Massachusetts blocks anti-gay marriage amendment.
By on Jun 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Massachusetts blocks anti-gay marriage amendment.
In a 45-151 vote, “Massachusetts lawmakers today blocked a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from reaching voters, a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.” The measure needed 50 votes to make it to the 2008 ballot.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
240 Responses to “Massachusetts blocks anti-gay marriage amendment.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Expect a repeat performance of Mitt Romney's favorite jokes:
June 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pm"Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention...There are more Republicans in this room tonight than I have in my state!"
oops. Romney joke link here.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pmwow! It's almost like America is FINALLY realizing how close to the destruction of our Democracy we came, and is kind of pissed off....
June 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pmLet the people chose (represenative goverment).
June 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm45-151 vote? That's a tidal wave.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmWow - a small pocket of sanity.
Ah surprise surprise, the right-wing subject that touches so many of you, eh Flaco?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pmOne for the good guys!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:29 pmWoo Hoo!
Congrats on your victory, and bravo to the legislators who didn't back down to prejudice.
Today I am happy to live in MA.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:29 pmWell, this oughta keep Iraq out of the headlines for a few days
June 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmRepublican trolls will come on and say how this is a defeat of democracy because voters should vote on whether not not gays should get married. That is wrong. The majority does not have the right to take rights away from minorities, that is why we have a Constitution. And it's Republican ditto heads who emphasize that we are a Republican not a "democracy," so the cognitive dissonance is fairly strong for them in that respect.
Would you put an initiative to ban interracial marriage on the ballot? NO. Neither should you put one to ban gay marriage.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmAnd it’s Republican ditto heads who emphasize that we are a Republican not a “democracy,â€
Comment by College Progressive — June 14, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Best Freudian slip ever :)
June 14th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAs a Massachusetts resident I am thrilled with this news!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pmHear that St. Daryl?! Now you can marry your "roommate."
June 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm“Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention…"
Romney, you wish.
Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is more like being a cattle rancher at MIT.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pmKay,
Whereabouts in MA?
I'm on the Cape (Cod)
June 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI thought we were a country that believed in EQUAL RIGHTS for everyone?
Or is it just equal rights for people who believe as the republitards do?
IGNORE THE TROLLS - Debate good, Trolls bad
June 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pmAh surprise surprise, the right-wing subject that touches so many of you, eh Flaco?
Comment by Namtillaku
People like Flako are just bitter because nobody of either sex will marry them.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm“Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention…â€
There are conservative parts of MA. I unfortunately live in one of them.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm:(
Bravo to the legislators! I'm proud of them right now! And it feels great the vote was a landslide 45-151!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pmYippee! I am also from MA and very happy that this affront to the constitution will not see the light of day. And, BTW, gay marriages are not having a negative impact on my marriage, in case flaco was wondering.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#14 - Actually, I would say it this way: being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is like being an illiterate at a spelling bee. You know you don’t know what you’re doing, and you can’t tell what everyone else is doing.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pmGOOD NEWS FROM MICHIGAN, TOO!
An appeals court today upheld the ruling of a lower court that the homophobic Michigan Family Council has no standing to sue Michigan State University over its domestic partner benefits.
See:
.
Let freedom ring!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pmI was at the State House when the announcement was made. It's a beautiful day in Boston!
Take that, haters!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pmHoorah! Score one for the people! Score one for those who believe that "all men are created equal"!!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThe state of MA rocks! What a trendsetter! Anyone from Mass. on these threads needs to be congratulated today!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pmtrueblue,
I live in Arlington.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI used to live on the Cape.
At least one can say that a certain level of hypocrisy is NOT alive and present in the beautiful state of Mass!
June 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pmI grew up in Cambridge, Kay!
Lived for a couple of years in Arlington, til the rent got too high.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm(thus the cape move.)
Where on the Cape do you live? I used to live in W. Barnstable.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmGoing to the Cape the end of the month for my vacacation!
Hear that St. Daryl?! Now you can marry your “roommate.â€
Comment by rf7777
Ssshhhhssshh ... Darryl doesn't know he's gay.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmIts always been said that the States lead the waywhen it comes to Domestic Policies, Initiatives and the like be they good or bad. In this case it is good....VERY GOOD. Slowly, (too slowly for many) the Pendlum swings away from insanity. I think we might have started the road to recovering our great Country again.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pmKay,
June 14th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI'm in another "village" of Barnstable, Hyannis.
Walking distance from the mall.
I miss the Cape :(
but I am glad I still have friends there...
June 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pmKay,
June 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pmNow you have another.
:)
Marriage is a civil contract drawn up for legal reasons, traditionally between two people.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmMarriage that is sanctified in a church or temple or wherever is an extension of that civil agreement.
If one's place of worship chooses to determine which persons make up those unions, that is their preogative, but in a legal sense, I find it impossible that persons could be denied the right to marry because of their gender.
We have gone to great lengths in an attempt to erase all inequality due to gender in this country, but this is proving to be as difficult as women's suffrage.
Why are lefties so afraid of putting something on a ballot so the people can vote on it?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe people of both Massachusetts and Michigan should be proud of their states. Wish I could say the same about mine.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pmRepublican trolls will come on and say how this is a defeat of democracy because voters should vote on whether not not gays should get married. That is wrong. The majority does not have the right to take rights away from minorities, that is why we have a Constitution. And it’s Republican ditto heads who emphasize that we are a Republican not a “democracy,†so the cognitive dissonance is fairly strong for them in that respect.
Would you put an initiative to ban interracial marriage on the ballot? NO. Neither should you put one to ban gay marriage.
Comment by College Progressive
It should go to the voters to see if the definition of the institution that is the bedrock of our society should be changed.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhy are lefties so afraid of putting something on a ballot so the people can vote on it?
Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Another one. No where to be seen for days, let alone the posts today. They must have some kind of homo-phobotic-radar, feel something funny 'down there' m12?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmThe state of MA rocks! What a trendsetter! Anyone from Mass. on these threads needs to be congratulated today!
Comment by veritas
Why should they be congratulated? They did not vote on anything?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmThanks, trueblue...
:)
June 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmIt should go to the voters to see if the definition of the institution that is the bedrock of our society should be changed.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
As soon as you can muster enough votes to get the constitution changed so that it doesn't have those pesky equality guarantees in there. It doesn't matter if every voter in Mass says gay marriage should be illegal, nothing gives one state the right to go against the constitution. It's all those other states that aren't supporting the "bedrock of our society" The constitution is supposed to protect us from that.
Speaking personally though, I'd say let the voters be heard on the subject. I think the results would surprise and frighten most conservatives.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pmHomosexual marriage is a counterfeit. Let play house.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmyep,
No, but they let their legislators know that this was an issue of basic civil rights, not a subject to be voted on.
How the heck can you legislate love?
Think if slavery was up for a vote in the old south that it would have been struck down?
C'mon....
June 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmWhy should they be congratulated? They did not vote on anything?
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Because they obviously elected smart people
June 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmYou're Welcome, Kay.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm:)
Why are lefties so afraid of putting something on a ballot so the people can vote on it?
Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Why are Republicans so afraid of Republican ideals like representative democracy?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pmflaco,
God is a counterfeit. Let's play Church
June 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pmIt should go to the voters to see if the definition of the institution that is the bedrock of our society should be changed.
Comment by yep
Read the comment you're responding to, yep. It explains why it didn't go to the people.
Sheesh....
June 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAs soon as you can muster enough votes to get the constitution changed so that it doesn’t have those pesky equality guarantees in there. It doesn’t matter if every voter in Mass says gay marriage should be illegal, nothing gives one state the right to go against the constitution. It’s all those other states that aren’t supporting the “bedrock of our society†The constitution is supposed to protect us from that.
Speaking personally though, I’d say let the voters be heard on the subject. I think the results would surprise and frighten most conservatives.
Comment by swordsbane
Anybody can get married, they just can't marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmRead the comment you’re responding to, yep. It explains why it didn’t go to the people.
Sheesh….
