TheAgitator.com
Why I Am Not a Conservative, Part XLVIII
Thursday, November 20th, 2003The folks over at a blog called Marriage Debate are reacting to the Massachusetts court decision mandating the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Start at the top, or here, and scroll down, for a classic example of what’s wrong with conservatism.
To temper that judgment, note that the people on the social-conservative, anti-same-sex marriage side (who are apparently running the blog) are quite a bit more reasonable than most opponents of same-sex marriage. They are really not homophobic as far as I can tell, they take pains to give their leftish opponents space to respond, and they make a reasonably good case that ordinary heterosexual marriage is probably the ideal environment for raising children. As a happily-married child of happily-married parents, I am in no position to refute them on this last.
But: they don’t seem ever to question the premise that the state ought to be enforcing the social order they think is best for children. They do not make a distinction between promotion of heterosexual marriage through voluntary persuasion and informal social norms and promotion through the power of the state.
Moreover, their case for “traditional” marriage is mostly about happiness and emotional fulfillment. Children raised by guardians other than their biological mother and father, they claim, inevitably suffer psychologically from longing for the absent biological parent(s). Maybe that’s true. But then these same people turn around and criticize gay-marriage advocates for wanting to make marriage “merely” a vehicle for adult sexual connection– that is, for happiness and emotional fulfillment. (Claiming that nontraditional marriage is simply a sexual-expression device is, of course, an enormous misrepresentation– but lay that aside for now).
So they not only want the state to use its coercive powers to promote their preferred social order; they also want it to make coercively-enforced decisions about which sorts of human happiness are worthy of promotion. Below all the layers of care and reasonableness, there still lurks this core of enormous arrogance.
And it is here that I see the fundamental philosophical split between conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians share with conservatives an enormousely important belief about the nature of the human world: namely, that there are serious limits to human knowledge and human goodness. We agree that there can be no philosopher-kings and no flawless Five-Year Plans; we nod along with William Graham Sumner when he says “You cannot remake the world with slate and pencil.”
Yet for a conservative, those limits become a reason for statecraft-as-soulcraft– “people need to be guided away from their sinful natures”– whereas for a libertarian they dictate a sort of militant humility– “I don’t know what’s good for other people and neither do you“. Color me militantly humble.
“But: they don’t seem ever to question the premise that the state ought to be enforcing the social order….”
It’s not just conservatives, even minarchist libertarians make the same assumption.
God (Father, Son, and Spirit) was the original libertarian. Even HE does not FORCE us to believe in or follow Him, and we cannot force people to do what WE think is right.
Conservatives: man, what a bunch of socialists.
I think you boys are missing the point.
Are the three of you allowed to force me to accept a new definition for a term when I already have my own definition for that term?
What if I am the one who invented the term in the first place?
Or imagine that I wrote a book, and I own the copyright to that book. Are you 3 allowed to force me to make changes to my book because you all believe it would be a better book with certain portions altered more to Your liking?
So Gay Marriage is a copyright violation? What Fox News program did you learn that argument from?
DougB: So Gay Marriage is a copyright violation?
Not exactly. But are you claiming that Homosexuals are the originators of the term â??Marriageâ?? Or are you suggesting that there is a long and established tradition of â??Gay â??Marriageâ?â????
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the government has already defined marriage once before in our history. Remember when polygamy was outlawed?
To John T. Kennedy: I know of NO libertarians who believe that the government ought to enforce social order. In fact, the point of libertarianism (at least the definitions I’ve found) is LESS government involvement in our lives, which includes removing them from the arena of healthcare, welfare, and other various forms of state dependency.
Re: The Massachusetts court decision
It’s perfectly reasonable to support homosexual marriage in general, but to think that this court decision is very wrong.
Judicial activism is a dangerous thing, and endorsing questionable legal reasoning just because it comes up with a result you like is not necessary a good policy.
Re-stating my point, despite the fact that I do not agree with gay marriage, I believe that I, you, the govt, cannot dictate who can or cannot marry LEGALLY. It’s ridiculous to litigate such things.
Anonymous, my point exactly.
Gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized. The primary purpose of marriage is to create a family. Now, many people get married for the tax breaks and legal protection, which the state has a right to grant or not grant, which is not what marriage is about. The incentives and protections were put in place to encourage family. Over the last few decades much of the incentives and protections (particularly towards father’s rights) have been dramatically weakened. As a result, our society is becoming more fractured as more children are born out of wedlock, without the proper familial support in place to ensure successfully raising a responsible kid.
Legalizing gay marriages will weaken marriage in general because many gay couples have open marriages and do not want kids, just the tax breaks and protection. This type of thinking has seeped into the minds of heterosexuals. Now they get married, only to have open marriages or only for financial reasons, not to have children and build a family. This is the weakening of marriage.
Fully ignoring this, gay activists are pushing forward with the ‘right’ to get married. They are mistaken, marriage is not a right. It’s a privilege: you have to get a license for it, the same as a driver’s license. That license is issued by the state, so they set the rules. If the state decides that only a man and woman can be married, then that’s the rule.
Civil contracts between people should be recognized; after all, you should be able to do whatever you want with property you have and earn. That is very different from giving tax incentives and legal protection that comes along with marriage.
I don’t think states should allow gay marriage, but it is up to the individual state to recognize a marriage. If Massachusetts wants to allow gay marriages fine, but if Virginia doesn’t recognize it, that’s something that needs to be realized as well. Just because Massachusetts will license it, doesn’t mean Virginia has to honor it.
Jenn: Everyone seems to be forgetting that the government has already defined marriage once before in our history. Remember when polygamy was outlawed?
You know it is funny that you mention that Jenn, because I think this point demonstrates some of the hypocrisy on this issue. Obviously the pro Gay â??Marriageâ? sect has no problem with the idea of limiting the definition of â??Marriageâ? to certain criteria. And if you think about it, that is exactly what the Religious conservatives are doing.
So why are the religious conservatives wrong for wanting to limit the definition of â??Marriageâ?, but the liberal-secularist are not wrong for wanting to limit the definition of â??marriageâ????
Why is one set of limits â??goodâ? and the other â??badâ?? It all seems rather arbitrary and subjective to me.
I agree with Both Dani and Kenâ??s comments as well.
Legalizing gay marriages will weaken marriage in general because many gay couples have open marriages and do not want kids, just the tax breaks and protection. This type of thinking has seeped into the minds of heterosexuals.
Hmmm…I’m a heterosexual who is madly in love with a wonderful woman and neither of us have any intention having children.
Oh, GOD! My mind has been contaminated by gay people! Help! Ahhhhrggh!
Many hetero couples have open marriages and many more do not want or cannot have children, in spite of the fact that there is still no such thing as “gay marriage” in this country and there never has been. One in two marriages end in divorce. If the institution of marriage has been weakened by anyone, it’s straight people.
