John McCain will satisfy few people with his fuzzy stand on gay marriage, as articulated to Ellen DeGeneres on her talk show. “People should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue,†he told DeGeneres, who plans to marry partner Portia de Rossi in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision.
DeGeneres responded by likening gay rights to civil rights and voting rights. “It just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people, all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same. . . . When someone says, ‘You can have a contract, and you’ll still have insurance, and you’ll get all that,’ it sounds to me like saying, ‘Well, you can sit there; you just can’t sit there.’ That’s what it sounds like to me. It feels like — it doesn’feel inclusive.â€
You can watch the video on the show’s Web site.
195 Comments
I thought John McCain’s response was courteous and respectful of other’s feelings and opinions. He has a perfect right to his opinion, he was asked for it, he responded, and did so as respectfully and meekly as possible.
“The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.” —James Wilson
“Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage. Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions—no matter how devoted and enduring—cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake.” —Jeff Jacoby
“Over the centuries in Western civilization, public policy has recognized the vital role of the family that the heterosexual family needed to be protected and defended in the law, because it provided crucial benefits for the well-being of society and family. That is different than a question of civil rights.” —Chuck Colson
See, this is why I’m thankful to be a progressive liberal. I want to move forward not backward.
There is NO VALID REASON to deny gays the right to marry. No matter what bs you try to put on it.
I don’t want to become one with my spouse. I am an individual, and he does not absorb me. My civil rights do not end because I am married. The argument that only married couples are beneficial to society is just absolutely false.
nevermind that a gallon of the cheap gas is $3.79, 50 million americans have no health insurance, the US is spending $250 million in iraq again today while the “ionsurgency” is in its last throes, the US dollar loses more value and your job is being shipped overseas.
“I don’t want to become one with my spouse. I am an individual, and he does not absorb me. My civil rights do not end because I am married. The argument that only married couples are beneficial to society is just absolutely false.”
I think it a lie that you introduce something never said, “My civil rights do not end because I am married”, arguing that which was not said.
No one said or meant anything about giving up civil rights. And no one is saying “only married couples are beneficial to society”. The government simply, historically, and for good reasons, chooses to grant benefits to traditional man/woman marriages for society’s benefit, and the benefits they bring.
OH by all means lets not allow Gay marriage! after all that obstacle is the only thing keep all men from turning GAY! And since the purpose of marriage and the deciding factor in it being the ability to have children lets really protect “The essential function of marriage “. Once a couple gets beyond the age of being breeding stock. The marriage shall be dissolved and it should be illegal for them to live together no matter how much love is still in the relationship.
And men must pass a “potency test” sorry low sperm count no marriage!
All women’s egg production must be measured, oh sorry life spent being an old maid!
If the important goal of marriage is the continuance of the species lets do it right! Lock all child baring aged males and females in prison till they produce an offspring!
Sound extreme? Sound out there? well guess what saying that child baring is the main purpose of marriage and therefore all the rest of the benefits, pains and pleasure of marriage is only a secondary aspect.
Is denying the reality of marriage, if it were the case that once a couple produces a child why than do they stay together? The sanctity of marriage is not about breeding, its about two as pledging to be as one in this world. Through more then a few hours of intense pain, more then the sun shine but holding an umbra up for each other in the rain. Its about being the left and right arm reaching for that worth having in life.
Gay marriage is no more a threat to my marriage than Homosexuality is. If you fear it, if you think it is a threat than you do not understand marriage and it is you whom should be banned by law from having it.
For the benefit of the society…..
He can disagree all he wants but if he tries to legislate his opinion, he’s overstepping his boundaries.
But does anyone think Obama, after his history, doesn’t also secretly disagree?
Only Hillary is openly accepting to gays and their rights.
Just proves the point that todays politicians are really missing something. He or his campaign advisors should have known that going on TV especially on talk shows with controversial hosts or known for allowing controversial subjects to be discussed, would be risky at best. And to top that he went on a show that the host is fiercely Democrat and controversial in her own right. These politicians are either stupid or really believe they can get the better of their counterparts by exposing themselves to these risks. I really have to question their judgement and therefore what their leadership and decision skills would be if in office.