Comment by Zooey
Do you believe that a brother should be able to marry his sister? How about multiple wives/husbands?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSanity may arrive one smart state at a time. Unfortunately, I live in North Carolina, and we will have to wait another century.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pmAnybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Change "sex" to "race" and you'll have the law of many states 50 years ago.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pmChange “sex†to “race†and you’ll have the law of many states 50 years ago.
Comment by toasterhead
Actually I believe if you changed sex to race it would say "Anybody can get married, they just can't marry somebody of the same race" I don't remember reading about mandatory interracial marriages.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:20 pm#36 - "Why are lefties so afraid of putting something on a ballot so the people can vote on it?" Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Probably the same reason the Repubs in Congress were afraid to put the "no-confidence" to the full Congress to vote on.
Double-standards, much?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pmAnybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Comment by yep
Bingo!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pm#51 - "Do you believe that a brother should be able to marry his sister? How about multiple wives/husbands?" Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Conservative heterosexuals sure have some perverted minds. Why do you always compare same-sex relationships to incest and polygamy?
That would be like saying "If you allow divorce, are you going to allow murder next? How about agressive jay-waling, or Republican corruption in Congress! Oh, wait. . . . ."
June 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhy are Republicans so afraid of Republican ideals like representative democracy?
They aren't. You're the guys trying to toss the elected President out of the White House.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI want to marry 3 people at the same time 2 women 1 guy, I'm bi-sexual. I hope Mass. being so progressive will pass a law for this.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pmAnybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex.
So what you're saying here is that, NOT anybody can get married. Since if ANYONE could get married can't marry who they wish to, then they CAN'T get married. Right?
It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Except the rule is the discriminating factor. DOLT.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pmRepublican responsibility is a counterfiet. Let's play "Corrupt Republican Speaker of the House".
June 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pmI want to marry 3 people at the same time 2 women 1 guy, I’m bi-sexual. I hope Mass. being so progressive will pass a law for this.
Lets get creative Mass.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmProbably the same reason the Repubs in Congress were afraid to put the “no-confidence†to the full Congress to vote on.
Double-standards, much?
And what reason would that be?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#58 - "You’re the guys trying to toss the elected President out of the White House." Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
You already did it in 2000. Pres. Bush received less votes than VPres. Gore.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAnybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
So, everyone's equal, except homosexuals? Yeah.. THAT makes sense.
And no.. the arguments against marriage between members of the same family is totally different, but you know what? I don't really care about that either. It's not going to change what I do, and it's not going to threaten my moral fiber. Come on.. I just don't understand what people opposed to gay marriage are so worried about. Is your own morality so fragile that you can't have anyone else benefiting from the same legal institutions as you do because they do so in a 'immoral' way? Grow up, think for yourself and don't try to do my thinking for me.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pmThey aren’t. You’re the guys trying to toss the elected President out of the White House.
Through the legislative process, bone-head.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pm#62 - "I’m bi-sexual." Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Who's hijacking Flaco's name? I know he's confused by a great many things, but this is taking a joke way too far. He's as bi-sexual as I am! (Which I'm not!)
June 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm#64
Newsflash: This President was elected again in 2004!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI want to marry 3 people at the same time 2 women 1 guy, I’m bi-sexual. I hope Mass. being so progressive will pass a law for this.
Lets get creative Mass
Instead of calling it same-sex marriage we can call it any-sex marriage or any-style marriage.
Come on progressives lets make stuff out of thin air.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pm#68
NEWSFLASH
This is the last Republican-controlled White House for about 12 years.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm#63 - Not enough back-bone on the part of the Republicans.
Knowing that people make the wrong decision at times, (like the US approving slavery in the 19th century) and forcing the right decision on the part of Massachusetts.
Let me guess, the minute same-sex relationships are approved, you're going to rush out and get a divorce in protest. Because your marriage will mean nothing anymore.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:36 pmCome on progressives lets make stuff out of thin air.
Uh...that is what Republicans do though.
You know, like WMDs...
June 14th, 2007 at 3:36 pm#70
Says who?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pmDo you believe that a brother should be able to marry his sister? How about multiple wives/husbands?
Comment by yep
Level the playing field -- all marriage should be abolished.
Marriage is ruining the sanctity of my singleness.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pmIt should be abolished.
Knowing that people make the wrong decision at times, (like the US approving slavery in the 19th century) and forcing the right decision on the part of Massachusetts.
Yep, and the American public is lucky to have George W. Bush forcing the right decisions on part of the United States.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pmActually I believe if you changed sex to race it would say “Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same race†I don’t remember reading about mandatory interracial marriages.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
And maybe you could provide a link to where you read about "mandatory gay marriages"? Because I missed that.
I didn't realize that Massachussetts was making gay marriages mandatory. Gee, I hope they won't make me divorce my wife and marry a dude.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pmSays who?
Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Another withering ripsote from troll You're12!
Well played, troll! Devastatingly crafted and delivered. Surely your victim won't be getting up from that one!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pmCome on progressives lets make stuff out of thin air.
Uh…that is what Republicans do though.
You know, like WMDs…
Comment by Tweedster
Ya might want to re-Google some Dems in Congress.
I'll help you since you are handicapped
type "WMDs Democrat" hit search
June 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pmLevel the playing field — all marriage should be abolished.
Marriage is ruining the sanctity of my singleness.
It should be abolished.
Comment by Zooey — June 14, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
No. Go back to the clan structure. You can designate ANYONE to be a member of your family. Religion can have their ceremony, gays can marry, and they can call it whatever they want to, but everyone gets the same protections and responsibilities under the law. Anyone can do anything to anyone, provided everyone involved agrees to it. It will also bring back extended families and financially, this is a lot more stable. Everyone wins.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm#75 - I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmWhere is "steers and queers" tom3?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#78 - How about googling "culture of corruption" and "Republican".
MANY more results, with higher level of relevance.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pmm12,
only a jackass would compare the 'rightness' of slavery, to the 'rightness' of gay marriage. How can you compare dehumanization with two consenting adults deciding to spend their lives together?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pmAnd maybe you could provide a link to where you read about “mandatory gay marriages� Because I missed that.
I didn’t realize that Massachussetts was making gay marriages mandatory. Gee, I hope they won’t make me divorce my wife and marry a dude.
Comment by spit take
What are you talking about? Who said gay marriages were being made mandatory? You said if one word was replaced it would mean one thing, it does not. If sex is swapped with race in my statement, it would mean that only interracial marriages would be legal. Your point makes no sense.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAnd no.. the arguments against marriage between members of the same family is totally different,
Comment by swordsbane
Why is it? You don't believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm#78 - How about googling “culture of corruption†and “Republicanâ€.
MANY more results, with higher level of relevance.
Maybe Google is liberal/progressive?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pmAnybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex.
So what you’re saying here is that, NOT anybody can get married. Since if ANYONE could get married can’t marry who they wish to, then they CAN’T get married. Right?
It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Except the rule is the discriminating factor. DOLT.
Comment by Tweedster
No, anybody can get married. Any man can marry any woman. No discrimination there. Unless there is another gender other than man and woman you are referring to.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWhat are you talking about? Who said gay marriages were being made mandatory?
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
And I quote:
"Actually I believe if you changed sex to race it would say “Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same race†I don’t remember reading about mandatory interracial marriages."
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
June 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm#78 - How about googling “culture of corruption†and “Republicanâ€.
MANY more results, with higher level of relevance.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
Did you add them up Dems45 Repubs68?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pmWhy is it? You don’t believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract?
Comment by yep
This is all a red herring. Virtually all incest happens between adults and children and there is no parallel to gay marriage. Homophobes like to pretend this is an issue, even though there are no brothers and sisters lining up to get married.
Incest taboos exist to prevent inbreeding and there is every reason to believe that there is a strong psychological barrier to the very notion of sex between siblings who have lived together.
