|
 |
February 25, 2004 YEAH, THAT ABOUT COVERS IT....Via Sully:
Comments
You see - I just knew at least some people thought the FMA meant we were going to take all the homos out back and shoot them . . . Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 03:20 PM | PERMALINKI remember defending Sully at one time in this space. And while no one chewed out my ass directly, there were more than a few sideswipes.
Absoulutely classic. I love it! How proud the Republicans must be. They stole my vote, and now they'll squash the rights of fellow citizens--right there in the 28th amendment. "They hate us for our freedoms!" Riiiiiiiiiiight. Posted by: paradox at February 25, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINK-pea-, This cartoon is obviously right about what Bush is proposing. But NOW I UNDERSTAND what Bush is REALLY PROPOSING: Amendment #1: Freedom of speech and religion. Except for homos. Amendment #2: [Never mind, we don't want to talk about that one.] Amendment #3: No quartering soldiers. Except for homos. Amendment #4: Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Except for homos. Amendment #5: Right of due process. Except for homos. Amendment #6: Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. Except for homos. Amendment #7: Right to civil jury. Except for homos. Amendment #8: No cruel and unusual punishment. Except for homos. Amendment #9: Other rights are retained by the people. Except for homos. Amendment #10: Undelegated powers reserved to the people. Except for homos.
Now Al, It was tough love, really. Jeez. I support gay marriage and all, but the hate and hysteria of the pro-gay marriage folks is really astounding. Posted by: Al at February 25, 2004 03:40 PM | PERMALINK"They hate us for our freedoms!" Exactly. The freedom to go to Canada and marry gay -- a freedom no one else on Earth can claim, geographically. Except maybe Greenlanders. Posted by: Grumpy at February 25, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKI must have missed the section of the FMA that takes away homosexuals' rights to: (1) freely exercise their religion (if any); (2) speak free from government interference (to the same extent as non-homosexuals, anyway); (3) be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; (4) not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; (5) not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments; (6) vote in state and federal elections; and (7) otherwise exercise the CONSTITUTIONAL rights that every other U.S. citizen enjoys. This topic is certainly worthy of reasoned debate, and reasonable people can differ on the need for the FMA and/or whether gay marriage is a good, bad or neutral thing, but the picture for this post doesn't further that debate -- it may be funny to die-hard lefties and Bush-haters, but that's about it. Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at February 25, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKOh, and some French fishermen on St. Pierre-et-Miquelon. And, of course, all of Beligum and Netherlands (the "chocolate makers"). Posted by: Grumpy at February 25, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKHate and hysteria? The only hate and hysteria I see is directed at me and my family from the radical right. After all, we aren't trying to make anyone else into second class citizens. Posted by: Terrance at February 25, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKBut Charlie - isn't just shooting all the fags the best way to show them that we love them, and want to help them stop sinning? Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 25, 2004 03:45 PM | PERMALINKOK. I emailed that to my GOP family. They won't like it. But it'll stay with them. Posted by: John Isbell at February 25, 2004 03:48 PM | PERMALINKGrumpy, I was about to let your terrible geography slide, but now... ONLY the US is linked by land to Canada. Period. The last time it wasn't so (ice age), there was neither a thing called US nor Canada. Posted by: ch2 at February 25, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKAbsolutely not, Occam's Cuisinart. Any other questions? Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINKSome people are taking the literal meaning of this cartoon WAAAAAAAY to seriously. Guess what? Cartoonists coin is hyperbole. Often, their clarity through exaggeration makes the truth more clear. Does this cartoon mean that the FMA excludes gays from Article I (The legislative branch). No. Does it mean that Bush is crudely defacing the Constitution with discrimination? Yes, and it makes that point powerfully. Sheesh. It's like some of you have never read a political cartoon before. It's political! It's a cartoon! Oh no! It's supposed to editorialize. Get a grip. Posted by: emjaycue at February 25, 2004 03:51 PM | PERMALINKPatriot Act did away with Amendments #5 and #7 already, anyway.... :( Posted by: AF at February 25, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINKExcept for the signature won't be "GWB" since the president has no role in amending the constitution. Instead it should be "2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures." Posted by: Ugh at February 25, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKDoes anyone else see a little unintended irony in this cartoon? After all, when the document pictured was written, it essentially *did* say "Except for women, blacks, non-property holders..." This latest debate shows that our grand experiment is still very much a work in progress. Posted by: Toast at February 25, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINK"I must have missed the section of the FMA that takes away homosexuals' rights to: (1) freely exercise their religion" Well, any religion that would like to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples is clearly not a 'real' religion, by the definition of the amendment, is it? Posted by: JW at February 25, 2004 04:02 PM | PERMALINKPatriot Act did away with Amendments #5 and #7 already, anyway.... :( And McCain-Feingold did away with Amendment #1... :( Posted by: Al at February 25, 2004 04:03 PM | PERMALINKYeah, c'mon guys. You're being too hard on the shrub. All he wants to do is enshrine bigotry in the constitution wrt to SOME rights. Not ALL of them. Geez. (/idiocy) Fuckers. This will make a great docudrama in 20 years. Guess what part y'all are playing? Posted by: epist at February 25, 2004 04:06 PM | PERMALINKUgh is right. This cartoon makes no sense! It's like the "stinky I-SLAM" B.C. cartoon! Hey, ch2, ever hear of maritime borders?? :) Posted by: Grumpy at February 25, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKhey Grumpy, :) "The freedom to go to Canada and marry gay -- a freedom no one else on Earth can claim, geographically. Except maybe Greenlanders." The freedom to go to Canada easily is STRICTLY an American freedom. Any other country's residents need to take an airplane, or worse, a slow boat (no real advantage in being a Maritime neighbor). Posted by: ch2 at February 25, 2004 04:28 PM | PERMALINKCharlie; Okay, so no taking them out back and shooting them - I suppose
beating them and stripping them and tying them to a fencepost with
barbed wire is a good way to show our compassion for them to get them to
stop sinning? No? Al; Please. If money were speech, I could open my mouth and pull out a dollar bill. Don't even get me started on the use of PUBLIC AIRWAVES for politically slanted messages, like CBS's refusal to air the moveon.org commercial during the Superbowl. Not to mention the ability of large corporations to make multimillion dollar campaign donations. Why would a regular voting citizen have a $2000 cap, and a corporation not? Doesn't the Constitution start off with "We the People"? Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 25, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINKSomeone's losing it. I guess that 's why I call them wingnuts. Posted by: ch2 at February 25, 2004 04:36 PM | PERMALINKOccam's Cuisinart - Wouldn't running moveon's add be exactly what you say, "use of PUBLIC AIRWAVES for politically slanted messages"? Posted by: Ugh at February 25, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINKUgh, Giving both sides a voice is fair. Giving ONE side a voice is slanted. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 25, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINK"7) otherwise exercise the CONSTITUTIONAL rights that every other U.S. citizen enjoys." They only have these rights because of the Lawrence decision, from which Scalia and presumptively any Justice Bush would nominate vehemently dissented. The concept here, is if the nation may discriminate against gays
simply because there are gays, those 9-17 or so rights become privileges
granted to gays by the majority. So which constitutional rights don't gays have? And Bob, where in
the constitution does it protect a right to sodomy? I'll even let you
use the Lawrence opinion. It doesn't even bother to say what in the
constitution protects the right. Good for Mike Luckovich! This is the issue of the generation, folks. Just like the civil rights for blacks, which side you're on in this issue will be determinant for some time to come... Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 25, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKShut up you damn homos!!!!! I just love it that the so called "right" wing realises they're wrong. Posted by: smalfish at February 25, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKOccam, What are you talking about? Here's what I am referring to: McCain-Feingold bans you and me - not the candiadates, you and me - from buying an advertisement to support our candidates within 60 days of the election, except with "hard money". I'm not talking about donating money to a candidate. I'm not talking about donating money to a party. I'm talking about me and other people I know just buying an ad to tell people what I think about the candidates. That's banned. Face it - the First Amendment has basically been repealed. Freedom of speech is dead. Any restrictions of civil liberties under the Patriot Act are so neglible in comparison that they are hardly worth mentioning. Posted by: Al at February 25, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINK"Face it - the First Amendment has basically been repealed. Freedom of speech is dead. Any restrictions of civil liberties under the Patriot Act are so neglible in comparison that they are hardly worth mentioning" Actually I think the so-called "free speech zones" are a restriction
on freedom of speech.Also what is it that Ashcroft is doing making all
those anti-war groups give up their private info just because they're
using the first amendment?I do believe the first amendment IS
dead.Another reason to give up on this administration.They've proven
their against the bill op rights. "So which constitutional rights don't gays have? And Bob, where in the constitution does it protect a right to sodomy?" And why were the post civil war amendments needed? Aren't they redundant? No, because black were not full citizens, and did not have the *rights* whites did. And the constitution had to be amended. If gaysd are not full citizens, simply because they are gay, then we as a majority may indeed take their voting rights away by simple statute. Posted by: bob mcmanus at February 25, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKWell, Sully for once is right on target. I sure hope he keeps it up, and doesn't weasel out of his position. And ends up supporting Bush. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 25, 2004 05:18 PM | PERMALINKDo you understand that Illinois may not pass a law taking the vote away from Presbyterians, simply because they don't like that religion? That before Lawrence, they could do that to gays at will, and tho a court may overturn the law, it would have no valid grounds for doing so? That after the FMA is passed, gays are in the position of the second paragraph above, that they vote if we feel like it? Posted by: bob mcmanus at February 25, 2004 05:22 PM | PERMALINKOccam's Cuisinart: "I suppose beating them and stripping them and tying them to a fencepost with barbed wire is a good way to show our compassion for them to get them to stop sinning?" When did the government do THAT?! "How about just institutionalized ridicule then?" No. "Do you think that will stop them from sinning and save their souls?" No. "How about we just deny them the same rights straight people have?" We aren't. They have EXACTLY the same rights straight people have. "Would that help you sleep at night knowing that you're keeping them from sticking their wee-wees into each other's bottoms and making baby jesus cry?" Is that like that question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" I don't lose any sleep over this. P.S. Don't get me started on McCain-Feingold either. Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINKThis may be off subject but it bears constant repeating: The only people who would EVER vote for Bush (Worst President Ever) in '04 are either rich and evil or ignorant. His whole administration is indefensible by any real patriot. I'm
