics of the current president.) And yes, you had left-wing nutjobs comparing Bush to Hitler, just as you have right-wing nutjobs comparing Obama to Hitler today. The key difference there is that those left-wing nutjobs were obscure figures who rarely if ever got any legitimacy from the mainstream left, whereas today’s right-wing nutjobs are actively praised by the most popular right-wing pundits and politicians, and have a leading cable network promoting their views. In other words, before you even start, apples != oranges.
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

Don’t forget the other difference between comparing Bush to Hitler and comparing Obama to Hitler. Bush was quite happy to say that it was okay to torture people. Obama, whatever his failings in actually closing Gitmo and such, at least think he should look bad for letting torture happen.

T:

Beat me to the punch on the Ten Commandments issue.

And since there have been two references to So-and-So is Hitler I get to repost one of my favorite Daily Show bits of all time! It and a good, solid smack across the back of the head should come standard with any “Obama is Hitler!” statement.

Judd:

Cut it out. You know it wigs me out when we agree on stuff.

Great Daily Show link, by the way. Did you see the one this week where Stewart does Glenn Beck? Fan-fracking-tastic!
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

You think it wigs you out? When I find myself in agreement with the general consensus here I’m forced to stop and try to figure out how I might be wrong on the issue. It’s probably good that you, Barbie and I will all be out for a couple days though. If this thread goes on much longer then the three of us will be getting together with Dan, Digg and Larry to sing Kumbaya and do trust falls.

Good lord! I’ve only seen Beck’s song-and-dance a couple times but I fear just that was enough for me to get the bulk of what I just was Stewart do. That clip was a little bittersweet though. As my disaffection with the right side of the blogosphere has grown there have been more and more things I was blissfully unaware of being perpetrated by the right as they descend into madness. The first was Conservapedia’s Conservative Bible Project (or really Conservapedia itself) which KTK brought me up to speed on. It just got worse.

Before a few minutes ago I had never heard of The 9/12 Project.

Barbie, if you read this before you leave you can find me by the pool at the hotel where I’ll be surrounded by multiple empty Singapore Slings.

the three of us will be getting together with Dan, Digg and Larry to sing Kumbaya and do trust falls.

Now, there’s an image to be reckoned with.

Except that I have trouble with trust falls: I can never fall to my right.
LarryE´s last blog ..So, are you satisfied now?

You know, looking at the lyrics (if they can be called that), um, not very amenable to an atheist. Maybe something a little more grounded?

Dan:

*laughs* Kumbaya and trust falls is an expression I’m sure I stole from someone. I’ll admit to not knowing much about the song beyond that it’s supposed to be hippie folk music, which I thought might go over well here. Upon examining the “lyrics” though I think your last post may be the greatest point you’ve ever had.

I’ll amend my earlier remark to say “Fat Bottomed Girls”. Everyone loves that song, right?

Judd: I wouldn’t do trust falls with you anyways. The good doctor and I are slated to get in at 5:00pm. Have fun napping on the beach, and see you tomorrow!
Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Posting forcast: slim to none. Most likely “slim” because I need procrastination material.

“Kumbaya” apparently literally means “come by here.” The song is generally thought to be a Gullah spiritual that expresses the joy of the unity of people. Unfortunately, because the words and melody were so simple, it became a campfire favorite to the point of becoming a cliche.
LarryE´s last blog ..Veterans Day, 2009

Yeah, LarryE, which of course bundles with it all the fun of both thanklessly appropriating minority culture while at the same time holding up their dialect for ridicule, with a huge dose of cultural ignorance, suburbanite entitlement, and tacit endorsement of theism as the default route to well-socialized behavior. In fact, I’m not sure you could find a song that’s more patently regressive.

By ‘thanklessly’, I of course mean ‘ungratefully’, which word I appear to have temporarily lost from my vocabulary when I posted last.