If homosexuals are really predisposed against monogamy and stable, familial-type relationships, why would they want to get married at all? It isn’t as though people have to get married to have sex anymore. And among those that do prefer a more “swinging” lifestyle, I seriously doubt that they are the ones lining up to go to the altar.
So come on, Ken, Serpent, et al…what does letting gay folks call themselves “married” *really* cost you? And please spare me the rhetoric of “forcing you to accept” anything…all that would be required of you is to leave these people the hell alone.
one cannot litigate morality, no matter how much you want to, no matter how right and true something is, people cannot be forced to choose a certain behavior. It has to be their choice.
the demise of our country is now and will be more-so relativism… ‘whatever makes you happy’ and ‘wahtever makes you feel good’.
Brian,
If homosexuals donâ??t care about my opinion on the matter, then why are homosexuals and people like you so desperate to force me to acknowledge their relationship is on par with my â??marriageâ?? Why do I have to concede that Your â??marriageâ? to your pet dog is equal to my â??marriageâ? to my beautiful and loving wife?
Why do you require my acceptance and recognition? And why do you insist on having it against my wishes?
Actually I have nothing against homosexuals, but are you comprehending my point, my Man?
Mr. or Ms. Dani?
I must say that my respect for you seems to grow with each post you make.
Fully ignoring this, gay activists are pushing forward with the ‘right’ to get married. They are mistaken, marriage is not a right. It’s a privilege: you have to get a license for it, the same as a driver’s license. That license is issued by the state, so they set the rules. If the state decides that only a man and woman can be married, then that’s the rule.
The similarities between driving 3000 lbs of steel at 70mph and the definition of how a couple may spend the rest of their life together are endless!
I am so ready for the freaking island it’s not funny. When is the boat leaving the dock?
Frank N.: I am so ready for the freaking island it’s not funny.
Now you strike me as a level headed guy Mr. Frank. So why do you believe that you wouldnâ??t have this same problem on Balko’s little â??Monkey Island of Socialist Paradiseâ??
You just know it will only be a matter of time until some â??viperâ? convinces â??Caesarâ? that he should overthrow the homo sapiens and force them to accept Monkey-Human marriages as on equal footing as a marriage between two Men.
Serpent, buddy…we’re going to start talking past each other again, I’m afraid. You (seem to) believe that State recognition of a marriage is effectively synonymous with your acceptance thereof. I just don’t see it that way. I know in the old philisophical sense that the government is an extension of the “will of the people”…or at least, it ought to be…but since the government more often doesn’t do what I would like, I have a hard time seeing how it is implementing my will. Ever.
If it’s really the fact that you feel forced to accept something if the State accepts it, aren’t there more important things for you to worry about? Or are you cool with everything the government does?
The reason advocates of gay marriage (and I wouldn’t consider myself an “advocate” so much as someone who’s mystified the violent opposition to it) care about what people think is that the reality of our society is a marriage isn’t a marriage unless it’s recognized by the State. If I had my way, marriage wouldn’t be the State’s business, and this whole discussion would be moot.
Why do I have to concede that Your â??marriageâ? to your pet dog is equal to my â??marriageâ? to my beautiful and loving wife?
Would this be a reductio ad Santorum argument?
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. It’s Friday. :)
Article VII of the Balkonian Island Papers states the The state may not sanction, endorse or recognize ANY union between any two beings.
This is code for what happens between a man and his monkey is no ones business, but I digress.
Drink please.
many gay couples have open marriages and do not want kids, just the tax breaks and protection
I know this has already been commented on, but WHERE does this statement come from? I imagine from some amalgamation of cultural perceptions and homophobia–oh and income tax ignorance, which is the small point I am taking issue with.
One thing which I think can be safely assumed about your average gay married couple is that they are more likely to be equal earners as a couple. Thus, getting married will actually cause them to pay MORE in taxes, as the first dollar of whomever is designated the second earner will be taxed at the couples highest bracket. The government actually stands to make tons of $ in increased tax revenue if they allow gay marriage–and still no support for the prospect–politics leads to such irrational policies…
I want to see churches have more say in marriage, this is why government should be out of it all together.
A church should be allowed to say that a minister must be married. And they can define that marriage to mean certain things – above and beyond what the state says it is.
Giving the state the power at all in this case actually hurts the churches families because the church is impotent in deciding how to formally put their blessing on the marriage.
Further more, if a church invests money in a youth minister or whatever – and this youth minister abandons the marriage that was also a third party contract with the church – why not also let the church have legal recourse.
The answer – fellow christians – to having more control over you own marriages to kick the great satan – the state – out of your marriages to begin with.
Same goes with just about everything regarding behavior. You want give the state to regulate behavior over ANY BOUNDARIES?!? – just wait till that power is used against you. E.G., regulate your private schools and how you run them to the point prayer is even taken out of your private schools – just wait!
Remember – the liberty in Christ is the liberty to do good deeds no matter where you live and what your government does or does not condone. And remember – God replaced the Israel nation – one that was steeped in draconian principals with a new and more perfect religion. One not corruptable by any party. When you think that the Satanic state should have control over your contracts between each other and God – you are inserting a new king between you and god, that king being the Law. God said we did not need a king – but we always say we needed one. Christians laugh Sunday in lessons about how the nation of Israel repeatedly made this mistake – so it is laughable to watch them still want to insert anything between them and their God.
rant finished.
Brian Hawkins.: Serpent, buddy…we’re going to start talking past each other again, I’m afraid. You (seem to) believe that State recognition of a marriage is effectively synonymous with your acceptance thereof.
Actually Iâ??m not entirely sure the state should have anything to do with it.
Brian Hawkins.: I just don’t see it that way. I know in the old philisophical sense that the government is an extension of the “will of the people”…or at least, it ought to be…
Well I agree with that sentiment.
Brian Hawkins.: but since the government more often doesn’t do what I would like, I have a hard time seeing how it is implementing my will. Ever.
Surely the state is implementing your will on some matters. How about crime â?? murder, rape, thievery?
Brian Hawkins.: If it’s really the fact that you feel forced to accept something if the State accepts it, aren’t there more important things for you to worry about? Or are you cool with everything the government does?
(In my opinion â?¦) The function of the government should be limited to 3 areas â?? Military/National defense, Judicial/Logical, and the Legislature/â?the Priesthoodâ?.
Brian Hawkins.: The reason advocates of gay marriage (and I wouldn’t consider myself an “advocate” so much as someone who’s mystified the violent opposition to it) care about what people think is that the reality of our society is a marriage isn’t a marriage unless it’s recognized by the State. If I had my way, marriage wouldn’t be the State’s business, and this whole discussion would be moot.
It would appear that fundamentally we are in agreement Mr. Hawkins (which is good because I normally agree with what you post).