At any rate, it's irrelevant and is a sign of how desperate people like you are to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAnd I quote:
“Actually I believe if you changed sex to race it would say “Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same race†I don’t remember reading about mandatory interracial marriages.â€
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Comment by spit take
All I did was replace the word sex with race when you said to. Maybe you don't realize, I did that to show that you are wrong about swapping the two words.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pmThis is all a red herring. Virtually all incest happens between adults and children and there is no parallel to gay marriage. Homophobes like to pretend this is an issue, even though there are no brothers and sisters lining up to get married.
Incest taboos exist to prevent inbreeding and there is every reason to believe that there is a strong psychological barrier to the very notion of sex between siblings who have lived together.
At any rate, it’s irrelevant and is a sign of how desperate people like you are to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
Comment by gummitch
Do you think that any 2 consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract such as marriage. If you do, then incest would have to be allowed.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pmYa might want to re-Google some Dems in Congress.
I’ll help you since you are handicapped
type “WMDs Democrat†hit search
Dem Soldier you mean nothing comes up?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pmno Dems saying WMDs, Saddam?
Are you sure you are using Google?
And no.. the arguments against marriage between members of the same family is totally different,
Comment by swordsbane
Why is it? You don’t believe that 2 consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract?
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
You are such a moron. Did you even read my whole post?
For my part, personally, yes. I don't care if you want to marry your sister or your brother, cousin, aunt whatever. Just because I wouldn't do it, gives me no right to tell someone else they can't.
I said the ARGUMENTS were totally different. Interbreeding carries genetic dangers along with it. Homosexuals aren't capable of reproducing using only their own genetic material, at least until we perfect cloning.
Please do me the courtesy of refuting an argument I actually made, not one that you made for me.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pmIncest taboos exist to prevent inbreeding and there is every reason to believe that there is a strong psychological barrier to the very notion of sex between siblings who have lived together.
How about gay incest since they do not breed?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pmYou are such a moron. Did you even read my whole post?
For my part, personally, yes. I don’t care if you want to marry your sister or your brother, cousin, aunt whatever. Just because I wouldn’t do it, gives me no right to tell someone else they can’t.
I said the ARGUMENTS were totally different. Interbreeding carries genetic dangers along with it. Homosexuals aren’t capable of reproducing using only their own genetic material, at least until we perfect cloning.
Please do me the courtesy of refuting an argument I actually made, not one that you made for me.
Comment by swordsbane
So you are saying that incest marriages would not be the same as homosexual marriages? Are heterosexual and homosexual marraiges are the same thing? Thank you for proving my point!
June 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pmHow about gay incest since they do not breed?
Comment by Flaco
Very good question.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhy are lefties so afraid of putting something on a ballot so the people can vote on it?
Comment by m12 — June 14, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
sort of like assisted suicide and medical marijuana and all the other freedoms righties are afraid to allow voters to vote on. Hypocrites!
June 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pmAll I did was replace the word sex with race when you said to. Maybe you don’t realize, I did that to show that you are wrong about swapping the two words.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Then what does this line mean: "I don’t remember reading about mandatory interracial marriages."?
You introduced the concept of "mandatory marriages". No one else said anything about "mandatory interracial marriages" or "mandatory gay marriages". You threw in the "mandatory" part, I guess as a way to put your thumb on the scales and show that the two concepts were not equal.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pm#83
You falsely assume that homosexuality is a human value, and an American value.
It is not.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmflaco, thanks for breaking out the Rick Santorum "they will marry and have sex with animals" bit. That's a classic! My sister-in-law and her wife would get a good laugh out of that one.
yep - Gays fall in love with one person JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUPLE. They should be allowed to marry the one they love, and can fortunately do that in my beautiful state of Massachusetts.
There are laws that prohibit polygamy for both gay and straight couples. I am pretty sure that law is not going to be challenged any time soon.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNow you have another.
:)
Comment by trueblue
WONDERFUL POST.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmDo you believe that a brother should be able to marry his sister? How about multiple wives/husbands?
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
As to the first, due to the biological problem relative to the gene pool, society has a real interest in prohibitions against such. As to the later, many societies/cultures through the ages have hadpolygamous relationships. As to polyandrous situations I am unqualified to answer. You might wish to consult the Jacana
June 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pmYou introduced the concept of “mandatory marriagesâ€. No one else said anything about “mandatory interracial marriages†or “mandatory gay marriagesâ€. You threw in the “mandatory†part, I guess as a way to put your thumb on the scales and show that the two concepts were not equal.
Comment by spit take
Are you really this dumb? You said to replace one word for another. When sex is replaced with race, the statement I made first changes to say only people of different races could get married. Your initial argument that said "Change “sex†to “race†and you’ll have the law of many states 50 years ago." is wrong and make no sense.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pmHey flaccid Flaco, besides being a rightwing dittohead, and a serious homophobe, how do you feel about those brave men and women that serve in the military?
Mainframe operation sounds very important.
Thanks for your service and protecting me from bad people and I hope youâ€ve recovered from the paper cuts. You are so courageous.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
ummmm, nevermind
June 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pmSo you are saying that incest marriages would not be the same as homosexual marriages? Are heterosexual and homosexual marraiges are the same thing? Thank you for proving my point!
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Like I said: Moron.
Okay, I'll do this one more time
I DON'T CARE, if someone wants to marry their sister, brother, whatever. If they want to have kids, they risk genetic defects, but that's not my problem, and it's not yours and it's not the courts. It's theirs. It is the same with polygamy, homosexual marriage and yes, hetereosexual marriage. As long as everyone involved agrees to the marriage, I DON'T CARE. I don't think the government has any right to tell me that my love life is immoral. I don't think you have any right to tell me that I can't enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of marriage because of WHO I want to marry. I don't think heterosexual marriage is in any way threatened by homosexual marriage and I think not allowing homosexual marriage is unconstitutional because it violates one of the founding principles of this country, namely that everyone is equal under the law. The only way to change that is with a two-thirds majority in congress to alter the constitution, which was already tried and which failed, so even if the people of Massachusets VOTE to overrule their legislators, they are violating the constitution and their vote should be made void.
Is that clear enough for you? Do you need a moment to think about it? Can you grasp that thought? I don't expect you to agree with my position, but I hope the green puss you call a brain isn't too much to keep you from understanding exactly what my position is.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pmHomosexual sex carries physiological dangers along with it. Rectum is not designed for penile penetration. It is nasty.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIs that clear enough for you? Do you need a moment to think about it? Can you grasp that thought? I don’t expect you to agree with my position, but I hope the green puss you call a brain isn’t too much to keep you from understanding exactly what my position is.
Comment by swordsbane
At least your stupidity is consistent, that is all I was looking for.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pmFlaco, besides being a rightwing dittohead, and a serious homophobe, how do you feel about those brave men and women that serve in the military?
Ask the TP moonbats here.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pmBrave military are killing innocent Iraqis everyday. 60000000 of em
yep has been owned.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pmHomosexual sex carries physiological dangers along with it. Rectum is not designed for penile penetration. It is nasty.
Comment by Flaccid — June 14, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Nasty?
Tell that to some of the girls I had relationships in the past
(ouch....sorry couldn't resist).
Rectum? Hell, nearly killed 'em!
(apology part deux)
Seriously, here in lies the problem with homophobes. They are preoccupied with other people's sex lives.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pmGeez dude, not everything revolves around sex or your lack there of.
Most gays want to get married because of financial and relationship stability and security. Orgasms are a nice benefit, but not a major factor in the decision.
Stop thinking with your other head (can't believe I just said that) regarding homosexual acts!
I’ll help you since you are handicapped
Huh? What a garbage "barb" brosef! You seem mentally handicapped...
BTW, whose idea was it initially to attack Iraq? Who trumped up the charges and continually linked 9-11 with Hussein?
Nice try.
It must be hard to admit that your idolatrous attitudes concerning the president has gone so wrong.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pmAre you really this dumb? You said to replace one word for another. When sex is replaced with race, the statement I made first changes to say only people of different races could get married. Your initial argument that said “Change “sex†to “race†and you’ll have the law of many states 50 years ago.†is wrong and make no sense.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
First of all, Einstein, it wasn't my argument you first responded to. It was toasterhead.