with Smalfish, the anti-Coulter. a vote for Bush WPE is traitorous. and
if you are a Republican and truly believe in the principles of the
G.O.P. (i.e. smaller government, less spending) then it is time to
abandon your party's leader. They do not have the same rights heteros have. If they have some rights, but not others; if we may determine which rights they have, they have no *rights* at all. For we can do that to no other citizens. Posted by: bob mcmanus at February 25, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKAdjective: "This may be off subject but it bears constant repeating . . ." Oh, I think this type of irrational vindictive hate is EXACTLY "on topic" (and they say I'm "hateful" : ) "The only people who would EVER vote for Bush (Worst President Ever) in '04 are either rich and evil or ignorant." I'm neither rich nor ignorant (and I don't think I'm evil, although I guess I could be so delusionally evil that I don't even know it) and unless something dramatic changes, I'm voting for Bush in 2004. bob mcmanus: "They do not have the same rights heteros have. If they have some rights, but not others; if we may determine which rights they have, they have no *rights* at all." They can marry someone of the opposite sex - so can I. They can't marry someone of the same sex - neither can I. What am I missing, Bob? Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 05:42 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, what compelling reason can you offer for the state to take the extraordinary step of telling two people they cannot marry? This is clearly discriminatory. A non discriminatory ammendment would make marriage illegal when at least one partner is sexually attracted to the other. Posted by: Boronx at February 25, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINKAl, your shameful quibbling makes me sick. The message of that Cartoon is perfectly clear: The Constitution protects all Americans. Bush wants that to exclude homosexuals. That you pretend not to understand speaks volumes. Charlie is asked: "How about we just deny them the same rights straight people have?" Charlie responds: We aren't. They have EXACTLY the same rights straight people have. Charlie is further asked: "How can you say that anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory?" Charlie responds: "Everyone has exactly the same rights. Everyone is perfectly free to marry a person of the same race. What's the problem?" Posted by: Laertes at February 25, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINKCharlie - the argument that gay people can marry people of the opposite sex is sophistry. I am not, under current law, allowed to marry the person I want to commit myself to, to spend my life with. My best friend, who isn't gay, can. How are we treated equally by the law? The form may be equal. But the content isn't. Posted by: aphrael at February 25, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKFriends, please bear in mind that the Bush anti-gay amendment is half a diversionary tactic, designed to distract us from the many places where Bush's veil of deception has worn through, and half a sop to the extreme religious right. The proposed amendment has no chance of passage. None. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate to debate whether gays should be denied the same opporunities for partnership as heterosexuals, and whether the Constitution should be amended for the first time in history to restrict personal freedoms. Just remember that the Rove behind the curtain is trying to take your eyes off the mushrooming evidence of Bush's appalling failure as president. Posted by: Bassfish at February 25, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINKI predict Charlie's about done with this thread. There's really no answer to the charge that his argument is PRECISELY the same form as arguments in favor of anti-miscegenation laws. He'll either slink away quietly or evade the topic. Posted by: Laertes at February 25, 2004 05:59 PM | PERMALINKI'm confused. I can be married to my wife, that much I understand. Two men can't marry each other that also I get. Now, here is where I get lost. If my wife and I only have anal sex(and a little oral pleasure tossed in now and again, kind of like two gay men I would suppose) and we we never have kids, just how exactlly is that different from the two men who aren't allowed to get married? Am I a sinner too? Should my marriage be anulled since I got it on false pretenses that I would have good, normal, man on top sex? Posted by: magurakurin at February 25, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKWhat will the state do in cases of gender ambiguity? Posted by: Boronx at February 25, 2004 06:24 PM | PERMALINKThat's a good question, Boronx, but it looks like you won't be getting an answer. Charlie seems to have vanished. Go figure. Posted by: Laertes at February 25, 2004 06:28 PM | PERMALINKConsenting adults should have the fundamental right to make choices as to whom they share a bed with, and the state (and especially the federal government) should stay out of the bedroom as long as no one is getting hurt. Can we agree on that? If the right to make these personal choices is fundamental, the state has no business interfering with such personal choices unless the interference is necessary to further a compelling state interest. So I pose the question to those who believe that gays should be denied the same civil opportunities for partnership as heterosexuals: What is the compelling state interest you believe is served by restricting the rights of gays to marry, and why is banning gay marriage necessary to protect this interest? Posted by: Bassfish at February 25, 2004 06:28 PM | PERMALINKAnybody catch the Log Cabin Republican response? Posted by: David at February 25, 2004 06:33 PM | PERMALINKwhere in the constitution does it protect a right to sodomy? Here: IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The state needs to have reasons for restricting people's freedom. Posted by: cerebrocrat at February 25, 2004 07:03 PM | PERMALINKI have a question. To start, recall that if you leave one state and move to another you lose the welfare entitlements of the state that you leave and acquire those of the state that you move to. Does anybody here really believe that the legal entitlements of marriage ought to be the same? The defense of marriage act, which passed Congress by wide majorities, essentially tried to establish that result as applied to same-sex marriage. Kerry voted against it. Kerry says that marriage ought to be left to the states, which would probably result in same-sex marriages in some states, but not others. The freedom of marriage ammendment, if passed by the Congress with supermajorities and by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, would establish something similar. Bush favors that, but he isn't needed, and couldn't veto an ammendment he didn't like. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 25, 2004 07:06 PM | PERMALINK Could someone please tell me what rights are denied homosexuals? They're free to marry anyone who'll have them, just like everyone else. Oh, homosexuals are demanding that marriage be redefined? And fathers should be permitted to marry their sons? And brothers? And unelected judges should write new laws permitting polygamy? If the people want to amend the constitution, why should you morons blame it on the President. It's up to we the people to elect the representatives who support our beliefs -- not unelected judges. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 25, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINK70% OF EXISTING MARRIAGES MAY ALREADY BE GAY New Study Jolts White House The Bush White House’s plan to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages suffered a surprising setback today as a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay. The study, conducted by Dr. Charles Cranborn of the University of Minnesota, confirmed what many social scientists have long suspected: that within the first five years of marriages, most men become, for all intents and purposes, gay. “Soon after marrying, most men stop hitting on women and start shopping for furniture,” Dr. Cranborn said. “Scientifically speaking, how gay is that?” Within ten years of marriage, Dr. Cranborn added, a significant number of married men stop having sex with women altogether. “There’s only one way to describe someone who does not have sex with women, does not hit on women, and spends his free time shopping for furniture,” Dr. Cranborn added. “That word, to be scientific about it, is gay.” FROM borowitzreport.com VIA TBOGG Posted by: JAMES at February 25, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINKHere is the real face of the enemy: http://www2.mountaineagle.com/NF/omf/eagle/opinion_story.html?[rkey=0022801+[cr=gdn Every Republican must be made to wear this around their neck. If they want to take it off, they must leave the Party and denounce the Party. Until then, they must wear it: every single one of them, every minute of every day. Posted by: Frank Wilhoit at February 25, 2004 07:33 PM | PERMALINKHey Norman, if homosexuals are allowed to marry they won't be getting special rights. You too then can marry the man of your chosing. Posted by: Rob at February 25, 2004 07:36 PM | PERMALINKWhen White Trash attacks: http://www2.mountaineagle.com/NF/omf/eagle/opinion_story.html?[rkey=0022801+[cr=gdn Why is it the walking shit that always thinks it speaks for God? Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 25, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKYa beat me to it, Frank. I say we turn on the showers and fire the ovens for these animals. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 25, 2004 07:39 PM | PERMALINKRob, Norman's already my bitch, he's just afraid of commitment. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 25, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINKThe Onion hit it out of the park today with their "Mandatory Gay Marriage" article. The penultimate paragraph is my personal favorite. Posted by: Whyaduck at February 25, 2004 09:08 PM | PERMALINKThere is of course no more constitutional sanction for vaginal sex than for any other kind. There doesn't need to be: the government has to show a public interest that warrants intruding on privacy, and there simply isn't any such interes when it comes to consensual sex. (Or the lack thereof, come to that: the cops don't have the constitutional right to check if you're snuggling too much and not screwing enough.) Nor do we require proof of consummation for marriages now - it's a safe bet that most married couples do have sex, but it's not mandatory and there's no difference in legal standing between those couples getting a lot and those getting none. Nor, of course, do all gay men engage in anal sex. Sex of any kind is thoroughly irrelevant when it comes to the legal recognition of the desire to make a commitment to shared life that is civil marriage. How much sex and what sort a couple may have had bears not at all when it's time to, for instance, visit the dying loved one at the end of life, or deal with matters of inheritance. One could perhaps have some fun with the extent to which the opponents of marriage for all Americans are so obsessed with sex. On other sites, I have read many thoughtful comments on the pros and
cons of same sex marriage. Here, it's just flamethrowing, acid spewing,
mouthful of curses drivel. Part of this issue is you can't have it both
ways. The Lawrence decision to a state's right to make laws it's
citizens desired and said no, there is a federal interest and you can't
make that law. Now the Dems say "No. We don't need a federal amendment
or law. Marriage should be left up to the states" I heard that from
Kerry today. Which is it? If it's state's rights, then other
controversial decisions should be up to the states. Abortion. Incest.