—-
Frank N.: Drink please.
Well my friend, it is Friday! ;-)
Joel Stewart,
I thought there was a hierarchy of â??Laws/Rulesâ??
1) Godâ??s Law (The Laws of Physics)
2) Manâ??s Law (The Constitution)
3) The Law of Individuals (a private contract)
No law can contradict any of the higher laws that supercede it. Or do I have it wrong?
Drink please
Hear, hear!
Cutting to the chase (or at least trying):
Isn’t the whole confab about monetary and lifestyle benefits?
Anybody can stand up in front of some poobah or shaman, wave a smoking sage frond, drink the native vinegar, chant in off-key monosyllabic gibberish, throw a dead chicken into a volcano or swim naked in a sewage-choked river and declare themselves “married.”
In that there is no established religious rite which precludes others (thank you, 1st Amendment), the concept is strictly moral; public health concerns notwithstanding, civil variations followed only as habit demanded. It is only in how business and government have given certain advantages to some people and not others, based on assumed needs or propensities of those who are self-declared spouses, that there are legal issues.
Two ideas:
A) Many businesses have already begun recognizing “domestic partnerships” involving both combinations of sex mix (or lack thereof). Get out of the way of the market’s ability to make this process more streamlined and efficient.
B) Tax each person individually (better yet, no income tax at all, but let’s stay on point). No combining of incomes for households, thus no need for greater breaks for “marrieds.”
The moral aspects will play themselves out. I suspect the political to-do is as they all are, simply a pedestal for otherwise hopeless whiners to gain publicity and further the nihilist cause.
Jenn,
You wrote:
“To John T. Kennedy: I know of NO libertarians who believe that the government ought to enforce social order. In fact, the point of libertarianism (at least the definitions I’ve found) is LESS government involvement in our lives, which includes removing them from the arena of healthcare, welfare, and other various forms of state dependency.”
Any government involvement in any arena enfofces a social order. Minarchist libertarians may advocate doing less of that than conservatives, but they still advocate doing it.
Corquando,
It would be nice if it were so simple. The problems go beyond that from a legal point of view. Distribution of property, government benefits (like Social Security and Military pay), rights to act on behalf of an incapacitated spouse (medical and other legal descisions), etc are all determined by the legal distinction of marriage.
Some of these issues could be handled by separate contract, others obviously not. And even if you had such a contract, family members could contest it. So there is much more at stake here than recognition and taxes.
I am dealing with just these issues now vis-a-vis the estate of my father-in-law and his (now ex-) fiancee. For all intents and purposes they were married (and had set a date to make it official) but because they didn’t get to the court on time, her life has become seriously complicated.
John Kennedy: Any government involvement in any arena enforces a social order. Minarchist libertarians may advocate doing less of that than conservatives, but they still advocate doing it.
How can you have any commerce (trade) without first having â??Social Orderâ??
BTW â?? would you consider me a â??Minarchistâ? Mr. Kennedy?
Serpent,
See my just posted note answering Corquando about why getting govt out of marriage is impractical.
BTW thanks for the Fisking. From my point of view, you failed to derail any of my points. But of course I would say that. Silly to compare progress with regress: gay marriage to burkas. This is about giving rights, not taking them away. (I am against the ban on smoking by the way.)
What makes you say that sexual orientation is not genetic? I don’t know if or how the law looks at it, but seriously, don’t you think that orientation is primarily genetic? (by this I do not mean heredity, I mean the way people are wired due to their biological make-up)
And I am not saying that you, Mr. Serpent, have to like that gay people have this right, no more than you may like that gay people have the right to hold hands in public (you do accept that do you not?) I am just saying that it should not matter to you. You can go on thinking that your straight marriage is superior to the gay variety (you have that right) but the law may very well have to say otherwise.
To Brian Hawkins:
Here is a blurb from Stanley Kurtz on all sorts of sexual taboos and why they are taboos and why it’s a good idea that they’re taboos.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp
Yes, Brian, I understand that for marriage to break down, it has to be because of straights. It comes from straight people accepting that anything should be permissible as long as it’s between two consenting adults. This does sound good. And I believe this till someone can give me a convincing arguement against it. Mr. Kurtz is a social anthropologist from Harvard, who studies precisely these questions. His arguements and many others I have read, leads me to think that while homosexuality should be tolerated, it should, by no means, be encouraged, especially by governments recognizing gay marriage.
I know that experts can be wrong, but if they are, they need to be PROVEN wrong. Dismissing it out of hand because you disagree with it is a mistake. Your sarcasm is weak. Come up with a real arguement.
Oh, and thank you for making a very good point:
“If homosexuals are really predisposed against monogamy and stable, familial-type relationships, why would they want to get married at all? It isn’t as though people have to get married to have sex anymore. “
If heterosexuality is genetic, why is it so difficult to believe homosexuality is also genetic?
Ms. and thank you
very good serpent!
yes – you are correct – no law can contradict the law of one higher than it!!
So – do you suppose if a government makes NO law concerning individual realationships and individual contracts – it cannot be contradictory – can it? If they do – they risk begin wrong.
But if you persist, then you would also support the following marriage law of the Bible:
Deut 28 – 30
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
(Notice this does not exclude rape)
JS
Garth: [Legal Marriages â?¦] The problems go beyond that from a legal point of view. Distribution of property, government benefits (like Social Security and Military pay), rights to act on behalf of an incapacitated spouse (medical and other legal decisions), etc are all determined by the legal distinction of marriage.
I donâ??t see why social security benefits or property distribution has to be connected to marriage? Canâ??t you leave your property to whomever you wish? Why canâ??t you do the same with Social Security?
As for Medical and legal decisions I know that business partners can and do have certain rights in this regard, but that doesnâ??t mean that a business partnership is a marriage.
Garth: Some of these issues could be handled by separate contract, others obviously not.
Which ones not?
Garth: And even if you had such a contract, family members could contest it. So there is much more at stake here than recognition and taxes.
Why do you believe that â??other contractsâ? could be contested, but not â??marriage contractsâ??
Garth: BTW thanks for the Fisking. From my point of view, you failed to derail any of my points. But of course I would say that.
Donâ??t mention it Amigo. And feel free to Counter-Fisk my Fisking.
Garth: Silly to compare progress with regress: gay marriage to burkas. This is about giving rights, not taking them away.
Iâ??d say that often one Manâ??s progress is another Manâ??s regress.
Is allowing people to voluntarily fighting to the death in gladiatorial-style pay-per-view events a progressive extension/expansion of personal liberties or a regression into more barbaric times and customs?
Garth: (I am against the ban on smoking by the way.)
I am glad we can agree on that.