Second of all, here's your first statement:
Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Change "sex" to "race" and you have:
Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same race. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
Nothing about mandatory marriages there. To be perfectly accurate, toasterhead should have gone a step further and said "change "same sex" to "other race", but I'm sure he didn't count on a poster as willfully obtuse as you have proven to be.
So again, please explain where the "mandatory interracial marriages" come in?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pmNothing about mandatory marriages there. To be perfectly accurate, toasterhead should have gone a step further and said “change “same sex†to “other raceâ€, but I’m sure he didn’t count on a poster as willfully obtuse as you have proven to be.
So again, please explain where the “mandatory interracial marriages†come in?
Comment by spit take
The statement would mean that ONLY different races could get married.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pmyep has been owned.
Comment by Juan C
Maybe you should re-read the posts. You clearly have comprehension issues.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmYep is completely disconnected with reality...the moon is in a waxing period, if its clear out tonight, maybe i'll catch his bubble-head floating by luna...
June 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmsemantics yep...either premise, no interracial marriage/only interracial marriage is as ridiculous as your position of only hetero marriage.
you lose.
again
and again
and again
and...
June 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pmThe statement would mean that ONLY different races could get married.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
OMG I am in awe of your stupidity. It would be a kindness to call you a troll and assume that you are making your comments with full knowledge of how they sound. To think otherwise would be to cringe in fear that there are people like you out there who are allowed near a computer.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:43 pm"You falsely assume that homosexuality is a human value, and an American value.
It is not."
M12
If you wish to state opinion as fact please provide support. Thanks!
June 14th, 2007 at 4:44 pmThere are laws that prohibit polygamy for both gay and straight couples. I am pretty sure that law is not going to be challenged any time soon.
Comment by mikeandjeffsmom
Yea but we all 3 of us really really love each other so much.
Why do you discriminate against me and my lovers. We want marriage too, equal rights for all.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pmsemantics yep…either premise, no interracial marriage/only interracial marriage is as ridiculous as your position of only hetero marriage.
you lose.
again
and again
and again
and…
Comment by Tweedster
All I did was change the word in my statement as asked.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pmYep is completely disconnected with reality…the moon is in a waxing period, if its clear out tonight, maybe i’ll catch his bubble-head floating by luna…
Comment by Tweedster
You are right I am completely disconnected by the flawed circular logic often attempted by the left.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pmOMG I am in awe of your stupidity. It would be a kindness to call you a troll and assume that you are making your comments with full knowledge of how they sound. To think otherwise would be to cringe in fear that there are people like you out there who are allowed near a computer.
Comment by swordsbane
Does changing the words as asked mean only people of the same race can be married?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThe statement would mean that ONLY different races could get married.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
That is not the same thing as "mandatory interracial marriages".
A mandatory interracial marriage means that you have to marry someone outside your race. It precludes the option of not marrying at all. It says, "You MUST get married. And that marriage MUST be to someone outside your race".
But I finally see where you were coming from. Of course, the fact that you willfully clung to the letter of toasterhead's remark in order to embrace the shorthand absurdity of it, rather than address his clear implication says a lot about your wilingness to actually debate the issue. Or maybe it says a lot about how strong the argument is on your side.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pmBlah blah blah...
Comment by Tweedster
Did not like what you saw googling Dems/WMDs did you?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pmSorry
I love the ignorance of trolls and wingers. Marriage was NOT instituted as a religous act. For thousands of years marriage was an economic arrangement, often made by parents for their children. It had nothing to do with love and very little to do with religion - the Church used to marry couples outside the church because of the commercial basis of marriage. People stayed married because property was combined; wars and feuds over property were common. As late as the 19th century it was common for young girls to marry to improved the fortunes or status of their families.
And of course, there is the fact that women who married became chattel - they could not own property in their own right, and their children were the property of their husband.
So don't give me this holy institution, ordained by God to be the union of a man and a woman - if Western culture were not rampantly homophobic (and been so for a few thousand years) it would have allowed same sex marriage if some one could have made a buck off it.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pmFirst this:
You clearly have comprehension issues.
Comment by yep
Then this:
You are right I am completely disconnected by the flawed circular logic often attempted by the left.
Comment by yep
When stupid reactionaries dont know what to say, the resort to the "left" thing. What is the left? What do you mean by the left? Is that a political or a social label?
Oh, you were the one saying "mandatory marriages". Ok, then. You are the next Von Neumann, I guess.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm“You falsely assume that homosexuality is a human value, and an American value.
It is not.â€
M12
Equality is a human value, an American value, and it allows homosexual marriage and prohibits discrimination. I don't believe you can continue to claim to be for equality when homosexuals are not allowed the same legal framework the rest of us are enjoy.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pmThere are laws that prohibit polygamy for both gay and straight couples. I am pretty sure that law is not going to be challenged any time soon.
Comment by mikeandjeffsmom
Yea but we all 3 of us really really love each other so much.
Why do you discriminate against me and my lovers. We want marriage too, equal rights for all.
Comment by Flaco
We need an same-sex, any-sex, multi-sex, any-style, anybody, anytime, Marriage Ammendment now.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pmMass. u lead the way baby.
A mandatory interracial marriage means that you have to marry someone outside your race. It precludes the option of not marrying at all. It says, “You MUST get married. And that marriage MUST be to someone outside your raceâ€.
But I finally see where you were coming from. Of course, the fact that you willfully clung to the letter of toasterhead’s remark in order to embrace the shorthand absurdity of it, rather than address his clear implication says a lot about your wilingness to actually debate the issue. Or maybe it says a lot about how strong the argument is on your side.
Comment by spit take
I started the comment as a joke, I thought it would end there, but the idiots here kept clinging to it, which says that they don't want to actually debate the facts. Yes of course people would not be forced to marry as not marrying would be an option.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmWe need a same-sex, any-sex, multi-sex, any-style, anybody, anytime, Marriage Ammendment now.
Mass. u lead the way baby.
Sounds like an orgy not marriage?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI agree, yep has been owned.
Heh.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pmFlaccid (#131)
do you normally cut and paste your own posts, and reply?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pmSo don’t give me this holy institution, ordained by God to be the union of a man and a woman - if Western culture were not rampantly homophobic (and been so for a few thousand years) it would have allowed same sex marriage if some one could have made a buck off it.
Comment by powkat — June 14, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
And the flip side of that is even if you could claim that marriage was a religious institution, the power of the government to regulate marriage would be almost non-existant as they would have to be careful not to raise one religion above the others. Marriage would cease to have any legal framework whatsoever.
It's ironic that making marriage a religious institution would destroy marriage more completely and faster than any percieved threat that homosexuality brings to the table.
Either marriage is a legal institution, in which case you cannot bar homosexuals on a moral basis, or it is a religious institution, in which case only religious people will be able to marry, but the rules governing who you can marry will be decided by your church, and they can be anything the church can come up with, including a homosexually inclusive church. Of course you'd piss off the athiests because now they're SOL and we'd be back to fighting it out in the courts.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:02 pmI started the comment as a joke, I thought it would end there, but the idiots here kept clinging to it, which says that they don’t want to actually debate the facts. Yes of course people would not be forced to marry as not marrying would be an option.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Okay, then how about we start at what toasterhead SHOULD have said in order to make it clear to you:
yep said: Anybody can get married, they just can’t marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same rules for anybody, therefore no discrimination is in effect.
toasterhead SHOULD HAVE said: Change “same sex†to “other race†and you’ll have the law of many states 50 years ago.
Make sense now?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:03 pmFlaco:
June 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pmIs it just me or are you responding to your own comments? BTW: which way to the orgy?
I agree, yep has been owned.
Heh.
Comment by Zooey
Simple minds often do think alike.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pmI agree, yep has been owned.
Heh.
Comment by Zooey.
Yep. :D
June 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pmSimple minds often do think alike.