Polygomy. Low blow... Uncalled for. Typical liberal mud-slinging. Conservatives vote their conscience and morales and are hammered for it. The only opinioins that liberals will allow are their own..... Typical. 1SG JC Chartier Ohhh, that's just the begginning JC and thanks for serving American and helping to keep us safe and end the scourge of Islamic terrorism. They are the ones who want to discriminate. BUT YET THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF A GAY MAN TO MARRY A GAY WOMEN SO THAY CAN PRODUCE OFFSPRING. GO FIGURE Posted by: keiser at February 26, 2004 01:39 AM | PERMALINKThis is typical, you say you want rights for all, buy GAY marriage by definition exceludes those that aren't gay. You are bigots, you discriminate. It should be called same-sex marriage and all should be able to participate. No one is stopping gays from marrying, a marriage is a union between a man and a women and gays have that so-called RIGHT. But you want gays to have same-sex marriages, but want to exclude heterosexuals from the same RIGHT. Your bigots! Posted by: keiser at February 26, 2004 01:46 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: I'm neither rich nor ignorant (and I don't think I'm evil, although I guess I could be so delusionally evil that I don't even know it) and unless something dramatic changes, I'm voting for Bush in 2004. and I spluttered coffee all over the screen. Charlie, I guess this is the most perfect example of ignorance not knowing itself that I've ever seen. Of course you're going to vote Bush in November: you've been displaying your ignorance all over Calpundit since the first time I noticed you. (I wouldn't venture to judge the "evil" part, though your tortured version of Christianity enshrining hate as a central value does make me cringe.) Norman Rogers claimed: Could someone please tell me what rights are denied homosexuals? They're free to marry anyone who'll have them, just like everyone else. No, no, Norman: you're missing the point. Gays are not free to marry "anyone who'll have them" - they are explicitly excluded from marrying "anyone who'll have them". That's the whole point of this proposed Constitutional amendment - to prevent them from being free to marry "anyone who'll have them". Keiser, But you want gays to have same-sex marriages, but want to exclude heterosexuals from the same RIGHT. Huh? No one does a sexuality-check at City Hall: if two straight men want to get married, they certainly will have that right. What made you think they wouldn't? Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 26, 2004 02:33 AM | PERMALINKHere, it's just flamethrowing, acid spewing, mouthful of curses drivel. Now don't be so hard on our conservative guests. I'm sure they do their best. Besides, the whole question's rendered moot when the best argument conservatives can come up with is "Well, homos can marry women, too." Posted by: Paul at February 26, 2004 05:58 AM | PERMALINK Low blow... Uncalled for. Typical liberal mud-slinging.
Conservatives vote their conscience and morales and are hammered for it.
The only opinioins that liberals will allow are their own..... Typical.
Conservatives are trying to write their superstitions into our constitution. Rot in your own hell. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 26, 2004 06:05 AM | PERMALINKOne thing: Why isn't Bush advancing the anti-abortion amendment he and the religious right want so much? It would affect so many more lives. Answer: because this gay marriage is a bullying wedge issue that they think will work. Once again, the bully chooses the victim they hope will not fight back...meanwhile packing the courts until they have unchallenged power. Posted by: Brian at February 26, 2004 06:33 AM | PERMALINKHell, Brian, W isn't doing jack about all those blastocysts destroyed every day in fertility clinics all over the country. Those are "people," too, if you grant the Cult of the Unborn (est. 1857) its weird premise. As with every other alleged conservative value, this one notably absent in the actual policies of conservatives. They'll jack off the Trailer Park's superstitions in an election year, and then go right back to shoveling billions of taxpayer dollars to their sugar-daddies. Repeat if necessary. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 26, 2004 06:39 AM | PERMALINK On other sites, I have read many thoughtful comments on the pros
and cons of same sex marriage. Here, it's just flamethrowing, acid
spewing, mouthful of curses drivel. As for thoughtful comments, I haven't seen one reasoned argument against gay marriage. I have seen superstition, constitutional and historical ignorance, slippery slopes and other fallacies, laughable "Quest for Fire" style speculation about the basis of civilization, etc. This was never going to be a reasoned debate, it's simply polemics. On one side, people are being manipulated by their superstitions. People that stupid deserve it, imho. On the other side, people who already have families and who are doing the work of raising children, in many cases, want the same rights as other couples. Since you refer to the latter as "activists," engage in the former fallacies and smears, and can't even spell the non-sequiturs behind which you are hiding, I know what you are, and I am showing you the respect you deserve when you stoop so low to hurt so many people: fuck you. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 26, 2004 06:52 AM | PERMALINKrethugs try to toss around the notion that dem mayors, county officials and unelected judges (aside: LOL, the shrub wasn't elected, either) are breaking or making laws, but then there's this: In Wisconsin, Gov. James E. Doyle, also a Democrat, announced Wednesday that the state had established a Web site pointing consumers to three Canadian pharmacies that, Mr. Doyle said, have been found to be reliable sources of safe medicines. Two of the pharmacies are already listed on a similar Web site established in January by Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican. The Bush administration criticized the Minnesota site this week. Peter J. Pitts, a spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration, said the state was "breaking both American and Canadian law." But the government did not explicitly threaten to shut down the site. Governor Doyle said the Bush administration continued to "obstruct, criticize and undermine every effort to lower the price of prescription drugs, instead of working with states to make the process easier." See, even rethug governors are getting into the act! Hell, politically, these days it's easy to break stupid laws. Why, there are times when I'm driving that I inadvertantly nudge over the speed limit by a few mph (though I'm sure our conservative friends on this site never ever do that:) Posted by: dm at February 26, 2004 06:58 AM | PERMALINKIts not just John Kerry who calls Republicans terrorists...Its his wife as well: She also calls Republicans un-American...so don't complain when a little guff comes your way. QUOTE (Teresa Heiz Kerry Ketchup): "What has been most damaging, I think — to all of us — about many of the actions of this administration has been the cynicism with which they have perpetrated their positions and with which they have used us to trap us and to, in a sense, terrorize us, because they paralyze us. And do you know what? That is un-American, in my book." Now who's questioning who's patriotism? look for sullivan to vote for bush anyway... Kesier, you have to realise that nobody can take you seriously when
you've demonstrated (over and over again) that you just make stuff up.
And when asked to cite facts to back up your assertions, you just move
on randomly and make more stuff up. On other sites, I have read many thoughtful comments on the pros and cons of same sex marriage. Here, it's just flamethrowing, acid spewing, mouthful of curses drivel. I'd noticed this myself. Those other sites must have smarter bigots. Posted by: Laertes at February 26, 2004 08:00 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "I'm neither rich nor ignorant" Dunno about the rich part, but you've definitely demonstrated your ignorance, particularly on the issue of homosexuality. Your arguments have been demolished and your sources discredited. And your bigotry, your disconnection from reality, and profound ignorance displayed for all to see. It is not at all surprising to find that someone who advances the theory that George Bush wasn't AWOL because he was secretly working on a mission for his father or that gay marriage will destroy all of civilization because everyone will turn to gay marriages once they're available would vote for George Bush. Ignorance always turns to ignorance. Posted by: PaulB at February 26, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINKMeatss wrote: "The Lawrence decision to a state's right to make laws it's citizens desired and said no, there is a federal interest and you can't make that law." Speaking of ignorance.... You might want to take another look at the Lawrence decision, Meatss, since it doesn't even remotely resemble what you just wrote. "Federal interest" was no part of that decision. "If it's state's rights, then other controversial decisions should be up to the states." Certainly, unless those states are acting contrary to the U.S. Constitution or to their own Constitutions. Posted by: PaulB at February 26, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINKMeatss wrote: "You're trying to undo thousands of years of cultural" You might want to study a little history, since this characterization of history is simply wrong. Marriage and relationships have taken many forms over the past "thousands of years." "and hundreds of years of legal pecedent, in a legal system that holds the issue of precendent to be one of the highest prioities." Actually, there is no direct "pecedent" or "precendent" [sic] for this. The current indirect precedents, such as Lawrence or Loving, actually favor gay marriage. In any case, the courts have an obligation to overturn previous precedents when those earlier cases were clearly decided incorrectly, most recently Bowers v. Hardwick. I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your diatribe, since it was unencumbered by anything resembling an actual fact. Posted by: PaulB at February 26, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINKSo how is the precedent of marriage clearly incorrect? Where are your historical facts that contrdict that marriage has a consistant basis of that being between a man and a woman? Posted by: Meatss at February 26, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKNow who's questioning who's patriotism? Keiser, d00d, you'd be taken much more seriously if you could somehow manage to spell your own name correctly. Or maybe not. Posted by: Paolo Maldini at February 26, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKMarriage between 1 man and several women was often a possibility for royalty, particularly in Biblical times, if one believes his sort of thing. I understand the argument advanced on behalf of same sex marriage. Is there an argument advanced against it that consists of anything more than an appeal to "decency, morality, and tradition?" In short, is there any compelling reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other? Other than to state that it would somehow undermine the sanctity of the institution of marriage, without explicitly arguing how, I have not heard anyone argue credibly against same sex marriage. AT least for the sake of argument, I would appreciate someone trying to formulate a reasoned argument as to why this should be illegal. Posted by: Roland at February 26, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINKJust to track back a bit, to restrict campaign DUMB question - did Alabama ever get rid of the interracial-marriage ban from their state constitution (back in 2000) or is it still on the books? CNN GUARDIAN UK ================================== Posted