Garth: What makes you say that sexual orientation is not genetic? I don’t know if or how the law looks at it, but seriously, don’t you think that orientation is primarily genetic? (by this I do not mean heredity, I mean the way people are wired due to their biological make-up)
Iâ??m not so sure â?¦ I have had quite a few homosexual friends over the years, and while I suspect that there may be a genetic element, I have also noticed certain anomalies that lead me to believe that environment is probably the more decisive factor.
For example if homosexuality is primarily genetic, then why is it that so many more lesbians report being sexually abused, or molested, or being raped than heterosexual women (statistically much higher)? Certainly sexual abuse, molestation, and rape are not genetic.
Garth: And I am not saying that you, Mr. Serpent, have to like that gay people have this right, no more than you may like that gay people have the right to hold hands in public (you do accept that do you not?) I am just saying that it should not matter to you.
Let me put it to you like this. If I see a heterosexual couple getting overly sexual at the playground or Disney world when I am there with my kids, then I am going to say something to them. And if they are gay I am still going to say something to them.
Garth: You can go on thinking that your straight marriage is superior to the gay variety (you have that right) but the law may very well have to say otherwise.
And You can go on thinking that your straight marriage is superior to your neighbors â??Dog Marriageâ? (you have that right) but the law may very well have to say otherwise. The real question is do we make the laws, or do the laws make us?
in my opinion, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are genetic rather heterosexuality is the natural use of your body, look at your own genitalia for crying out loud (ok. you can stop looking)… homosexuality is exchanging the natural use of your body for something that is unnatural… but that is rather off the point…
Marriage should not be a matter of the state. It should be a matter of religion.
Hey, if gays can influence the govt to make legal their marriages, then why can’t people against state interference with marriage influence the govt to get out of all marriages? It could happen.
Joel Stewart: So – do you suppose if a government makes NO law concerning individual relationships and individual contracts – it cannot be contradictory – can it? If they do – they risk begin wrong.
I would say that the fundamental laws of a civilization (call it their â??Constitutionâ?) is only bound by the laws of God (or the laws of physics, if your prefer). The Constitution cannot contradict TLOG (or TLOP), but any Private entanglements between individuals are subordinate to the Constitution, not the other way around.
Joel Stewart: But if you persist, then you would also support the following marriage law of the Bible:
In my mind, in our society the Bible is another layer of the laws of Individuals. In our society it is a form of â??private contractâ? between those who voluntarily consent to its terms and conditions.
Our civilization does not demand that you and I adhere to the terms and conditions of the Bible, but our civilization does demand that we adhere to the terms and conditions of the Constitution for any other agreement we make privately between ourselves. In essence the Constitution becomes a preamble for any private contract you and I would make.
Of course TLOP is a level above the Constitution. Obviously if the Constitution contradicted The laws of Physics it would be invalid. You cannot legislate or decree that the inverse square law not be obeyed for example.
Serpent,
Here’s the rub on the contract issue: people are lazy. I suspect the vast majority of your fellow citizens would never get around to writing out contracts about the disposal of their property, social security, military benefits and the like. Some might, when they get old, but even then (as is the case with wills) these things get contested. With the government sanctioning marriage it has set aside a default treatment. (BTW you cannot leave your social security or military retirement pay to anyone except for your spouse. Not to your kids, not to your dog).
There is a reason why states have created the concept of common law marriage: live together long enough, no one will “be able to tell what’s yours and mine (the fishin’s fine)” and so the state wants to treat the property as jointly owned. But this comes as a result of the couple being considered married.
Yes, yes, we could enact laws to deal with “domestic partnership” as a seperate legal distinction but serve the same purpose, but it still would leave these people with a distinct class apart from married. Seprate but equal? Probably not in the end.
As to your point about genetics: I am sure that sexuality comes in many flavours and shades of desire. However, I do think that male homosexuality is primarily of biological/genetic origin. Why make the distinction? I feel less comfortable commenting on the source of lesbianism. While I believe that many lesbians and genetically pre-disposed, I have known a number of women who have been temporarily lesbians, gravitated to it latter in life, or go either way as the mood hits. In my experience, the vast majority of men are certain, have their orientation fixed early in life, and remain on one side of the fence or the other.
Man, I’m really gonna get it for this one…
Our genetics determine the color our eyes, skin, hair, our height, our ability to process and store information, certain biological defects, etc… all physical attributes.
Whom you choose to fulfill your lusting desires with, is just that, a desire. It’s the same as the lust or desire to eat. You choose what you eat. You don’t say “I am a vegetarian by birth” (and BTW, I don’t buy the “I’m fat because of genetics” argument either).
If we say we as humans have no choice over what gender we “prefer”, then we say that we are all animals and have no control over our desires. What makes us different from animals? We can reason, they cannot.
Men are not born wanting another man. Women are not born wanting another woman. We are conditioned through our environment, experiences, rejections, love, emotions, LIFE to acclimate ourselves to whatever makes us feel most comfortable and most accepted. And no, it cant be easy to be gay. It’s not the easiest road to choose, but sometimes when people don’t fit in with the “norm” they resort to the “abnormal”. In doing this, they feel like they at least fit in somewhere, even if it is a difficult place. It’s better than not fitting in at all.
Ok, fire away…
all that to say… it (marriage) is a moral issue
I have read through everyone’s comments and still don’t understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage.
-if your religion or your god doesn’t approve, don’t push your religion or your god on anyone else.
-if you don’t believe the state should get involved w/ marriage at all, then you’re arguing a different issue than gay marriage.
-no one asks a straight couple what their motivation is for marriage (despite what you might think the purpose of marriage is). why does anyone feel its necessary for homosexual couples?
-there are plenty of gay couples who do want children. many have children already from first “straight” marriages.
-despite what nature intended my genitalia to do, what i decide to actually do (or don’t do) with it is MY BUSINESS.
-the state does set the rules based on our constitution (not the bible). the bible is not the governing document for our government, despite what some may think.
-i don’t understand why polygamy is illegal.
i’ll take a margarita…
Anon @ 1:04–
Convince me that your deference to Dr. Kurtz’s “expertise” has nothing to do with the fact that you happen to agree with his conclusions. For every Stanley Kurtz, there is someone with comparable credentials and “expertise” that believes the exact opposite.
Dismissing someone’s argument on the basis of disagreement with their conclusions is no different from accepting it on the basis of agreement with their conclusions.
A major difference between social sciences (such as social anthropology) and “hard” sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) is the lack of testable hypotheses in the social sciences. Kurtz’s piece does little more than propose thought experiements (and it barely accomplishes that) and present ideas in the form of “if A, then B”, when there is no way to manipulate A OR objectively measure B. In other words, his ideas are not the sort that can be disproved.
Of course, if you want to “believe” his argument because it “sounds good”, by all means feel free to do so. Forgive me if I hold the “experts”…especially the self-proclaimed ones…to a much, much higher standard.