Comment by yep
For someone who makes stupid broad generalizations about the political side of the spectrum, thats really funny.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:08 pmYes it does make sense now. Too bad comparing homosexual marraiges and interracial marriages is stupid. They are not the same. People that bring that up really have no argument at all. Just because something was illegal before and the law has been corrected that does not mean that another thing that is illegal should have the law changed.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:08 pmFor someone who makes stupid broad generalizations about the political side of the spectrum, thats really funny.
Comment by Juan C
Please debate me on any of my "broad gernaralizations". You have nothing to add to the discussion except witless one-liners. So yes you are a simple mind.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:10 pmYes it does make sense now. Too bad comparing homosexual marraiges and interracial marriages is stupid. They are not the same. People that bring that up really have no argument at all. Just because something was illegal before and the law has been corrected that does not mean that another thing that is illegal should have the law changed.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
So if I follow this logic it also does not mean that said law/tradition should not be changed in order to correct it. Correct?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pmSo if I follow this logic it also does not mean that said law/tradition should not be changed in order to correct it. Correct?
Comment by dbadass
The problem with that is that the law/tradition would not be corrected by making same sex marriages legal.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:14 pmoo bad comparing homosexual marraiges and interracial marriages is stupid. They are not the same. People that bring that up really have no argument at all. Just because something was illegal before and the law has been corrected that does not mean that another thing that is illegal should have the law changed.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
You state very clearly that "they are not the same" but you don't say why it is "stupid" to compare them.
Care to explain why they are different under the Constitution, besides one being accepted now (forty years after the Supremem Court ruled laws forbidding it unconstitutional) and the other still frightening to a certain segment of the population?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pmYes it does make sense now. Too bad comparing homosexual marraiges and interracial marriages is stupid. They are not the same. People that bring that up really have no argument at all. Just because something was illegal before and the law has been corrected that does not mean that another thing that is illegal should have the law changed.
Comment by yep
Prohibitions on other people's liberty exist to protect individuals or society. Absent any rationale for such a prohibition, the default position for a democracy or a republic is to NOT prohibit their behavior.
You have yet to provide any rationale for a prohibition on gay marriage except to drag in red herrings about incest and polygamy.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:16 pmYep:
June 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pmIm not a sadist. Too many people is already kicking your ass.
I just hate when idiots use the "left" word. They dont have a freaking clue about the left...just what Uncle Sam told you.
And yes, I dont write english very well.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pmSo if I follow this logic it also does not mean that said law/tradition should not be changed in order to correct it. Correct?
Comment by dbadass
The problem with that is that the law/tradition would not be corrected by making same sex marriages legal.
Yes but to make your argument you must first show the basis for the assumption that the law/tradition is correct in its current form. Maybe I missed where you did that.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pmYou state very clearly that “they are not the same†but you don’t say why it is “stupid†to compare them.
Care to explain why they are different under the Constitution, besides one being accepted now (forty years after the Supremem Court ruled laws forbidding it unconstitutional) and the other still frightening to a certain segment of the population?
Comment by spit take
You see it is stupid because that was discrimination based on race. Any man could not marry any woman back then. Marriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman, not the bond of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. From the beginning of time in every culture that has marriage, marriages were created to bring together two people that are different genders. By allowing same sex marriage, it changes the definition of what it is. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pmMarriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman, not the bond of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Comment by yep
You missed the other part of the definition:
Main Entry: mar·riage
June 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pmPronunciation: mer-ij, ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Marriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
No. Marriage has traditionally been ASSUMED to be a bond between a man and a woman. Bush already tried to make that official and it didn't work. You're attempt isn't any better.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pmIm not a sadist. Too many people is already kicking your ass.
I just hate when idiots use the “left†word. They dont have a freaking clue about the left…just what Uncle Sam told you.
Comment by Juan C
Nobody is kicking my ass, you only see the points made that you agree with, which is typical of somebody that can't formulate an argument on his own.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pmSame sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Comment by yep
See how easy is to state opinions as facts?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pmBy allowing same sex marriage, it changes the definition of what it is. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
So your problem is with the word "marriage"? So if that word was not used and instead something that carried the same legal equalities but was called something different ala "civil union" is no problem for you and you are prepared to leave these loving committed couples alone. Correct?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pmYou missed the other part of the definition:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: mer-ij, ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Comment by Juan
And where was that pulled from. Did you add the second part all by yourself.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:31 pmNobody is kicking my ass, you only see the points made that you agree with, which is typical of somebody that can’t formulate an argument on his own.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Man.. I hate to see someone kicking themselves when they're down....
June 14th, 2007 at 5:31 pmGreeks regarded homosexuality as the highest form of love.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:33 pmWelcome to the new Greece.
Just don't bend over.
So your problem is with the word “marriage� So if that word was not used and instead something that carried the same legal equalities but was called something different ala “civil union†is no problem for you and you are prepared to leave these loving committed couples alone. Correct?
Comment by dbadass
Correct, I have no problem with allowing civil unions. I don't think that that gay people should be shorted any "advantages" of marriage. If civil unions give all the advantages, isn't that win win?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:33 pmMarriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Not really, marriage has for a couple of centuries, and still exists in some cultures including ours as polygamy. So to claim that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, is incorrect. The Romans believed in marriage as being between one man, and one woman, so that was carried over in the bible to fit thier society. However many cultures have and still do allow for polygamy. Any idea how many wives Solomon was supposed to have had?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pmSee how easy is to state opinions as facts?
Comment by Juan C
It is a fact, marriage is a man and a woman. Saying same sex marriage is the same as saying pretty ugly.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pmwhich is typical of somebody that can’t formulate an argument on his own.
Comment by yep
You are right. Im not too sharp today.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pmYou see it is stupid because that was discrimination based on race. Any man could not marry any woman back then. Marriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman, not the bond of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. From the beginning of time in every culture that has marriage, marriages were created to bring together two people that are different genders. By allowing same sex marriage, it changes the definition of what it is. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Wow. Did you really try to claim that a discrimination based on race was not the same as a descrimination based on sexual preference because one is a discrimination based on race?
Nicely circularly argued.
Yes, you're right. I can't argue that they are not the same ecause one is a discrimination based on race, and the other one isn't. You're absolutely correct about that.
But you fail to see that they're similar in that both are consensual relationships that benefit those involved -- and society -- yet were at one time thought to be "unnatural" and thus illegal.
We've thankfully gotten past that superstitious thinking when it comes to race (or most of us have) and we're on the point of moving past it when it comes to sexual preference.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNo. Marriage has traditionally been ASSUMED to be a bond between a man and a woman. Bush already tried to make that official and it didn’t work. You’re attempt isn’t any better.
Comment by swordsbane
Lets look at this from a micro perspective. A marriage has a husband and a wife. Husband=man Wife=woman
June 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pmCorrect, I have no problem with allowing civil unions. I don’t think that that gay people should be shorted any “advantages†of marriage. If civil unions give all the advantages, isn’t that win win?
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Intelligent response and I respect our differences of opinion on this. Would all the advantages include adoption rights?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pmDid you add the second part all by yourself.
Comment by yep
I will never be that smart.
http://www.britannica.com
June 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pmHomosexuality is unnatural. Rectum problems, HIVAIDS, STDS.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pmSign me up for some safe sex. Not!
Wow. Did you really try to claim that a discrimination based on race was not the same as a descrimination based on sexual preference because one is a discrimination based on race?
Nicely circularly argued.
Yes, you’re right. I can’t argue that they are not the same ecause one is a discrimination based on race, and the other one isn’t. You’re absolutely correct about that.
But you fail to see that they’re similar in that both are consensual relationships that benefit those involved — and society — yet were at one time thought to be “unnatural†and thus illegal.
We’ve thankfully gotten past that superstitious thinking when it comes to race (or most of us have) and we’re on the point of moving past it when it comes to sexual preference.
Comment by RoboTroll 3100
They are not the same. There is no discrimination against sexual preference in not letting homosexuals marry. Any man can marry any woman.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pmMarriage is by definition the bond of a man and a woman
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
No. Marriage has traditionally been ASSUMED to be a bond between a man and a woman. Bush already tried to make that official and it didn’t work. You’re attempt isn’t any better.