by: toogoofy at February 26, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKTo this day (if I understand correctly) a muslim in good standing (in some countries) can marry up to four wives. He just has to be able to prove that he can support them all. Many of the the Southwestern Native American tribes had a boy-wife system (as any Introduction to Cultural Anthropology class will show) where a family would 'rent' out a young son to act as a wife (doing ALL the duties a wife would perform) to a wealthy/Big wig member of the tribe...but then their ideal mates are the first cross cousin so... My point, minor though it is, is that there is precedent in the past of same sex marriage in different cultures. Society should define culture and the government should reflect society. There was a point in time when the vast majority of the populace were Calvinists, and that set the standard for society and thus culture. Thanks to a constitution that, in part, guarantees religious freedom, this is no longer so. Prohibition, for example, didn't work because Americans like to drink (as a matter of fact Prohibition can be seen as the moment where organized crime got a foothold in America - there's a case of morality reversal for you). Our culture has become quite tolerant of homosexuality (witness Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, Queer Eye, etc.) and rather than hammer away at the evolution of our culture, our government should assist in the process of affirming the CURRENT state of our culture instead of trying to shape it based on out-dated, stagnant religious beliefs. Even the reprehensible, Republican ex-congressman Bob Barr (who led the impeachment of Clinton march) thinks that the WPE proposed constitutional ammendment sullies what he calls the greatest document ever written. And whoever it was who said this is a red herring is right. Still if it galvanizes more anti-Bush sentiment (as the FCC's leaning on Clear Channel to diminish Howard Stern will galvanize a lot of his listeners against the WPE) then it can't be all bad, especially, since as that same author pointed out, the FMA doesn't stand a chance in hell. Posted by: Adjective at February 26, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKThe argument from tradition and convention is nothing more than an argument from total ignorance. Marriage has indeed taken many forms over thousands of years - polygamy, polyandry, arranged unions, civil marriages, etc. And it has not always been a sacred institution - the Christian church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 12th century, yet another instance of religion appropriating secular functions. Even if you could prove that marriage has always been a sacred union between one man and one woman, so what? We are not bound by tradition, and for very good reason. Think of all the horrible practices that would still be in place if tradition was the ultimate source of authority. Posted by: Cheap Suit at February 26, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINKGee... how could I have been so thick not to see that THIS is what Bush was really proposing! Well, really, its just mostly Amendment 14: Equal protection of the laws. Except for homos. That before Lawrence, they could do that to gays at will, and tho a court may overturn the law, it would have no valid grounds for doing so? Yeah, actually, it would. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I mean, that almost certainly wouldn't even pass the rational basis test, and voting rights I'm pretty sure, as a rule invoke at least intermediate if not strict scrutiny since they are an important or fundamental right. Posted by: cmdicely at February 26, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKWhere are your historical facts that contrdict that marriage has a consistant basis of that being between a man and a woman? Well, the fact that polygyny has historically been accepted by more
cultures than restricted, the US had serious conflicts with the Mormons
to get them to formally renounce polygamy (both polygyny and, less
commonly, polyandry) which never -- to this day -- ended the practice,
the fact that marriage, today, in Denmark includes homosexual marriage,
the fact that many American Indian groups had varieties of same-sex
marriage -- both the "boy-wife" kind referred to above, and actual adult
marriage where one partner was socially treated as a woman despite being male. bob mcmanus: "A heart" Ouch - if you'd like to discuss this intelligently without invective personal attacks, please let me know. Boronx: I've given plenty over multiple threads. "This is clearly discriminatory." Of course it is - see my answer to aphrael below. Laertes: "I predict Charlie's about done with this thread." I may be - but it's not because any of you have one the debate - I am getting tired of simply repeating myself over and over. Geez, I have to go to Court for one morning and you guys think I've "vanished" slinking back under the rock I crawled out from?! As I've said, I will answer any direct question posed by anyone as long as they return the same courtesy. "There's really no answer to the charge that his argument is PRECISELY the same form as arguments in favor of anti-miscegenation laws." Except, of course, what I have stated repeatedly - you would have a valid point if ANYONE denied that blacks are not born black. aphrael: "Charlie - the argument that gay people can marry people of the opposite sex is sophistry." Perhaps - but it is also the current state of American law. "I am not, under current law, allowed to marry the person I want to commit myself to, to spend my life with. My best friend, who isn't gay, can. How are we treated equally by the law?" You're not - you are definitely discriminated against - just as society as discriminated against a brother and sister (incest) and more than two people (polygamy) "marry[ing] the person[s] I want to commit myself to, to spend my life with." That doesn't change the fact that you have the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS that I have. Bassfish: "Friends, please bear in mind that the Bush anti-gay amendment is half a diversionary tactic, designed to distract us from the many places where Bush's veil of deception has worn through, and half a sop to the extreme religious right." Perhaps. "The proposed amendment has no chance of passage. None." I'd give it a very small chance - probably "none" before the Election (which hopefully we can blame on the obstructionist minority of DEMOCRATIC Senators ; ) "Of course, it is perfectly legitimate to debate whether gays should be denied the same opporunities for partnership as heterosexuals . . ." Why thank you - I do have First Amendment rights then?! ". . . and whether the Constitution should be amended for the first time in history to restrict personal freedoms." That's not necessarily correct - the 18th Amendment as just one example to defeat your point. "Just remember that the Rove behind the curtain is trying to take your eyes off the mushrooming evidence of Bush's appalling failure as president." Obviously, I disagree with that judgment. magurakurin: ". . . just how exactly is that different from the two men who aren't allowed to get married?" I assume your wife" is "female", right - that's probably the biggest difference right there. "Am I a sinner too?" Nope. "Should my marriage be anulled since I got it on false pretenses that I would have good, normal, man on top sex?" Not on that basis. Bassfish (again): "Consenting adults should have the fundamental right to make choices as to whom they share a bed with, and the state (and especially the federal government) should stay out of the bedroom as long as no one is getting hurt. Can we agree on that?" Not at all - see incest and polygamy. "What is the compelling state interest you believe is served by restricting the rights of gays to marry, and why is banning gay marriage necessary to protect this interest?" Same as (and in some regards, MORE compelling than) incest and polygamy. MatthewRMarler: "Kerry says that marriage ought to be left to the states, which would probably result in same-sex marriages in some states, but not others . . ." Unfortunately, activist judges (if we leave them on their current course) would make sure all other States would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages of Mass., for instance. Ergo, the need for a FEDERAL marriage amendment. Cheap Suit: "We are not bound by tradition, and for very good reason. Think of all the horrible practices that would still be in place if tradition was the ultimate source of authority." I'm sorry if you think marriage between one man and one woman, the bedrock of American civilization, is one such "horrible practice" - I would have thought SLAVERY, the HOLOCAUST, SUFFRAGE FOR BLACKS & WOMEN, 40 MILLION ABORTIONS just a little bit "more" horrible. Posted by Posted by: Charlie at February 26, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKThey want only the two homosexuals to have that right and DENY the
right to the Heterosexual. So they want a SPECIAL right that they will
deny to the straight people. Really? I don't recall anyone proposing that same-sex marriage be
limited to homosexuals. If straight men want to marry other men (though I
don't see that as likely, for some reason) they would be free to, just
as gay men are free to marry women (straight or otherwise) and vice
versa under current law. I'm sorry if you think marriage between one man and one woman, the bedrock of American civilization, is one such "horrible practice" - I would have thought SLAVERY, the HOLOCAUST, SUFFRAGE FOR BLACKS & WOMEN, 40 MILLION ABORTIONS just a little bit "more" horrible. Personally, I think suffrage for blacks and women is a good thing, but its interesting to note you think it is horrible. OTOH, no one is proposing a Constitutional amendment to impose slavery, genocide, or abortion on the US nation (yes, there have been amendments to force black and female suffrage, and they remain in effect), so I don't see what the point of your comparison is. Posted by: cmdicely at February 26, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKSame as (and in some regards, MORE compelling than) incest and polygamy. What precise interest is that? Because, from where I sit, the interests in preventing incestous and plural marriages are radically different, not the same as each other, even, much less the same as for banning same-sex marriage. Posted by: cmdicely at February 26, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKWell, cmdicely, as I've pointed out before, I'd answer your questions if you hadn't got on my ignore list. Of course, I've answered that all before anyways - especially legalizing marriage between ADULT siblings (there's NO more compelling State interest there than against homosexual marriage). Thanks though for catching my mistake - I obviously meant "NO" Suffrage for Blacks & Women - Cheap Suit seems to be saying that marriage between one man and one woman is a more "horrible practice" : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 26, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: They can marry someone of the opposite sex - so can I. They can't marry someone of the same sex - neither can I. What am I missing, Bob? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." If I deny you a right that you don't want, you are not harmed. If I deny you a right that you *do* want, you are harmed. Prohibition of same-sex marriage harms millions. I still haven't seen anyone explain exactly what harm will come (and to who) if same-sex marriage is legalized. From the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." <joke>This decision clearly supports male-male marriage, as women are not mentioned at all.</joke> Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft at February 26, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, I stand by my earlier statement that if you vote for Bush you are either rich and evil (i.e his tax cuts, EPA standard rollbacks, FCC strong arm tactics, etc., helped you and fuck everybody who gets hurt by them) or you are ignorant (you don't really have a clue how your beloved president is mangling this country. There is no hate in that, just an observation of fact. He's an awful president and you can't have any pride in him without lying to yourself. There's nothing that he has done during his presidency that any other politician in Washington couldn't have done better. That includes Republicans: I like Colin Powell (although his son is a bastard and a Dennis Miller-like shill for the administration), I can stand John McCain, but Bush is a fucking nightmare. Wise up and drop this deserter (and I mean deserting the people of America, who knows what he did during his supposed National Guard days) Futhermore, It just ISN"T the responsibility of the government to go