Super Genius “despite what nature intended my genitalia to do, what i decide to actually do (or don’t do) with it is MY BUSINESS.”
Ditto, and what I do with mine is my business. I may not think what you are doing with yours is right, but it’s still yours to do with what you will.
Now… how about that margarita?
Dani, what makes you so sure that there is no genetic predisposition in some individuals to be attracted to members of the same sex?
Lawrence,
It is difficult to prove something that is “not”, but I would like to maybe elaborate more. I am no expert, only an observer, and a sucker for debate, so heregoes…
A predisposition is a tendency to lean towards one thing or another… you still having a choice.
It is also defined as something that is “applied to the mind”.
The idea of genetic predispositioning is man-made. Name something (other than the alleged sexual preference issue) that we all as humans are genetically predispositioned for, as far as behavior goes.
Serpent-
Thanks fo saving me a ho-lotta typin’.
Garth, et al.:
No easy answers, you betcha. The frustrating part is that it would be possible for the systemology to be “backed out of” to a point where contracts and morals could co-exist peaceably, if never overlapping, so that Caesar could be rendered his while The Lord’s was likewise.
It would only take a complete redefinition of 4000 years of Indo-Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian-Western thought and morality. Oughta be easy. Daschle and Schumer try it all the time.
the conversation at this party has been lovely, but I must go.
…and since I stopped drinking and smoking (by choice), someone tilt one back and light one up for me this weekend. I miss them both so very much.
Garth: Here’s the rub on the contract issue: people are lazy. I suspect the vast majority of your fellow citizens would never get around to writing out contracts about the disposal of their property, social security, military benefits and the like.
Why do you believe that other peopleâ??s laziness gives them the right to enslave me (or my mind)? Is the expedience of others to be the order of the day and your guiding purpose for existing?
I guess it is far, far easier for people to inconvenience someone else than to be inconvenienced themselves?
Garth: Some might, when they get old, but even then (as is the case with wills) these things get contested. With the government sanctioning marriage it has set aside a default treatment.
Why does the government need to be involved other than to resolve contract disputes?
Garth: BTW you cannot leave your social security or military retirement pay to anyone except for your spouse. Not to your kids, not to your dog.
Okay, so why is it preferable to change the â??lawsâ? regarding marriage instead of the laws regarding social security and military retirement?
Garth: There is a reason why states have created the concept of common law marriage: live together long enough, no one will “be able to tell what’s yours and mine (the fishin’s fine)” and so the state wants to treat the property as jointly owned. But this comes as a result of the couple being considered married.
I agree with that. But if people donâ??t consider two individuals of the same sex living together as â??marriedâ?? then why do you think they will consider them â??marriedâ? if you try and force them to accept it by decree? Perhaps anytime that the â??inferiorâ? majority disagrees with the â??superiorâ? minority we should just enact a new law against the will of the â??inferiorâ? majority and set those stupid little bastards straight? Thatâ??s what you are really saying â?? isnâ??t it Garth?
Of course that isnâ??t what I would call a democracy. In a democracy the Majority agrees on what is â??rightâ? and what is â??wrongâ?. We donâ??t let a â??superiorâ? minority tell the â??inferiorâ? majority what is legal and what isnâ??t. When the â??superiorâ? minority makes all of the decisions that is called Communism.
If you want people to accept â??gay marriagesâ? then I am afraid you are actually going to have to convince people one by one until you have a majority on your side. At least unless you are willing to use force against your fellow man.
Garth: Yes, yes, we could enact laws to deal with “domestic partnership” as a separate legal distinction but serve the same purpose, but it still would leave these people with a distinct class apart from married. Separate but equal? Probably not in the end.
Whatâ??s wrong with â??domestic partnershipâ?? I mean if homosexuals really want to be straight then why donâ??t they just become heterosexuals? Why do you feel the need to force me to pretend that they are straight when obviously they are not?
Garth: As to your point about genetics: I am sure that sexuality comes in many flavours and shades of desire. However, I do think that male homosexuality is primarily of biological/genetic origin. Why make the distinction? I feel less comfortable commenting on the source of lesbianism. While I believe that many lesbians and genetically pre-disposed, I have known a number of women who have been temporarily lesbians, gravitated to it latter in life, or go either way as the mood hits. In my experience, the vast majority of men are certain, have their orientation fixed early in life, and remain on one side of the fence or the other.
I wouldnâ??t disagree with your assessment of the situation in the details, but I still find it extremely hard to believe that sexual orientation is primarily genetic (not that it matters). I would say that in general a person is deemed â??Sexyâ? if they are male and masculine, or if they are female and feminine. Since our society perceives male homosexuality as un-masculine, male homosexuality is less â??sexyâ? to the general public. Whereas, female homosexuality tends to be perceived as very feminine and therefore very â??sexyâ? and ergo much more socially acceptable. In other words, I think the reason for the double standard (the reason why it is more acceptable for women to be Bisexual) is because society views female homosexuality as more in line with feminine nature whereas male homosexuality is perceived as anti-masculine (un-sexy) behavior.
Dani: Whom you choose to fulfill your lusting desires with, is just that, a desire. It’s the same as the lust or desire to eat. You choose what you eat. You don’t say “I am a vegetarian by birth” (and BTW, I don’t buy the “I’m fat because of genetics” argument either).
I agree with everything that you are saying, but in reality isnâ??t it all determined by the casual nature of the laws of physics? In other words, your genetics is like the starting point, and from there you have an unending chain of cause and event, cause and event, which are really beyond your control.
I mean think about it. No one would claim that the language you speak is genetic, but by the same token, it isnâ??t as if you got to â??chooseâ? your primary language either â?? is it?
Dani: If we say we as humans have no choice over what gender we “prefer”, then we say that we are all animals and have no control over our desires. What makes us different from animals? We can reason, they cannot.
Once again I agree with what you are saying in principle Ms. Dani; however, I donâ??t know if I would say that animals cannot â??reasonâ?. I would just say that homo sapiens are superior at reasoning than animals. I would further add that I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we are able to communicate (send and receive information) in a much more effective and efficient manner than animals are capable of.
Dani: Men are not born wanting another man. Women are not born wanting another woman. We are conditioned through our environment, experiences, rejections, love, emotions, LIFE to acclimate ourselves to whatever makes us feel most comfortable and most accepted.
I agree, although I do believe that our inherent nature (i.e. genetics (or â??karmaâ? from your previous existence if you prefer)) does play a role.
Dani: And no, it cant be easy to be gay. It’s not the easiest road to choose, but sometimes when people don’t fit in with the “norm” they resort to the “abnormal”. In doing this, they feel like they at least fit in somewhere, even if it is a difficult place. It’s better than not fitting in at all.