Comment by swordsbane
Close, but still untrue. Marriage is whatever the culture says it is. Just because some people like to pretend that the "real" or "historical" or even "Biblical" meaning of the word looks like one man + one woman Forever doesn't make it true.
So far, yep's argument is "it's always been this way", a statement which is easily refuted and "I don't approve", which is just too damn bad.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI will never be that smart.
http://www.britannica.com
Comment by Juan C
I wonder when they changed it at britannica? Do you think that is the same definition they had 20 years ago. More catering to the gay rights activists, sad.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pmGreeks regarded homosexuality as the highest form of love.
Welcome to the new Greece.
Just don’t bend over.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Sorry but the adults are talking. Can you please go back to the children's table. Isn't western culture rooted in the "Greek" tradition?
June 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pmLets look at this from a micro perspective. A marriage has a husband and a wife. Husband=man Wife=woman
Comment by yep
They have redefined those terms in marriage.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pmIts a counterfeit and its fools a lot of people.
Close, but still untrue. Marriage is whatever the culture says it is. Just because some people like to pretend that the “real†or “historical†or even “Biblical†meaning of the word looks like one man + one woman Forever doesn’t make it true.
So far, yep’s argument is “it’s always been this wayâ€, a statement which is easily refuted and “I don’t approveâ€, which is just too damn bad.
Comment by gummitch
Show me a culture that recognized same sex marriages more than 20 years ago.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pmI wonder when they changed it at britannica? Do you think that is the same definition they had 20 years ago. More catering to the gay rights activists, sad.
Comment by yep
Better than catering to bigots. Learn to live with this: cultures change and adapt. We don't enslave one another any more, even though historically we have done exactly that for thousands of years. We also don't prohibit marriages across racial divides, even though we did that historically as well.
You still have not provided a rationale against gay marriage except for the lame argument that "it just isn't a marriage." A "marriage" is what the culture says it is.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:42 pmSorry all got to run.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:42 pmSo far, yep’s argument is “it’s always been this wayâ€, a statement which is easily refuted and “I don’t approveâ€, which is just too damn bad.
Comment by gummitch — June 14, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Except that he doesn't seem to respond to the posts that refute him except to restate what was refuted as if saying it again makes it true.
yep: Marriage is man and woman
others: Here's the dictionary, it says you're wrong.
yep: Marriage is man and woman
repeat ad nauseum
June 14th, 2007 at 5:43 pmShow me a culture that recognized same sex marriages more than 20 years ago.
Comment by yep
Why should I? We're not living in 1987, yep. We're living in 2007.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:43 pmyep: Marriage is man and woman
repeat ad nauseum
Comment by swordsbane
You're correct. Circular logic, which is no logic at all.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSorry all got to run.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Sorry too. I quess that leaves the far less competent Flaco to hold down the fort. Have I good one. I too have to get going. Cheers!
June 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI wonder when they changed it at britannica? Do you think that is the same definition they had 20 years ago. More catering to the gay rights activists, sad.
Comment by yep — June 14, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
There we have it, folks -- the regressive agenda laid bare. The definition they had 20 years ago is what we should cling to. Things were so much simpler then, weren't they?
We should go back to the good old days. But why stop there? Why not go back forty years? Or fifty years? Back then blacks couldn't marry whites because it was "an abomination" and "unnatural". The Virginia judge who threw the Lovings into jail because they were married declared that "because God created the races and separated them on different continents, that showed that He didn't intend for them to mix." There's some sterling judicial reasoning for ya.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pmAh the 1 to 2% homosexual subculture redefining marriage for all of us.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:54 pm#180
I believe you've listed part of the homosexual agenda.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAh the 1 to 2% homosexual subculture redefining marriage for all of us.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Actually, Flaccid, most estimates peg the percentage of true homosexuals at a steady 9-12%.
And they're not redefining my marriage. I'm a man married to a woman, and nothing will change with my marriage as a result of gays being able to marry.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pmFlaco: Check out the data on heterosexuals who could care less about homosexuality and or openly support gay unions of any kind. I am sorry, but your days are not numbered, they're over. Get used to it and move on. Assuming you are involved in a terrific relationship with another of your choice why worry so much about what others are doing. Go rejoice in your heterosexual "normal" life and enjoy. For real. I am not trying to be a wise ass or anything. Just Live!! Enjoy and have a good night
June 14th, 2007 at 6:01 pm.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:03 pmActually, Flaco, my made up estimates peg the percentage of true homosexuals at a steady 9-12%.
Homosexual subculture is redefining marriage.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:06 pmAh the 1 to 2% homosexual subculture redefining marriage for all of us.
Comment by Flaccido
Ah, the 1 to 2% homosexual subculture threatening heterosexual marriage. Must already be awfully shaky.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pmThis ius great.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pmWe should have polygamy tpoo!
On no Roboto is here! Run for your lives!
June 14th, 2007 at 6:09 pmFlaco: Check out the data on heterosexuals who could care less about homosexuality and or openly support gay unions of any kind. I am sorry, but your days are not numbered, they’re over. Get used to it and move on.
Thanks for the advice but I'll pass on your wisdom.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:12 pmYou do not determine the days sorry.
Flaccid, I acknowledge your rebuke. Kinsey estimated in a 1991 paper that 10% of the population was gay but there is understandably dispute about it. Of course, when I went to google the question, the top hits were all for anti-gay organizations like Family Research Council, who trumpted your (similarly made-up) statistic.
In the 2000 4% of voters identified themselves as gay, which is still two-to-four times your estimate.
But, as I said, my own marriage won't be redefined when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I'll still be heterosexual and still be married to my wife.
You?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm# 190 Sorry -- that should have been "In the 2000 ELECTION".
My bad.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThere we have it, folks — the regressive agenda laid bare. The definition they had 20 years ago is what we should cling to. Things were so much simpler then, weren’t they?
We should go back to the good old days. But why stop there? Why not go back forty years? Or fifty years? Back then blacks couldn’t marry whites because it was “an abomination†and “unnaturalâ€. The Virginia judge who threw the Lovings into jail because they were married declared that “because God created the races and separated them on different continents, that showed that He didn’t intend for them to mix.†There’s some sterling judicial reasoning for ya.
Comment by spit take
It just goes to show that the definition and what marriage has been since the beginning of time is a man and a woman. The PC police have changed it in places like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yep had it right, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman only recently the PC police have tried to change that.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:23 pmFlaco & yep = OWNED
:-D
June 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pmZooey great one liners |:{)
June 14th, 2007 at 6:32 pmBut, as I said, my own marriage won’t be redefined when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. I’ll still be heterosexual and still be married to my wife.
You?
Comment by spit take
Why did you get married instead of cohabitation?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:39 pmIt just goes to show that the definition and what marriage has been since the beginning of time is a man and a woman. The PC police have changed it in places like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yep had it right, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman only recently the PC police have tried to change that.
Comment by timmy
And another ignorant troll weighs in with the same tired, easily-refuted argument. "It's always been this way!" Doesn't do any good to present historical or anthropological data to refute the argument because the response is ignored.
How many wives did Solomon have, timmy?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pmEven Clinton didn't believe in the gay agenda when he signed the Defense of Marraige Act, the best thing he did in his 8 years.
The party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Truman is dead. Heck, the party that nominated Bill Clinton in 1992 is dead.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pmIt just goes to show that the definition and what marriage has been since the beginning of time is a man and a woman. The PC police have changed it in places like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yep had it right, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman only recently the PC police have tried to change that.
Comment by timmy — June 14, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
That argument makes no sense. To keep something unchanged simply because it's "always been that way" shows so much short-sightedness. That argument could have been used to keep us from making any progress as far back as the invention of fire. Why use fire when we'd been getting along just great without it.
Homosexual marriage doesn't threaten anything or anyone. Some men want to marry other men, and some women want to marry other women. If you don't want to allow them to, you'll have to come up with something better than religion or tradition to argue with. Our society is based on freedoms. It is incumbent on you who want to prohibit something to make your case for why it should be prohibited. The lack of any valid argument means that it should be permitted. You have yet to come up with any argument at all except "We've always done it this way."