into the bedroom. A victimless crime should NOT be a crime. Why can't
government use its faculties to do what it's supposed to do: enact laws
for the betterment of society as a whole NOT JUST THE PRIVELEGED CLASS!! I'm not homosexual, but it's not going to hurt me in the slightest if two guys want to hitch up, how, Charlie, is it going to hurt you, specifically? Or your state, or this country? Just because you may think it's wrong for same sexers to marry, or that homosexuality is wrong based on some very weird passages in Deuteronomy, why should that prohibit others from pursuing their own happinesses. The real criminal is you: you want to take something away from others, and thus there are victims. When there are victim then you have a crime. Now, you probably will want to react to this with all sorts of vective based on a deep seated conservatism, but you CAN be a Republican an not be an asshole. The first step is to admit that Dubya is a fuck-up. Posted by: Adjective at February 26, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKAh, I see our resident bigot, Charlie, has reared his ugly head. Let's chop him down to size again, shall we? "Ouch - if you'd like to discuss this intelligently" We're still waiting for you to show some intelligence, Charlie. Let us know when you're ready, won't you? "I've given plenty over multiple threads." Yup, and every single one of them has been shot down (embarrassingly easily, I might add). You have admitted that you are ignorant about homosexuality (something that is abundantly clear to anyone reading your posts) and you show no intention of ever becoming less so. Your sources have been shown to be completely bogus, most of them having absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or anything relating to homosexuality. You recite spin points about homosexuality that were debunked literally decades ago. You have made bigoted and hateful statements about homosexuals and homosexuality and have, at the same time, praised yourself for not resorting to invective. The mind boggles at the level of denial this takes. "I may be - but it's not because any of you have one [sic] the debate" Ah, but we have, Charlie, just as we've won every debate with you (on this subject as with the others). You haven't got a leg to stand on and you have embarrassed yourself with your complete and total ignorance and bigotry. I assure you that, by any reason definition of the word, we have indeed won. "Except, of course, what I have stated repeatedly - you would have a valid point if ANYONE denied that blacks are not born black." You would have a valid point is ANYONE denied that gay men and women are not born gay. Since you cannot deny this, your point is moot. "Perhaps - but it is also the current state of American law." It was also the current state of American law at the time of Loving v. Virginia, as you well know. Your point is, once again, moot. "You're not - you are definitely discriminated against" End of debate. Charlie has just acknowledged that we have, in fact, won. "That doesn't change the fact that you have the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS that I have." The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this identical argument in Loving v. Virginia, Charlie. The state of Virginia tried this "logic;" the Supreme Court rejected it. Your point is, once again, moot. "That's not necessarily correct - the 18th Amendment as just one example to defeat your point." Pointing to one of the dumbest Constitutional acts of the previous century doesn't exactly bolster your case, Charlie. "Not at all - see incest and polygamy." If they had any relevance, we would. Incest and polygamy will stand or fall on their own merits. They have nothing to do with this case, just as they had nothing to do with Loving v. Virginia. Those exact arguments were used then; they were rejected by the Supreme Court. Those exactly arguments were used in the recent Lawrence; they were rejected by the Supreme Court. Your point is, once again, moot. "Same as (and in some regards, MORE compelling than) incest and polygamy." Since these three things are unlike in every respect, this statement is nonsensical. You have not done anything to back up your assertion (as usual). "I'm sorry if you think marriage between one man and one woman, the bedrock of American civilization" Nice try at tugging at the emotions. What's the name for that logical fallacy again? Too bad such a statement has no practical meaning. As I said...you have nothing left. All you can do is repeat the same old tired, discredited slippery slope argument. It's been debunked ad nauseam and has been explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court on at least two related occasions, but still you keep trotting it out. If that's a measure of your skill as a lawyer, then I'd hate to be one of your clients. Posted by: PaulB at February 26, 2004 06:49 PM | PERMALINK"Consenting adults should have the fundamental right to make choices as to whom they share a bed with, and the state (and especially the federal government) should stay out of the bedroom as long as no one is getting hurt. Can we agree on that?" Not at all - see incest and polygamy. I'll concede incest as probably worth opposing, since it is frequently coercive or otherwise emotionally unhealthy. But why should government be able to intrude on a perfectly good three-way? I fear that stepping into the middle of this debate will only result in being attacked from both sides; however, in the interest of showing that my intentions are constructive, I want to make it clear where I stand: I'm bisexual, and, likely not surprisingly, very much in favor of gay marriage. I won't pretend that this issue is very likely to affect me directly; I'll probably be married by the end of the year. But I can't help but feel that I've escaped by accident and gotten to enjoy something that I shouldn't have. It sickens me to think of how close I came to this sort of second-class citizenship, and it deeply disturbs me to think of all the people who didn't even have the degree of choice that I did. I'm not sure where to begin, but there's a question I've wanted to ask for a while. For those on my left: How is it that you reconcile criticism of Bush's foreign policy -- specifically, the wars in Iraq and (to a lesser extent) Afghanistan -- with your obviously firm belief in human rights? You (correctly, in my opinion) label Bush a bigot; but in either of the aforementioned countries -- indeed, in any Islamic nation -- the idea of gay marriage would be completely absurd. Gays have no rights whatsoever. Sodomy is a crime entailing corporal, sometimes capital, punishment. These are not conditions which we would tolerate for ourselves for an instant. Isn't it at least a step in the right direction to get rid of regimes like the Taliban and the Baathists? I don't mean to try to catch you in some moral-equivalence trap; I'm genuinely curious, as it's something that I have not been able to reconcile for myself. And I'm certainly no fan of Bush. One other side issue, regarding the genetics of homosexuality: while it certainly seems dependent on heredity to some degree, environment also seems to play a large factor. I'm fairly certain that it played a large role in my own development, anyway. Of course, this doesn't change the dynamics of the argument any; whether one is born gay or one simply develops that way, the point is that no one chooses to be gay. But I am interested to know whether there is anything other than speculation arguing one way or the other. As for Charlie, I suspect I'll be crucified for lifting parts of Sully's arguments, but here goes: Gays exist, and they have the potential to exist anywhere between the following two poles: 1) They can be outsiders, without any rights, practicing a lifestyle that undeniably trends toward promiscuity without any reliable, discreet access to medical treatment; if they wish to lead a "normal" life, they will have to do so via the effer-effective "double-life" method. 2) They can be welcomed by society; they can be given the chance to establish themselves and their family, thereby giving them a vested interest in the success of the community. Obviously, we're currently leaning toward the latter. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how it would hurt society to lean further that way. To the contrary: more "domestic" lifestyle yields less promiscuous sex, less recreational/"club" drug use, less chance of STD epidemics -- these are things from which society, as a whole, benefits, and they would be facilitated by gay marriage. As for the ubiquitous "polygamy" "quandary" (at least someone threw a changeup earlier tonight and inquired after beastiality): Let's suppose that, at some point in the future, gay marriage does get implemented here. Presumably, gays are granted the same privileges and responsibilities that straights are. While this represents an expansion of these rights (i.e., more people are capable of receiving them) the rights themselves do not change (i.e., everyone who receives them receives the same "amount"). Obviously, this would not be the case with polygamists. If, for example, a man and his three...well, I guess we can't call them "wives," but you get the idea. Anyway, this foursome goes to apply for marriage. In doing so, I can see only two requests that they would make: 1) Since there are twice as many of them as exist in a "normal" marriage, they should receive twice the benefits. The first request would obviously be well within the court's rights to die. The government has no obligation whatsoever to reward people based on the number of partners they can cram into a relationship. The second option is less outrightly objectionable, but I still don't think it would pass with any sort of ease. The problems with polygamy are not simply in the numbers; there is also the issue of abuse, either physical, emotional, or both. At the least, they would have to provide an explanation of why the state has any interest in condoning their relationship and then submit to some form of psychological testing. I can't think of any way in which a polygamous relationship would be able to clear both of these hurdles. I don't believe that the human psyche is meant to deal with polygamy (this, along with the "I take it you're volunteering to be neutered, then?" aspect is why I don't consider incest much of a threat). However, if such a relationship could be shown to be useful to society and not harmful to those involved, then I would have a difficult time objecting to it. These issues are ultimately self-regulating. However, it's worth noting that neither polygamy nor incest has any kind of support movement whatsoever (not in America, at any rate). Posted by: Peter at February 27, 2004 04:44 AM | PERMALINKPeter, I wrote a fairly long comment replying to your question, but it was tangential to the main topic of the thread, so I posted it on my livejournal. These threads on gay marriage are getting long and involved enough
without threadjacking them on to other topics, as I'm sure you'll agree.