I think that homosexuality is probably a lot like smoking. Other people may see it as a dirty habit, but if you are secure having your own thoughts than obviously you will perceive it as beneficial to your existence instead of harmful.
There is an old adage which states: It is impossible for an Individual to deliberately cause themselves harm.
I think that if a lot more of the â??do-goodersâ? in this world took that message to heart we be at least a couple steps closer to â??paradiseâ?.
A good post Ms. Dani. I like the way you think. ;-)
Marriage is considered by most Christian religons to be a Holy Sacrament. The state should not involve itself in religous doctrine in any shape or form. The reason is pretty obvious at this point in time.
This would be a perfect opportunity for the state to remove itself from the adminstration of religon. Let those who want to sanction Gay Marriages belong to religons that sanction it. Those who are opposed can belong to their own religons (freedom of religon…what a good idea). The state will only enforce the civil union portion and that will only be open to consenting adults.
What are the tax benefits of being married? I have seemed to have missed most fo those ;-)
Dani,
Without doing a google search, I can give you only my personal experience with my 2 young daughters (6 and 3). They have been raised in the same house, same parents, same pets, same groups of friends. There are some behavioral things that they are complete opposites on. Bugs is a great example. The oldest will pick up and play with spiders. The youngest is terrified of rolly-pollies.
The fight/flight behavior is also hard wired into us.
To Brian Hawkins:
The Anon was me, sorry I didn’t sign my name.
As for the differences between hard and soft sciences. There are just as many experts out there in the hard sciences that disagree with each other just as vehemently as in the soft sciences. Also, due to the uncertainty of many hard sciences (where probability and statistics takes over, instead of deterministic models), the distinction between what can be called hard and soft sciences is blurring.
Also, it’s not “expertise”, it’s expertise. When someone reaches a certain level of scholarship, whether or not you agree with or like his ideas, he is an expert.
Your right to question his conclusions, though, just as I’m right to question the conclusions on those who disagree with Mr. Kurtz. They, too, need to be held to as strict a standard. As to not being able to manipulate A (as in A implies B) you are correct when discussing social sciences. However, you are very wrong when you say these topics cannot be measured. The techniques used to measure these things are survey methods and statistics.
To Dani:
You said it: ‘Our genetics determine the color our eyes, skin, hair, our height, our ability to process and store information, certain biological defects, etc… all physical attributes.’
This includes the physical makeup of our brain, which governs our intelligence, personality and much of our preferences. To suggest that genetics is not a cause of homosexuality shows your woeful lack of understanding of genetics and their impact on human nature.
Then you say: ‘You choose what you eat. You don’t say “I am a vegetarian by birth” (and BTW, I don’t buy the “I’m fat because of genetics” argument either).’
But your wrong of course about choosing what we eat. I suppose one could choose to eat sand, but he wouldn’t last long. There are certain things we crave that our bodies need, which is determined by genetics.
You, also, shoot yourself in the foot about being fat due to genetics. Your own words say genetics determine much of our physical attributes. I agree that obesity is caused by irresponsibility, but being fat, most of the times is genetic. How many people do you know that can eat whatever they want and not gain a pound, while, at the same time, you know someone else who works hard and eats right and is still fat?
You said: ‘What makes us different from animals? We can reason, they cannot.’
Wrong again. All animals must be able to reason. Most know, even if it’s just on an instinctual level, they must eat or they die. They figure out where food is and how to get it. If they don’t, they die. Natural selection at it’s finest. The main difference between us and other animal species is merely the degree that we can reason and learn.
You said: ‘We are conditioned through our environment, experiences, rejections, love, emotions, LIFE to acclimate ourselves to whatever makes us feel most comfortable and most accepted.’
Sort of. We can never be conditioned to feel comfortable in extreme whether, that’s why we buid houses and wear clothes. A human is still a human in any environment.
However, after all this nonsensical talk, this has nothing to do with whether or not governments should recognize gay marriages. This is the key issue! Stick with the issue. Jeez, look at the tangent you’ve all made me go on!!
Supergenius: I have read through everyone’s comments and still don’t understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage.
And I still donâ??t understand why anyone opposes my initiative to legislate that 2 + 2 = 5 ???
Supergenius: -if your religion or your god doesn’t approve, don’t push your religion or your god on anyone else.
Iâ??m not the one pushing â?? You are. Why are you and your â??friendsâ? trying to force me to accept Your definition of a term when I already have my own definition? Why canâ??t I force you to accept my definition?
Or are you suggesting that in a Democracy the Minority rules?
Supergenius: -if you don’t believe the state should get involved w/ marriage at all, then you’re arguing a different issue than gay marriage.
You might have a point there, but I still donâ??t see why you think you have the right to tell me and the majority how to define terms with old and established definitions?
Supergenius: -no one asks a straight couple what their motivation is for marriage (despite what you might think the purpose of marriage is). why does anyone feel its necessary for homosexual couples?
Because marriage is an institution that was started FOR heterosexuals, BY heterosexuals, and kind of like heterosexual sex or raising children, until recently it was something that homosexuals had no interest in.
Supergenius: -there are plenty of gay couples who do want children. many have children already from first “straight” marriages.
Right â?¦ so should we also redefine â??Divorcedâ? to mean â??Marriedâ? so we can eliminate the problem of unmarried mothers?
Supergenius: -despite what nature intended my genitalia to do, what i decide to actually do (or don’t do) with it is MY BUSINESS.
Okay, so if that is the case then why are you trying to make it MY BUSINESS by insisting that I approve and sanction your relationship as equal to mine?
If I marry my pet rock does that mean you have to accept my marriage as equal to yours? Can I claim all of the little pebbles around my house as tax deductions?
Supergenius: -the state does set the rules based on our constitution (not the bible). the bible is not the governing document for our government, despite what some may think.
We agree there, although BOTH the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are based on the notion that â??Godâ? exist.
Supergenius: -i don’t understand why polygamy is illegal.
Me neither?!?!?
Supergenius â?¦ ??? Do you know â??Bobâ? by any chance?
Serpent,
I agree with some of what you say: in a perfect world we would not need the government to exist at all and certainly not have any role vis-a-vis this thing we call marriage. But this is not the case. Society for now demands that this distinction, with its rights and privs, exists.
As for your “democratic” approach: I thought we were a country of laws first and a country of mob rule second. You and your majority change the laws and then we can discuss… for now the law as it stands is subject to some interpretation.
What was your point about domestic partnerships? I didn’t get it.
As for the genetics of orientation: I like girls, in fact I find the female form highly enticing. To me this feels like a deep-seated biological response. And a compelling one at that. Now I choose not to cheat, but I can’t choose not to like what I see (lust). I have long thought that those who think orientation is all about choice must not have a strong libido, must not feel a lot of lust.
Maybe you and Dani don’t get that hubba-hubba feeling, but I do and it does not feel like choice.