That, by itself is not a valid argument, even if it was correct, which it isn't.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pmThat, by itself is not a valid argument, even if it was correct, which it isn’t.
Comment by swordsbane
I like the way you think!
June 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pmWhy did you get married instead of cohabitation?
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Legal benefits, social benefits...
You?
June 14th, 2007 at 6:53 pmYou better not show your wife what you just wrote.
Nothing about love, wife?
Legal benefits, social benefits…
June 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pmZooey great one liners |:{)
Comment by Flaco
Better than yours, limpy.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:01 pmLegal benefits, social benefits…
Comment by Flaco
The legal and social benefits are also for the wife, limpy.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pmHa ha the right wing can complain and say marriage is between a man and a woman but now that is just not true. In Mass (not to mention a growing number of other countries) it can now be between a man and a woman or two men or two women, so suck it bitchez, ha ha ha you lost!
June 14th, 2007 at 7:10 pmHow many wives did Solomon have, timmy?
Comment by gummitch
Who is Solomon?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:13 pmDoesn’t do any good to present historical or anthropological data to refute the argument because the response is ignored.
How many wives did Solomon have, timmy?
Where is the historical or anthropological data data for homosexual marriage. Greeks?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:16 pmWhere is the historical or anthropological data for homosexual marriage. Greeks?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pmBetter than yours, limpy.
Comment by Zooey
Zooey you have not seen a chubby since the Ex left?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pmToo long girl.
Why try and change something that doesn't need to be changed. Society in America was built around the traditional family. Are there exceptions, of course, but marriage for America has been one of the keys to our success. It is far from perfect, but that doesn't matter, the fact is the reason society gives benefits to married people is because the men and women benefit society. It should be encouraged as a building block. Man meets woman, man marrys woman, man and woman have children, children then continue the cycle. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, people can't stop who they are attracted to. Marriage is for men and women to start a family. I know that people will bring up divorce, people that can't conceive but that does not take away from the goal and benefits the traditional family brings to society.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:31 pm#209
timmy
progressives here are not know for their common sense.
They will "throw the baby out with the bath water" everytime.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:55 pm# 209
Excellent post here timmy.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pmFo those who talk about one or two percent of the population as being gay, I think a better estimate of the percentage of gays in the culture could probably be made by returning to your high school class and estimating how many of those people were gay. By my count, between two and three people in every class I was in were gay. I still communicate with severalof them, so I know my gaydar was accurate. That leads me to an unscientific estimate of seven or eight percent of the population having strong gay tendencies.
When I talk to other gay people, they give numbers which are very close. If I am correct about this, the right wing has lost a substantial portion of the electorate by its gay bashing.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pmI was in a room with a homosexual.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:59 pmI guess that is 50% gay huh?
Why try and change something that doesn’t need to be changed. Society in America was built around the traditional family. Are there exceptions, of course, but marriage for America has been one of the keys to our success. It is far from perfect, but that doesn’t matter, the fact is the reason society gives benefits to married people is because the men and women benefit society. It should be encouraged as a building block. Man meets woman, man marrys woman, man and woman have children, children then continue the cycle. I don’t think homosexuality is wrong, people can’t stop who they are attracted to. Marriage is for men and women to start a family. I know that people will bring up divorce, people that can’t conceive but that does not take away from the goal and benefits the traditional family brings to society.
Comment by timmy — June 14, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
#209
timmy
progressives here are not know for their common sense.
They will “throw the baby out with the bath water†everytime.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
# 209
Excellent post here timmy.
Comment by Flaco
June 14th, 2007 at 8:00 pmMarriage is for men and women to start a family. I know that people will bring up divorce, people that can’t conceive but that does not take away from the goal and benefits the traditional family brings to society.
Comment by timmy
People get married for lots of reasons, timmy, and plenty of straight people choose not to have children. Plenty of gay couples want to adopt children, kids that might otherwise be moving from foster home to foster home.
If marriage is a great social building block, why exclude people who want to participate? I know a gay couple who have been together since they met while on active duty in the Korean War: since 1949. I work with another man who has been with his partner since they met in college in the early 70s. All of this people are making good solid contributions to society; why should they be denied the opportunity to have the significant legal, financial and social benefits of marriage because the notion makes you uncomfortable?
June 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pmYou better not show your wife what you just wrote.
Nothing about love, wife?
Legal benefits, social benefits…
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
You asked for the reasons why I chose marriage over cohabitation, not why I chose my wife.
This went personal when I noted that gays would not redfine my marriage just because they got the right to marry. You haven't gone there. In fact, you've studiously avoided anything personal despite my invitations to do so.
If you're married, how will gays being able to marry redefine your marriage? If you're single, how will they redefine your ability to marry?
June 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pmHa ha the right wing can complain and say marriage is between a man and a woman but now that is just not true. In Mass (not to mention a growing number of other countries) it can now be between a man and a woman or two men or two women, so suck it bitchez, ha ha ha you lost!
John Kerry said the same thing.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm#216 - Great questions!
The answer to both is: It won't.
Allowing same-sex marriage does not "dilute" the idea of "marriage" anymore than allowing women the right to vote has lessened or cheapened the vote for men.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pmSeriously the train just left the station for good.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:13 pmAllowing same-sex marriage does not “dilute†the idea of “marriage†anymore than allowing women the right to vote has lessened or cheapened the vote for men.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
I disagree, it does dillute the idea of marriage. There have been studies in Denmark that show since same sex marriages were legalized, the birthrate for children born out of wedlock has increased steadily.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
June 14th, 2007 at 10:23 pmIt redefines marriage for all, not just me and you.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pmYou need to get this.
1 to 3% of population (homosexual subculture) redefining marriage does not sound very democratic.
It redefines marriage for all, not just me and you.
You need to get this.
1 to 3% of population (homosexual subculture) redefining marriage does not sound very democratic.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
I understand that you believe that it redefines marriage for us all, but you haven't explained how. Or why. You've just insisted that it does.
Please explain how gay marriage would redefine my own marriage. Or yours (if you have one).
Explain how it would affect my marriage at all?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:45 pmI disagree, it does dillute the idea of marriage. There have been studies in Denmark that show since same sex marriages were legalized, the birthrate for children born out of wedlock has increased steadily.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
Comment by timmy — June 14, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
I think Timmeh needs a refresher on the meaning of "idea".
Also on the use of biased sources to prove debatable points.
The article you link to, Timmeh, speaks of the decline of marriage since the legalization of gay marriage and "Registered Partnerships."
Children born to heterosexual couples involved in "Registered Partnerships" are considered out-of-wedlock births. That is a function of the new classification of legal relationships. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, despite what the National Review Contributing editor has to say.
Nice try, though.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:55 pmI disagree, it does dillute the idea of marriage. There have been studies in Denmark that show since same sex marriages were legalized, the birthrate for children born out of wedlock has increased steadily.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
Comment by timmy
I think Timmeh needs a refresher on the meaning of “ideaâ€.
Also on the use of biased sources to prove debatable points.......
Nice try, though.
Comment by KRank
Timmeh not only needs a refresher on the meaning of "idea" but also a remedial reading course. I looked at the link provided to the hardly non-biased National Review. The study referred to is of marriage in the Netherlands--not Denmark; Dutch citizens--not Danes! KRank is too generous in even calling it a "nice try."
June 15th, 2007 at 3:27 am1 to 3% of population (homosexual subculture) redefining marriage does not sound very democratic.
Comment by Flaco — June 14, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
On the other hand, an overwhelming majority of the Massachusetts legislature voting down a bigoted constitutional amendment is extremely democratic. Why do you hate democracy?
June 15th, 2007 at 7:33 am#220 - I disagree, it does NOT dilute heterosexual marriage.