;-) Sorry guys - I had almost finished a response to all of you (except PaulB of course) and the power went out. P.S. to adjective: I can assure you, though, it did not include ANY "sorts of vective" (as none of my posts do ; ) Sorry. Gotta go. Posted by: Charlie at February 27, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKAnd so, in turn, have I replied on the livejournal. (Also, I have no idea how I managed to write, "The first request would obviously be well within the court's right to die." I meant "deny." I think I need more sleep.) Posted by: Peter at February 27, 2004 06:24 PM | PERMALINKSully is merely on probation, I don't trust that he has really had his Road to Damascus moment yet. Holy Christ, "probation." Take your ball and go home. Our resident bigot, Charlie, wrote: "I had almost finished a response to all of you (except PaulB of course) and the power went out." Aw, shucks...now what am I going to do for entertainment? Oh well...I'm sure Charlie will amuse me again in the near future, if not on this thread, then on another. Posted by: PaulB at February 27, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINKPaulB wrote at February 26, 2004 06:49 PM: Nice try at tugging at the emotions. What's the name for that logical fallacy again? Unsurprisingly, it's called "Appeal to Emotion". Quoting: This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. It comes in several varieties. Quoting: APPEALS TO EMOTIONS: attempts to gain agreement based solely on the feelings aroused in the message. Specific types of appeals to emotions include:APPEAL TO COMPASSION (appeal to pity, ad misericordiam): an appeal to emotion that argues that a conclusion should be made based on feeling sorry for someone when that feeling is irrelevant to the conclusion. Appealing to emotion (notably fear, indignation, and spite) appears to be the sum and substance of the anti-gay marriage argument. In fact, it seems to be the mainstay of what is nowadays misleadingly
called the "conservative" [actually radical-right] movement. PaulB wrote at February 27, 2004 09:27 PM: Oh well...I'm sure Charlie will amuse me again in the near future, You must have heard "The Last Song" on Mickey Hart's MYSTERY BOX album: We'll meet again right here some night; (words by Robert Hunter, who had been Jerry Garcia's songwriting partner) Posted by: Raven at February 28, 2004 04:48 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the information and the analysis, Raven. Good stuff. Posted by: PaulB at February 28, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINKNorman Rogers wrote at February 25, 2004 07:30 PM: It's up to we the people to elect the representatives who support our beliefs -- not unelected judges. Good point. Of course, the "unelected President" George W. Bush is in office — despite Al Gore getting half-a-million more votes from "we the people" nationwide — only because the "unelected judges" on the Supreme Court stopped the counting of people's votes in Florida... not to mention Brother Jeb's preventing many of Florida's "we the people" from voting at all. Since you are consistent in your beliefs, I'm sure this imposition of "unelected" officials upon "we the people" infuriates you as much as it does me, and that therefore you consider every action, policy, rule, and regulation of the Bush Administration to be utterly invalid and without any legal or moral claim to the obedience of "we the people". Right? Posted by: Raven at February 28, 2004 10:58 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote at February 25, 2004 05:25 PM: Occam's Cuisinart: ... Well, let's get specific. Courtesy of Atrios, here are two links to lists of the rights and benefits of civil marriage. Long: General Accounting Office: Letter to Henry Hyde re: Defense of Marriage Act Short: Nolo.com: Marriage Rights and Benefits. Quoting: Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits — both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Now, Charlie, which of these rights would you allow to gay couples, and which wouldn't you? Of the latter, why would you disallow them? For instance, would you not allow them the right to take medical leave for a family illness, visit a spouse (or "partner", if you prefer that term) in the hospital, and make emergency medical decisions for him or her? Or burial decisions, if it comes to that? Or to take bereavement leave? If so, why? And how, exactly, would gay couples having these rights deny or destroy these rights for straight couples? It's not a matter of vague theory any more, now that there are 3,200 (and counting) gay couples in San Francisco alone. If the existence of gay marriage would actually harm straight marriage, that harm should be showing up. Where is it? So far, the only case offered is that Social Security is refusing to accept San Francisco marriage certificates for name changes. But this isn't harm done by gay marriage — at most, it's harm done by overreaction against gay marriage. That looks more like a good argument against such overreaction, and thus evidence for the opposite side of the argument. Posted by: Raven at February 28, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINKRaven wrote at February 28, 2004 11:45 PM: ... now that there are 3,200 (and counting) gay couples in San Francisco alone. Excuse me, I should have said "3,200 (and counting) gay marriages"; the number of gay couples there is another matter. Latest news (Sat, 02/28/04): "California's Supreme Court refused to stop San Francisco's gay marriage" California's Supreme Court has refused an appeal by the state's top legal official to immediately order a halt to San Francisco's gay marriage blitz. The longer it takes to stop it, the greater the number of happy marriages that would have to be "unmade" by the supposed "Defenders of Marriage". (Some "Defense"!) And the longer the track record of those gay marriages' existence, the more those supposed "Defenders" will be pressed to explain why the supposed "harm" to straight marriages failed to materialize. ("Where's the beef?") One good pragmatic empirical test beats any amount of empty ideological hypothesizing. If the bumblebee, or airplane, or rocketship, actually flies, it's just too bad, so sad, for all the theoreticians who had insisted otherwise. Posted by: Raven at February 29, 2004 12:52 AM | PERMALINKDurable link via the Userland/NYT Link Generator: New York Times 02/29/04: Nathaniel Frank: Joining the Debate but Missing the Point ... After all, society does not deny marriage rights to divorced, infertile or impotent people — so long as they are straight. We offer that right because society generally tries to encourage as many people as possible to live stable and productive lives. Marriage — gay or straight — helps society achieve that goal.Posted by: Raven at February 29, 2004 02:28 AM | PERMALINK Two essays in the Washington Post, Sunday 02/29/04: Michael Alvear: A Fight for Hope He dreads the swelling backlash and the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment: [...] It's one thing to be born into discrimination, to grow up with it. It's one thing to have discriminatory laws on the books for so long that you just sort of take them for granted. But it's another thing to watch legalized discrimination coming. Sally Quinn: In Washington, the Empathy That Dare Not Speak Its Name Like some on this thread, she draws a parallel to the old "anti-miscegenation" frenzy: [...] I remember sitting around the Sunday dinner table in Statesboro, Ga., at my Aunt Ruth's as a child. Over Brunswick stew (made with squirrels) and okra, her husband, his belly hanging over the waistline of his white Panama suit, would rail against interracial marriages. "It will nevah happen," he would declare, his face turning beet-red in agitation. Tell me, Charlie, how do you feel about seeing couples together who are of different races, or different religions? Should there also be an amendment to forbid the marriage of blacks to whites, or of Christians to non-Christians? And what if it were you? What if your state were to impose a marriage rule that has been on this continent much longer than Christianity, a moiety system — and forbade your marriage because you and your wife are from the same moiety? Oh, you might still be able to live together, in a legally unrecognized relationship... but your medical insurance would no longer cover her; and if she got sick, you might not be allowed visitation (certainly not as a "right") nor permitted to make any decisions for her care; and then if she died, you would have no say in her burial arrangements — nor in what happens to her estate. Likewise, if you were injured or fell ill and were unable to speak for yourself, she could not speak for you, nor keep your affairs in order for you, nor take for granted that she would inherit your estate (even if you wrote a will, your parents and siblings could challenge it). As far as law and society are concerned, you would simply be two unrelated adults. Would you like that done to your marriage? Do you understand that this is what's been done, all along, to
many thousands of other couples, who love each other as much as you and
your wife love each other? The sort of marriage some would deny: Just Married, After 51 Years Together The bride on the left wears a lavender pantsuit. The other bride carries a gold-chained purse. As the music starts, they begin making their way toward the stage. They walk slowly, not because they want to, but because this is how they walk at age 83 and 79. The white-haired one in lavender is Del Martin. The one with coral lipstick is Phyllis Lyon. They are arm in arm. [...] Old ladies. Together for half a century, married for 12 days. Slightly stooped and hard of hearing. Statistically, they have survived what most heterosexual marriages have not, and with none of the same legal protections. Denying that sort of marriage is supposed to "defend" straight marriages — like this one: Spears' marriage lasts only 55 hours When Britney Spears upped and wed hometown friend Jason Allen Alexander, it was on a whim. Then, she came to her senses and filed for an annulment. Total time as a married woman: 55 hours. [...] According to the petition, "Before entering into the marriage the plaintiff and defendant did not know each other's likes and dislikes, each other's desires to have or not have children, and each other's desires as to state of residency. Upon learning of each other's desires, they are so incompatible that there was a want of understanding of each other's actions in entering into this marriage." But which was really more of "a threat to the institution of marriage"? Posted by: Raven at February 29, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKDurable link via the Userland/NYT Link Generator: New York Times 02/27/04: Bob Herbert: Bliss and Bigotry I wanted to see this threat to the very foundation of civilization close up. [...] I kept staring at Ms. Reichman and Ms. Curnow, trying to locate the threat that others perceive in relationships like theirs. But they never came across as menacing. They just looked happy. [...] "My family and I wanted to have a Jewish ceremony, and Shelley's O.K. with that. We found a rabbi that's going to declare us married in the Jewish faith." How long will it take this simple truth to sink in? With so many examples becoming visible to the public, at last? Posted by: Raven at February 29, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKAdjective, Peter and Raven: let me know if you are still reading this, and I will try to get you some answers as soon as I can - sorry for the delay - thanks in advance for your patience. Posted by: Charlie at March 1, 2004 05:34 PM | PERMALINKO.K., then - see you all next time Kevin tries to defend "same-sex marriage" : ) Posted by: Charlie at March 3, 2004 10:15 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote at March 1, 2004 05:34 PM: Adjective, Peter and Raven: let me know if you are still reading this, and I will try to get you some answers as soon as I can - sorry for the delay - thanks in advance for your patience. [raises hand] Posted by: Raven at March 5, 2004 12:56 AM | PERMALINKHoo-ha! See this! The Irish Times: When marriage between gays was by rite (August 11, 1998): RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.Posted by: Raven at March 7, 2004 01:40 AM | PERMALINK Raven: I answered your "traditional [Christian] idea of marriage" post on another thread. With the following, therefore, I think I am caught up on responding to your posts to me (let me know if I missed anything): "Unsurprisingly, it's called "Appeal to Emotion" . . . This is NOT a logical fallacy, however, if the claim is, in fact, true and evidence for a claim has been produced, right? "Of course, the "unelected President" . . . Not true - see Electoral College. ". . . George W. Bush is in office — despite Al Gore getting half-a-million more votes from "we the people" nationwide — only because the "unelected judges" on the Supreme Court stopped the counting of people's votes in Florida ... not to mention Brother Jeb's preventing many of Florida's "we the people" from voting at all." Not true either - if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped an ILLEGAL, after the fact CHANGE IN ELECTION LAW by the Florida Supreme Court, the most likely outcome was the House of Represenatives choosing GWB anyways, don't you think? "Since you are consistent in your beliefs, I'm sure this imposition of "unelected" officials upon "we the people" infuriates you as much as it does me . . ." Nope - see above. "Now, Charlie, which of these rights would you allow to gay couples, and which wouldn't you?" In California, registered "domestic partners" are entitled to EVERY State benefit already. I would not grant any of the federal benefits listed. "Of the latter, why would you disallow them?" Every other State should not be forced to accept / share the cost the social experimenting going on in liberal CA or NY. If you've been around Calpundit lately, I've listed plenty of (secular) unanswered questions that we simply don't know whether the positive (yes, even I admit there are positives) outweighs the negative impact this will have on marriage and family, let alone society as a whole. "It's not a matter of vague theory any more, now that there are 3,200 (and counting) gay couples in San Francisco alone. If the existence of gay marriage would actually harm straight marriage, that harm should be showing up. Where is it?" That's like saying there is no God, and to prove it, I will not be struck down by lightning. Patience, my dear, Raven - since we are clearly not going to rationally decide whether same-sex marriage is a good thing before it's shoved down our throats, I suspect we will have some pretty good stats on it in, oh, say one or two generations ; ) "So far, the only case offered is that Social Security is refusing to accept San Francisco marriage certificates for name changes." LOL - that was the least of my concerns - I think the primary one was the impact on children (and therefore continuing society at large) raised in such households. "But this isn't harm done by gay marriage — at most, it's harm done by overreaction against gay marriage . . ." You say "tomato" and I say "to-maa-toe" : ) "And the longer the track record of those gay marriages' existence,