BTW the occurance of homosexuality among men across societies is pretty constant at something like 7% (I think). Akin to lefthandedness (like 10%). Sure looks genetic to me. I will get a reference for you guys.
And Ken: What you said!
My neighbor’s drug use will not encourage me to do the same unless I allow it.
My neighbor’s violent domestic arguments will not encourage my wife and I to do the same unless we allow it.
My neighbor’s pedophilia will not encourage me to do the same unless I allow it.
Likewise, my neighbor’s gay marriage will not weaken my marriage unless I allow it.
“Puritanism: The fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.”
I think that definition needs a revision given some of the statements made on this blog.
Puritanism: The fear that someone, somewhere, will make you realize how weak and full of shit you actually are.
Polygamy is illegal for three reasons cited by court cases which I could look up but don’t have the time right now:
1. Went against Puritan ideals.
2. Claimed to be an issue of “public health.”
3. Once the welfare state began it was assumed that a man could not support a family of multiple wives and the resulting bus load of children by himself and they would eventually all end up as a drain on the State.
As far as Serpent’s questions regarding marrying his rock garden I must say this: unless your rock garden can give legal consent to the marriage, then I’m afraid you will remain single a little while longer. Of course, if your rock garden can give legal consent, perhaps we should take you to the nut house instead of the court house.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/996463.asp?0cv=CB20
One of the Menendez boys gets married in prison.
So someone who kills their parents and the only type of sex they will be getting will be gay sex (no conjugal visits) can get married, yet 2 committed gays cannot.
Yeah this makes sense.
And which one cheapens YOUR marriage again?
How is this supposed to be about the ‘family unit’. He is going to start adopting and raising some fellow prisoners?
Garth I thought we were a country of laws first and a country of mob rule second. You and your majority change the laws and then we can discuss… for now the law as it stands is subject to some interpretation.
I would say that we live in a country where the majority makes the laws.
â?¦ at least, that is the way it was suppose to work?
Garth What was your point about domestic partnerships? I didn’t get it.
What I am saying is that the Theists (Judeo-Christians primarily) have a little private club called â??Marriageâ?, and since it is their own private club, then no one else has the right to tell them how to run it. If the homosexuals are envious then the homosexuals need to start their own private club with their own rules.
Garth As for the genetics of orientation: I like girls, in fact I find the female form highly enticing.
Amen to that Brother!
Garth To me this feels like a deep-seated biological response. And a compelling one at that. Now I choose not to cheat, but I can’t choose not to like what I see (lust). I have long thought that those who think orientation is all about choice must not have a strong libido, must not feel a lot of lust.
Yes, but never-the-less I wonder what if some macho-men such as ourselves were raised in a completely different environment where we were taught that females were vile, ugly, and wretched creatures and only the male form was beautiful? What if all of our experiences and knowledge of what constitutes a happy relationship were homosexual relationships and all of our negative stereotypes were of heterosexual relations? Are you positive that your desire for females would still be the same?
How do you account for all of those tough macho bastards have scads of gay sex in prison? I think that the environment you exist in has a lot to do with who you are.
Then again they say that The Matrix cannot tell you who you are.
Garth Maybe you and Dani don’t get that hubba-hubba feeling, but I do and it does not feel like choice.
I know what you are talking about. I definitely get that feeling. And I definitely agree that it feels like it isnâ??t a choice. In a way, I donâ??t think that it is.
Garth BTW the occurance of homosexuality among men across societies is pretty constant at something like 7% (I think). Akin to lefthandedness (like 10%). Sure looks genetic to me. I will get a reference for you guys.
Okay, but that raises another problem with the â??homosexuality is geneticâ? argument. Typically if there is a random mutation is a population that decreases the chance for individuals with the mutation to reproduce (even if only by a few percent), then over time that mutation is eliminated from the gene pool by virtue of not being passed on to successive generations. In other words, if homosexuality is genetic, then since homosexuals tend to have less offspring than their heterosexual counterparts you would expect the number of homosexuals to be declining over time.
Serpent,
I’m not sure what “Bob” you speak of. I know many…
The answer to 2+2 can be definitively proven, whereas this issue of gay marriage depends on the axiom you use.
You keep referring to rule of the majority, and that we as citizens of the United States should all abide by what the majority thinks. I’m an engineer, so I had to look up “democracy” in my dictionary. Rule of the majority came in at #3. Interestingly, #4 lists democracy as “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.” These two definitions seem to contradict each other – perhaps this is why this is such a hotly debated subject? Just what does it mean to have a democracy?
You don’t have to personally approve and sanction anything I do or any of my “friends.” And to be perfectly honest, I don’t want you involved in my personal business (though I’m sure you’re a perfectly lovely person). The point is that we are all individuals and all make our own choices. Just because historically marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman, doesn’t mean it’s right or that it can’t change. I don’t think you’ve got much to back up the statement that “Because marriage is an institution that was started FOR heterosexuals, BY heterosexuals, and kind of like heterosexual sex or raising children, until recently it was something that homosexuals had no interest in.” Until recently, even the notion that someone might be gay put that person’s life at risk. Oh wait, that still happens…
The point being, despite your POV, you have no way of knowing whether homosexuals wanted marriage or not. It’s only recently that it’s been relatively safe to come out of the closet, so it makes sense that this issue is being raised now.
A side fun issue: why did the state become involved in the marriage thing to begin with?
“Why canâ??t I force you to accept my definition?”
But we _are_ forced to accept your definition of marriage. There are currently 400 federal laws that involve marriage in some aspect. Those laws affect each person (married or not) in numerous ways both direct and indirect.
Mark S. My neighbor’s drug use will not encourage me to do the same unless I allow it.
What if your neighbor drives his car through the front of your house while stoned?
Mark S. My neighbor’s violent domestic arguments will not encourage my wife and I to do the same unless we allow it.
But if you neighbor euphemistically refers to Beating his wife as Kissing his wife then does that mean that when you kiss your wife and when he kisses his wife I should perceive that you are both doing the same thing?
Mark S. My neighbor’s pedophilia will not encourage me to do the same unless I allow it.
Maybe your neighbor wants to redefine â??playing ballâ? to mean what you call â??pedophiliaâ?. Do you accept this definition? What if he calls you a bigoted hatemonger and threatens you with a gun for not accepting his definition?
I guess since you are the â??bigotâ? that makes you wrong and your pedophile neighbor right?
Mark S. Likewise, my neighbor’s gay marriage will not weaken my marriage unless I allow it.
Hey and when they enact my new law making 2 + 2 = 5 it will not weaken you or your childrenâ??s comprehension of mathematics unless you allow it.
Mark S. “Puritanism: The fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.”
More like Hypocrisy if you ask me.