"But University of Massachusetts economist Lee Badgett demonstrates that the adoption of same-sex marriage and same-sex partnership rights in Scandinavia and the Netherlands has not changed previously-existing trends in marriage, divorce, cohabitation, or out-of-wedlock childbearing. Same-sex marriage has not undermined heterosexual marriage where it has been adopted and is unlikely do so in the United States. Surprisingly, in many countries where there is greater tolerance for same-sex marriage and unwed childbearing, children actually spend more of their lives with their two biological parents than in the U.S."
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=pressReleases&ext=July13-
"Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged."
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
You've got to stop drinking the kool-aide, Timmy!
June 15th, 2007 at 8:58 amHow is this a victory when the people of Massachussetts were denied the right to vote on a constitutional ammendment to their constitution? This vote is actually undemocratic.
And can we move away from sexual/personal issues to issues truly affecting this nation?
June 15th, 2007 at 9:29 amYou’ve got to stop drinking the kool-aide, Timmy!
Comment by Democrat Soldier
Talk about a biased source. Nice try.
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/m_v_lee_badgett
M.V. Lee Badgett is an economist at the University of Massachusetts and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.
Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies? Looks like the strategy here is to try and discredit any evidence against the agenda.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:06 amTimmeh not only needs a refresher on the meaning of “idea†but also a remedial reading course. I looked at the link provided to the hardly non-biased National Review. The study referred to is of marriage in the Netherlands–not Denmark; Dutch citizens–not Danes! KRank is too generous in even calling it a “nice try.â€
Comment by Lora
You are right, it was the Netherlands, not Denmark. As to why it is biased, how?
June 15th, 2007 at 10:08 amLooks like Timmy now owns the debate!
June 15th, 2007 at 10:14 am#228 - "Looks like the strategy here is to try and discredit any evidence against the agenda." Comment by timmy — June 15, 2007 @ 10:06 am
And your strategy is to try and discredit the facts that do not support your prejudice.
Still waiting to hear how allowing same-sex marriage will make your marriage somehow less than it was when you got married.
And waiting, and waiting, and waiting. . . . . . . . . .
June 15th, 2007 at 11:19 amAnd your strategy is to try and discredit the facts that do not support your prejudice.
Still waiting to hear how allowing same-sex marriage will make your marriage somehow less than it was when you got married.
And waiting, and waiting, and waiting. . . . . . . . . .
Comment by Democrat Soldier
I don't remember you asking that before. I have given an example of how it will lead to more out of wedlock children. It won't effect my marriage, it will effect society's perception of marriage and what it has meant in building our country.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pmAnd your strategy is to try and discredit the facts that do not support your prejudice.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
I showed the facts in the Netherlands and then you got some hack from the Gay and Lesbian STRATEGIC Studies and passed him off as just an ecomomics professor.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:16 pmGay and Lesbian Strategic Studies? Looks like the strategy here is to try and discredit any evidence against the agenda
They did the same thing with the flawed hypothalmus study of homosexuals.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe researchers were homosexuals.
Homosexual marriage is a fraud/counterfeit.
Lets play house.
Husband = man
Wife = man?
Homosexual marrige - I now pronounce you husband and husband?
Bisexual marriage - I now pronounce you husband and wife and husband?
I now pronounce you wife and husband and wife?
Just love America freedom to chose
June 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm#233 - "I showed the (obviously biased) facts in the Netherlands and then you got some (Educated and board certified)hack from the Gay and Lesbian STRATEGIC Studies and passed him off as just an ecomomics professor." Comment by timmy — June 15, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
You choose your bias, I'll choose mine. And, yes, you DO have a bias!
Now, to poke the holes in Mr. Kurtz's falacious logic:
'First, for completeness sake and for those idiots who actually need convincing about this, some holes in Stanley's theory:
Marriage has been in decline since the late 1960s, way before same-sex marriage (or registered partnerships).
Marriage has been in decline in places without same-sex marriage.
Marriage has held steady in places with same-sex marriage.
The biggest cause of marital decline is not same-sex marriage, it's divorce. Getting a divorce used to be legally difficult and socially frowned upon. Now people have prenuptial agreements. Why not re-outlaw divorce instead of outlawing same-sex marriage?
If marriage is all about childrearing and that is the reason gays should not be allowed to marry, how come infertile people are allowed to marry?
If the debate surrounding same-sex marriage is causing people to doubt their own convictions as to what marriage is all about, why not accept same-sex marriage and end the debate?
What about other social factors besides same-sex marriage? I already mentioned divorce, but what about the advent of reliable birth control, financial independence for women, the fact that nowadays most people no longer "marry from home" but first live independently in a single household? Kurtz should weigh the importance of these factors instead of just discarding them.
Having just one parent is bad for kids, which presumably means stuff like less household income, the kid doing badly at school, juvenile delinquency and the like. But who says that having two parents is the only solution to problems like that? What about extensive daycare, or more money for schools, cheaper higher education? And waddyuknow, countries with same-sex marriage have all that. That changes the equation for parents thinking about a divorce or a break-up. Kurtz doesn't even mention it.
Then, some holes in his data:
Kurtz posits that cohabitating (unmarried) parents break up more often than married parents. This may well be true, but:
He's forgetting that a lot of cohabitating ends not with a split, but with a wedding. This skews the data because it takes couples who are not likely to break up and shifts them from one group to the other.
The actual numbers he shows are for cohabitating couples, not cohabitating parents (let alone cohabitating biological parents). It is likely that unmarried childless couples do not have the same break-up rate as unmarried couples with children. Kurtz should quote the relevant data or admit that it just isn't available.
He is interested in couples with young children (because it's all about childrearing), so any older couples will just pollute his data. This would be bad enough if older couples were a constant confounder, but the fact is that yesterday's older couples (i.e., the greatest generation) were married for life, while today's boomers are more likely to have divorced, be in an unmarried partnership, be openly gay, etc. A lot of the "marital decline" has nothing to do with childrearing.
Because it often takes a lot of time to formalize a divorce, quite a few single parents are still officially married. In the Netherlands, one in ten single parents is married.
What's the deal with stepparents? If Kurtz considers childrearing as an something that ought to be done by the biological parents, if a stepparent just ain't good enough for him, then remarriage is counted in the wrong category. If, on the other hand, being raised by stepparents is fine, then the breaking up of biological parents is less of an issue, since most single parents will find a new partner. And what about informal stepparents?
Stanley has just posted two articles at the NRO, one on Scandinavian marital woes, the other on the Dutch decline. In them, he graciously responds to his critics. It took him more than a year (he is responding to articles published in 2004), but still."
http://emmering.blogspot.com/2006/03/newsflash-stanley-kurtz-is-still.html
June 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#325 - Republican responsibility is a fraud/counterfeit.
Lets play house.
Take responsbility for the failure of others = Democrats.
Refuse to take responsibility for their own failures = Republicans.
Why do Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their own actions? Could it be that they hate to admit their own failures? Most probably, so.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pmMarriage is redefine, changed, by same-sex proponents.
It is a "goodies" package for homosexuals adults.
Idiots here cannot seem to understand what is being done to the institution.
Typical cliches like - how does it effect your marriage?
Libs should just do away with marriage as there are no legal or social reasons to support it.
Its all about love.
Since when is the US government is the love business?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timmy - you owned this thread buddy
I have given an example of how it will lead to more out of wedlock children. It won’t effect my marriage, it will effect society’s perception of marriage and what it has meant in building our country.
June 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pmI showed the facts in the Netherlands and then you got some hack from the Gay and Lesbian STRATEGIC Studies and passed him off as just an ecomomics professor.
Comment by timmy —
When you posted a link to an article in the admittedly neo-conservative National Review, you claimed it was about statistics in Denmark. I had to point out to you that the article was about the Netherlands. Learn to read, Timmy, if you want to be taken seriously here.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:45 amI have given an example of how it will lead to more out of wedlock children. It won’t effect(SIC) my marriage, it will effect(SIC) society’s perception of marriage and what it has meant in building our country.
Comment by Flakehead —
Mary Cheney's out-of-wedlock child won't change my perception of marriage at all, nor will her openly lesbian relationship. The only people likely to be affected are guillible jerks like you.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:47 am