the more those supposed "Defenders" will be pressed to explain why the
supposed "harm" to straight marriages failed to materialize. ("Where's
the beef?") I agree - what do you suggest the "solution" be if, in fact, 50 years from now - every single empirical test shows that children at more at risk raised in same-sex marriages? By then, it will be as entrenched as abortion is today (and that, of course, is what the homosexual activists are counting on). "The traditionalists may well be right that a monogamous relationship between two unrelated, consenting adults makes a strong foundation for a stable family, and thus for a vigorous social order. They're just wrong that those two people have to be of different genders." I disagree and there are studies already out there (we need more) about the lack of male and/or female role models, impact on children, and what this will lead to in the future. For instance, when the APA de-classified homosexuality as a mental disorder a mere 31 years ago, everyone dismissed "same-sex marriage" as a slippery slope, right??? "Tell me, Charlie, how do you feel about seeing couples together who are of different races . . ." No problem - we know for sure that blacks are born black, right? ". . . or different religions?" While that is against my own Scriptures, government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I have no doubt that homosexual activists are trying to equate their deviant behavior with the "freedom of religion" and/or at least bringing the First Amendment down to their level. "Should there also be an amendment to forbid the marriage of blacks to whites, or of Christians to non-Christians?" No - see above. "And what if it were you? What if your state were to impose a marriage rule that has been on this continent much longer than Christianity, a moiety system — and forbade your marriage because you and your wife are from the same moiety?" I guess we'd move. "Oh, you might still be able to live together, in a legally unrecognized relationship... but your medical insurance would no longer cover her . . ." Would all those rights still be granted under some comperable "domestic partner" system? To be honest with you, the day is coming where being married by a Christian church will be crime, so your hypothetical is not that far off. "Would you like that done to your marriage? Do you understand that this is what's been done, all along, to many thousands of other couples, who love each other as much as you and your wife love each other?" Comparing apples and oranges, of course, because your hypothetical would be taking away a legal right we've had for 14 years now. Same-sex marriage (until this year) was NEVER legal in all of American history (BTW: you do know that marriages among Ravens only, or Eagles only for that matter, happen all the time. Marriage was formerly allowed only between persons from opposite moieties, but today this rule has been severely relaxed ; ) "The sort of marriage some would deny . . . Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon." That's right - they are both female. "Denying that sort of marriage is supposed to "defend" straight marriages — like this one: Spears' marriage lasts only 55 hours . . ." You think I "defend" Britney Spears' marriage - I think that sends the wrong message too! Unfortunately, there is no prohibition from immature, stupid heterosexuals from getting married (I'd love to make it next to impossible to get a divorce though ; ) "But which was really more of "a threat to the institution of marriage"? Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. "How long will it take this simple truth to sink in? With so many examples becoming visible to the public, at last?" If that is, indeed, the truth - probably not very long at all - if it is a lie, however, it may take several generations to see the negative impact / finally admit we screwed up and, by then, there will be little hope in turning the clock back. I did have a few questions about that last article you posted: Are you sure the following won't be used by NAMBLA to defend their "marriages" to 13 year-olds someday: "We should rein in the combative rhetoric on this matter — the references to the 'defense' of marriage, the 'protection' of the institution, the 'threat' to civilization. No one is waging war on marriage. It's just the opposite. This is all about people who are longing to embrace it." That was also a slippery slope argument 31 years ago, right? Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote at March 8, 2004 11:20 AM: "Unsurprisingly, it's called "Appeal to Emotion" . . . The nature of the fallacy is that it substitutes emotion for fact. This remains a fallacy, even if evidence of the emotion is presented. For instance, presenting a claim about one's own or others' emotional reponse to a proposition — even if that claim is true and evidence for it has been presented (i.e. you or they REALLY DO have that emotional response) — is not the same as presenting evidence that the proposition is factually true or factually false. "Of course, the "unelected President" . . . Your objection to judges is that, unlike legislative representatives, they were not "elected" by the people. George W. Bush got fewer of the people's votes (even in Florida) than his opponent. He is in office because (1) many of the people's votes were not counted in Florida, first by the manipulation of an unelected Secretary of State, then by decree of unelected justices; (2) Florida's electors were thus awarded to the candidate fewer voters had chosen. That you do not object to this, yet rail against other "unelected judges", might lead reasonable people to question your consistency. ". . . George W. Bush is in office — despite Al Gore getting half-a-million more votes from "we the people" nationwide — only because the "unelected judges" on the Supreme Court stopped the counting of people's votes in Florida ... not to mention Brother Jeb's preventing many of Florida's "we the people" from voting at all." What "ILLEGAL, after the fact CHANGE IN ELECTION LAW" are you talking about? SCOTUS referred the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with the requirement that the latter court should clarify Florida's 100-year-old election standard (that every ballot must be counted if the voter's intent can be determined from it). The FSC did not change that standard. In any case, SCOTUS suspended voting because the different counties used different machines, and thus different standards of determining voters' intent would have to be used. (This is the case in most states, was in previous elections, and would be in later elections. However, SCOTUS said their decision would be applied ONLY to Florida, and ONLY in this election — so SCOTUS was the one applying "different standards" to this one election from any other.) Finally SCOTUS ran out the clock, postponing the decision until bare hours before the deadline they imposed, so that it was physically impossible to recount the votes by any standard at all. To blame this on the FSC is the height of hypocrisy. "Now, Charlie, which of these rights would you allow to gay couples, and which wouldn't you?" What would be the cost to the states of allowing same-sex couples to file joint federal tax returns — the same way opposite-sex couples do — since both types of couples share expenses and thus would often find it easier to lump their finances together? Indeed, what would be the cost to the states of any other federal benefit, since the state governments (and budgets) do not finance federal benefits? "It's not a matter of vague theory any more, now that there are 3,200 (and counting) gay couples in San Francisco alone. If the existence of gay marriage would actually harm straight marriage, that harm should be showing up. Where is it?" Which would be a valid argument in rebuttal to a claim that "whoever denies God will be struck down by lightning". Not many people make that claim these days. But people have been claiming that same-sex marriage would "harm" the insitution of marriage. So it's valid to ask, now that same-sex marriages have occurred, where's the harm we were promised? [skipping "LOL" and toMAYto/toMAHto] [...] what do you suggest the "solution" be if, in fact, 50 years from now - every single empirical test shows that children at more at risk raised in same-sex marriages? Then you would have some factual, rather than purely speculative, basis for argument. However, at this point, there are children already being raised by same-sex couples — who until recently were denied the right to marry. How is it better that those children should be denied the protection that their guardians' marriage would offer them? As I wrote back in 1997: Laws all over the country are "stopping homosexuals now from getting 'married'" -- despite the fact that many of them already do have children to raise, a partner ready and willing to help parent (but legally not allowed to become a step-parent), custody, guardianship, health-care authorization, inheritance, and other issues to be dealt with. Straight parents can marry and have that fact reflected in settling these issues. Gay parents, under present law, cannot. So the children suffer for it. When I became a husband and stepfather, I was acutely aware of the responsibility I was taking on, and that by simply not marrying I could have avoided that responsibility. I was also acutely aware of how much of a difference it would make to the safety and security of my stepchildren. It is clear that same-sex couples with children are also aware of this; many of them have said that providing for the children was one of their chief concerns. Denying them the chance to make such a provision hurts the children more than anyone else. I think it is utterly foul and contemptible to hurt children in order to make a political or religious "point". And making such a point is the only motive even being offered for this anti-marriage agenda being offered as a "Defense of Marriage" by the anti-gay crowd. "Tell me, Charlie, how do you feel about seeing couples together who are of different races . . ." And since gays are born gay...? ". . . or different religions?" That's nice. You may be interested to know that many Unitarian ministers, including mine, perform same-sex wedding services. Not to mention the thousand years of Christian history that featured ceremonies for same-sex unions. And since religions (and their wedding services) are supposed to be equal under law.... "And what if it were you? What if your state were to impose a marriage rule that has been on this continent much longer than Christianity, a moiety system — and forbade your marriage because you and your wife are from the same moiety?" And if it were imposed, federally, upon all states, so that your marriage would be made invalid no matter where in this country you went? "Oh, you might still be able to live together, in a legally unrecognized relationship... but your medical insurance would no longer cover her . . ." Not if the enacting amendment repealed all "domestic partnership" and "civil union" laws, such as by denying the "incidents of marriage" to any unmarried couples. "Would you like that done to your marriage? Do you understand that this is what's been done, all along, to many thousands of other couples, who love each other as much as you and your wife love each other?" And the proposed amendment actually would, as others have pointed out, deny