Why can you redefine marriage but not me? What makes YOU think that YOU are so special? How about if I redefine YOUR PROPERTY as MY PROPERTY. Post your address and I will be by to pick up my newfound belongings a little later on. ;)
Mark S. I think that definition needs a revision given some of the statements made on this blog. Puritanism: The fear that someone, somewhere, will make you realize how weak and full of shit you actually are.
Mr. Pot, I would like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
Hehehe â?¦ Iâ??m just messing with you Mark â?? donâ??t take it personal.
Supergenius The answer to 2+2 can be definitively proven, whereas this issue of gay marriage depends on the axiom you use.
But 2 + 2 = 4 can only be proven if we are using the same axioms!
Now on the subject of gay marriages the axioms I am using are the Constitution and the axiom of Majority Rules.
Whereas my opponents seem to be using the axiom of The Minority with the â??superiorâ? Intellect rules. Unfortunately this axiom is highly subjective and far from axiomatic. For example the definition of â??superior intellectâ? seems fatally contradicted and inconsistent.
Iâ??d like to get to the rest of your post, but unfortunately Destiny is calling me â?¦
Serpent,
You’ve done something I’ve never seen before. You’ve taken my post and inserted totally unrelated answers to the point I was making and then close with some smartass comment.
How original. You’ve really proven your point. Bravo.
I don’t understand why anyone who’s religious supports government intervention in marriage. Who’s to say that its definition will match yours down the road? Furthermore, isn’t it pretty arrogant for those in power to claim they have the right to consecrate a holy sacrament?
Further, I’m sick of all this “5000 years of tradition” nonsense. Polygamy has a much more deep history than monogamy.
If we want to talk about tradition, how about America’s tradition of religious freedom, over which marriage laws clearly step?
Good post, btw. I thought there must be a bug in the system when I saw “68 Comments”.
Serpent,
“How can you have any commerce (trade) without first having â??Social Orderâ??”
See international trade – markets in the absence of common authority.
As for whether you are a minarchist: I don’t know.
If homosexuality is genetic and let’s say that you could do a genetic screeing in the first trimester for this genetic marker and then people decided to abort the child/fetus based on a positive screening, what would amuse you more? The San Fransisco style left winger screaming foul for a person exercising their right to an abortion OR the “christian” right winger protesting outside the abortion clinic to save the life of a homosexual?
Well, that was interesting.
I WANT TO MARRY RU PAUL AND I’M STRAIT…by mikel k
me thinks that for one to say that growing up under june and wally s dad makes for the happiest beaver is really a grossly moronic or at least a very inadequate statement…
for many of us, the nuclear family, that looked so great from the outside(in church on sunday, among other places) because it conformed to the pope or the kennedy familyâ??s norm was hell. ssssshhheeeer hell.
i would much rather have been out there with John Lennon and Jim Morrison taking a look see which way the wind blow…rather than trying to live up to the goals and aspirations of two people whose goals and aspirations for me had absolutely nothing in common with what i saw as my reason for existence.
dysfunctional kid? yup.
gay men don’t teach their twelve year old step daughters how to have sex by having it with her…
if the nuclear family is such a great and strong system for loving biologically hitched beings, why do we basically throw our kids out at age 18 and only hook up with them at christmas? (see catâ??s in the cradle by sally chapin)
there are much more important things
to worry about than gay folk putting on the wedding ring and getting the same legal rights that all of you boys and girls out there get…and i m not talking about michael jackson and how whitey is out to get him, honey pleeeeeez…
there are quite a number of your beloved nuclear family raised children being shot in the head every day over in the terrain formerly known as sadam land…
since moving to atlanta ga…atlanta gay, you might say…i have lived around and worked with both gay men and gay women and you know what…i found out…that they are just like black people(remember how scared you used to be of them?) and they are just like you and me, basically.
they smile they frown they seek love they hurt when love fails they want to buy houses they want to buy cars they like to eat hamburgers they like to eat hot dogs…etc etc
all i am saying is…give peace a chance, love.
p.s. ward used to like to tie june up and spank her, while wearing a pink dress, and you know what…it s ok!!
http://www.185cool.com/mikelkpoet
“it s alright if you love me,
it’s alright if you don’t…”
–tom petty
Scared Stiff: Further, I’m sick of all this “5000 years of tradition” nonsense. Polygamy has a much more deep history than monogamy.
So why are you hypocritically supporting homosexual marriages when you should be supporting polygamy? Get people to accept Polygamy and I bet getting them to accept homosexual marriages will be a lot easier.
John Kennedy: See international trade – markets in the absence of common authority.
Well if there is no common authority then why are you calling it â??International tradeâ?? Shouldnâ??t it just be â??tradeâ?? When you say â??Internationalâ? arenâ??t you belying the â??common authorityâ??
Well I suppose The Serpent and I will have to agree to disagree since arguing with him is like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon: not much effect. He was so busy Fisking my last post he missed the last paragraph which may or may not have influenced his views on the biological roots of homosexuality.
Garth: Well I suppose The Serpent and I will have to agree to disagree since arguing with him is like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon: not much effect. He was so busy Fisking my last post he missed the last paragraph which may or may not have influenced his views on the biological roots of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not genetic. Just look at biology. If you have two similar species in the same environment and one reproduces at a rate 97% of the other, the one with the 97% rate eventually goes extinct.
Why is heterosexuality/homosexuality genetic, but not a disposition for Theism as opposed to Atheism?
It doesnâ??t really matter whether its genetic or not since it is ALL fate regardless. Like I said your primary language isnâ??t genetic, but you sure didnâ??t get to â??chooseâ? your primary language.
There are no laws in the U.S. which prohibits homosexuals from getting married!
Homosexuals are only prohibited from marrying people of their own gender.
Look, this whole situation is like my crazy Jehovahâ??s Witness friend. He has been whining to me and insisting that we change the laws regarding giving people gifts on Christmas.
You see my Jehovahâ??s witness friend is very upset. He feels slighted, because due to his genetic religious beliefs he is unable to give or receive Christmas presents, so he wants us all to amend the law so that we can solve this dilemma for him.
Personally I think he is nuts! Do I have a gun to his head forcing him to be a fucking Jehovahâ??s witness??? Why in the hell does he need to involve me with his â??problemâ??
“So why are you hypocritically supporting homosexual marriages when you should be supporting polygamy? Get people to accept Polygamy and I bet getting them to accept homosexual marriages will be a lot easier.”
Freedom must be taken in baby steps. Baby steps, friend.
Well conformist nitwits like yourself trying to take our freedom away in â??baby stepsâ? is exactly what Iâ??m concerned about.
By the way, you have the perfect nickname for an Atheist … friend. ;)
A Matter of Influences
The American Conservative has a cover article worth reading on the death of fusionism. I’d argue it’s been dead and buried for a while. The problem with this article is that it accepts the same definition of “libertarian” that existed…