the "incidents of marriage" to any unmarried couple — so much for any "domestic partnership" or "civil union" laws that any state might have had. In fact, that provision is the whole second sentence of the proposed amendment. FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56) So it would take away the rights that those couples have had ever since "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" became available in the various states. Are you sure the following won't be used by NAMBLA to defend their "marriages" to 13 year-olds someday [...] Oh, please. This was ridiculous when George Will and others suggested it (along with bestiality and "marriage" to utensils). It makes no more sense now. Ask someone to explain the term "consenting adults" to you, and how it does not include children, animals, or inanimate objects. "For instance, presenting a claim about one's own or others' emotional reponse to a proposition — even if that claim is true and evidence for it has been presented (i.e. you or they REALLY DO have that emotional response) — is not the same as presenting evidence that the proposition is factually true or factually false." Of course. "Your objection to judges . . . might lead reasonable people to question your consistency. How so, if I said I would rather have had the SCOTUS (and Florida State Supreme Court) stay out of it?! "What "ILLEGAL, after the fact CHANGE IN ELECTION LAW" are you talking about?" The timeframe within which to certify the vote and what counts as a vote are the two that come to mind. Now - will you answer my question: "if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped an ILLEGAL, after the fact CHANGE IN ELECTION LAW by the Florida Supreme Court, the most likely outcome was the House of Represenatives choosing GWB anyways, don't you think?" "What would be the cost to the states of allowing same-sex couples to file joint federal tax returns — the same way opposite-sex couples do — since both types of couples share expenses and thus would often find it easier to lump their finances together?" Billion of tax dollars. "Indeed, what would be the cost to the states of any other federal benefit, since the state governments (and budgets) do not finance federal benefits?" LOL - the "cost" is to all society and specifically the TAXPAYERS who live in said States. "So it's valid to ask, now that same-sex marriages have occurred, where's the harm we were promised?" It may take a couple generations, but one "harm" I already mentioned was Social Security refusing to accept marriage licenses from San Fran even from heterosexual couples. If the State gets completely out of the marriage business, there's another harm. Of course, this only what if you are unselfish and actually are concerned about what happens to society as a whole (even for the 4000+ "harm" will start piling up soon too). "Then you would have some factual, rather than purely speculative, basis for argument." Again - not true - there already are some studies that show that trend. "I think it is utterly foul and contemptible to hurt children in order to make a political or religious "point". So, you are pro-life? "And making such a point is the only motive even being offered for this anti-marriage agenda being offered as a "Defense of Marriage" by the anti-gay crowd." You must have missed all of my secular arguments then. "And since gays are born gay...?" We don't KNOW that for sure. "That's nice." Thanks - I try. "You may be interested to know that many Unitarian ministers, including mine, perform same-sex wedding services." I sure they do. "Not to mention the thousand years of Christian history that featured ceremonies for same-sex unions." Again, those would be defying Christ as well, but you have that freedom here in America. "And if it were imposed, federally, upon all states, so that your marriage would be made invalid no matter where in this country you went?" Out of country would start to look good. I also addressed the proposed FMA on the other thread. "Are you sure the following won't be used by NAMBLA to defend their "marriages" to 13 year-olds someday [...] Oh, please. This was ridiculous when George Will and others suggested it (along with bestiality and "marriage" to utensils). It makes no more sense now." Well, the utensils would be a strawman with regards to my argument - plus guilt by association (what do they call that logical fallacy?) - but if all it takes is "love" I can see why George brought it up. Now, if you continue to not answer my questions, expect the same from me. Posted by: Charlie at March 12, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote at March 12, 2004 10:11 AM: Now, if you continue to not answer my questions, expect the same from me. Not answer your questions? Continue to not answer your questions? "Take some more tea," the March Hare said to Alice.... The only question you ask in the entire post is "So, you are pro-life?" Here's my answer: Yes, I am pro-life. However, unlike some others, by "life" I refer to actual living breathing human beings, not to merely potential, future, such beings. The term "pro-life" has somehow been hijacked by extremists who have no problem justifying the murder of actual living breathing human beings, in the supposed "defense" of imagined future human beings. The hypocrisy of these supposed "pro-lifers" was exemplified in the attack by a so-called "pro-life" mob on a pregnant woman who was entering a women's clinic for pre-natal care (they assumed she was getting an abortion), beating her so badly that she miscarried — which by their supposed rules meant they had murdered a child — yet they pled to a charge of assault-and-battery on the woman, only, and never suggested that any other victim existed in the case. In my view, "pro-life" is not a term to be applied to a movement that commits and justifies the shootings and bombings of actual living breathing human beings. It should more accurately be called "anti-abortion". Now to address what is not a question from you, but rather your snipping my response and pretending I didn't make it: "Are you sure the following won't be used by NAMBLA to defend their "marriages" to 13 year-olds someday [...] Oh, please. This was ridiculous when George Will and others suggested it (along with bestiality and "marriage" to utensils). It makes no more sense now." Let's bring back my full reply: Are you sure the following won't be used by NAMBLA to defend their "marriages" to 13 year-olds someday [...] The last sentence makes the point that marriage, being a relation into which only consenting adults can enter, already excludes children, animals, and inanimate objects — which are not "adults", and which cannot legally "consent" to anything at all. So, no, that's not a strawman, it's pointing out the fundamental fallacy in your (and George Wills's) suggestion. You not only snip that sentence, you ignore that point: but if all it takes is "love" I can see why George brought it up. Actually, it doesn't take "love", since many people thoughout history have gotten married for entirely different reasons — such as land, lineage, or politics (e.g. joining families or kingdoms together). It does take consenting adults, a term which does not include children, animals, or inanimate objects — and also does not include unconsenting adults. Even The Princess Bride made this point: Buttercup: Oh, Westley, will you ever forgive me?Posted by: Raven at March 12, 2004 11:58 PM | PERMALINK Charlie wrote at March 8, 2004 11:20 AM: "The traditionalists may well be right that a monogamous relationship between two unrelated, consenting adults makes a strong foundation for a stable family, and thus for a vigorous social order. They're just wrong that those two people have to be of different genders." And what they say is: Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households.FactSheet: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.Posted by: Raven at March 14, 2004 03:35 AM | PERMALINKPerrin et al, "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents"
Skipping over this attempted distraction... Charlie wrote at March 12, 2004 10:11 AM: "You may be interested to know that many Unitarian ministers, including mine, perform same-sex wedding services." And have been doing so for years and years. But, only now, the anti-gay crusade wants to prosecute them for it: http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/1211837p-8213602c.html Ministers charged for marrying N.Y. gays Some notable Unitarian Universalists in history: http://www.famousuus.com "Not to mention the thousand years of Christian history that featured ceremonies for same-sex unions." So now you think that Christianity itself was "defying Christ" for a thousand years? See http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at March 19, 2004 07:24 AM | PERMALINKOnline Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at March 20, 2004 12:31 AM | PERMALINKOnline Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com! Posted by: tramadol at March 20, 2004 01:26 AM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com ! Posted by: fioricet at March 20, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINKCheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now! Posted by: propecia at March 21, 2004 04:19 AM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/ Posted by: phentermine at March 22, 2004 04:46 AM | PERMALINKCheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com. Posted by: soma at March 22, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKDo you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com Posted by: job interview questions at March 23, 2004 01:32 AM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine! Posted by: phentermine at April 15, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKOnline Skelaxin, skelaxin, 800 mg skelaxin, 800mg skelaxin,400mg skelaxin is used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. Cheap Xenical should not be used if you have ever had an allergic reaction to carisoprodol, meprobramate or tybamate. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com! Posted by: skelaxin at April 15, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKOnline Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com! Posted by: xenical at April 15, 2004 09:03 AM | PERMALINKCheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com. Posted by: soma at April 15, 2004 09:03 AM | PERMALINKOnline Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com! Posted by: tramadol at April 15, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKOnline Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com! Posted by: ambien at April 15, 2004 03:20 PM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com ! Posted by: fioricet at April 15, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKOnline Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com! Posted by: flexeril at April 15, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKOnline Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com! Posted by: wellbutrin at April 15, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine ! http://www.x-phentermine.com/ Posted by: phentermine at April 18, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINKAdipex is used as an appetite suppressant. It is used in conjunction with an overall diet plan to reduce weight. online adipex buy adipex cheap adipex Visit this site: http://www.top-adipex.com Posted by: adipex at April 22, 2004 09:14 AM | PERMALINKViagra, Are you looking for cheap Viagra online? Then you are on the right place. We provide one of the largest databases of online pharmacies on Web to help you buy only the cheap drugs for your problems. online Viagra buy viagra generic viagraVisit this site: http://www.x-viagra.com ! Posted by: viagra at April 23, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKGratitude is merely the secret hope of further favors. Posted by: Lashutka Michael at May 3, 2004 02:58 AM | PERMALINKThe important thing isn't doing, but knowing how you do it. Virtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors. I just surfed around and found your site, I really enjoyed the visit and hope to come back soon. Greetings,
I just surfed around and found your site, I really enjoyed the visit and hope to come back soon. Greetings, 'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift Posted by: Niblock Jasper at June 30, 2004 07:13 AM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: Virtual City Casino at July 1, 2004 12:02 AM | PERMALINKbad breath
Very good subject. 1878 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 09:56 PM | PERMALINK4052 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 5084 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINKIs it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information! 4861 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 14, 2004 08:59 AM | PERMALINK530 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINK1409 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 4074 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:44 AM | PERMALINK1216 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 8903 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:58 AM | PERMALINK618 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:38 PM | PERMALINK6417 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