“well guess what saying that child baring is the main purpose of marriage and therefore all the rest of the benefits, pains and pleasure of marriage is only a secondary aspect.”
All the rest of the “benefits, pains and pleasure of marriage” is PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL and certainly worthy of personal, individual pursuit. But traditional man/woman marriage benefits society in the opportunity of growth AND stability for children and family, thereby benefiting society making it worthy of benefits.
“if it were the case that once a couple produces a child why than do they stay together?”
Not really even worthy of argument. Also, it is the stability for the family and child, and though traditional marriages are not doing all that well, they sure beat homosexual unions or whatever statistically all over the place.
“The sanctity of marriage is not about breeding, its about two as pledging to be as one in this world.”
It’s about both as far as society is concerned.
Why am I supposed to give a shit what other people do in their private life’s, and how does that effect me? Gay people getting married affects me in no tan-able way.
“Why am I supposed to give a shit what other people do in their private life’s, and how does that effect me?”
Same for me Tom…but society, government and the law see that traditional marriage has benefits for society and encourages that.
DNFTT
Hey KsFarmgrrl-
I know you will visit this thread eventually. Hope all is well with you and yours after the storms and tormadoes in your area last night
All the rest of the “benefits, pains and pleasure of marriage” is PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL and certainly worthy of personal, individual pursuit. But traditional man/woman marriage benefits society in the opportunity of growth AND stability for children and family, thereby benefiting society making it worthy of benefits.
OMG What a load of BS. Is this why so many marriages end in divorce? Can only a man AND a woman raise a child? Because if that’s true, you’d better make divorce and DEATH illegal.
Stop legislating morality. Gay marriage has not, does not, and never will affect you or your pitiful marriage. Or are you afraid they’ll prove they’re better at it than you?
“Boxlock” –
Massachusetts has had same-gender marriage for nearly four years now and guess what?
Heterosexuals are still getting married! Society hasn’t crumbled. Western Civilization has survived. All the doom and gloom predicted from homophobic bigots has proven to be unfounded by real world experience.
Opponents to same-gender marriage remind me of that old lawyer’s advice: “When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when the facts and the law are against you, wave your arms and pound the table.”
Your pounding and arm-flailing belie the validity of your arguments.
#
Predestined
Posted May 23, 2008 at 8:45 am | Permalink
All the rest of the “benefits, pains and pleasure of marriage” is PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL and certainly worthy of personal, individual pursuit. But traditional man/woman marriage benefits society in the opportunity of growth AND stability for children and family, thereby benefiting society making it worthy of benefits.
OMG What a load of BS. Is this why so many marriages end in divorce? Can only a man AND a woman raise a child? Because if that’s true, you’d better make divorce and DEATH illegal.
Stop legislating morality. Gay marriage has not, does not, and never will affect you or your pitiful marriage. Or are you afraid they’ll prove they’re better at it than you?
——————–
Oh, you mean like this one, Predestined?
Whoops, wrong thread.
“Political_mama
Posted May 23, 2008 at 6:50 am | Permalink
See, this is why I’m thankful to be a progressive liberal. I want to move forward not backward.
There is NO VALID REASON to deny gays the right to marry. No matter what bs you try to put on it.
I don’t want to become one with my spouse. I am an individual, and he does not absorb me. My civil rights do not end because I am married. The argument that only married couples are beneficial to society is just absolutely false.”
Hey Political_mama,
How are you today?
I hope the storms didn’t effect you adversely last night.
I respectfully disagree with what you posted above.
Is marriage a right or a privilege?
Also, it seems that such a small percentage of the population that is gay (2-3%) is having such an effect on government and the country (and in support of the SPs mind you).
So, please explain how this would be moving forward and where are we moving forward to?
Am,
“Is marriage a right or a privilege?”
It would seem that marriage is only a privilege you won’t grant for gay couples. It’s a right for heterosexuals only. And it’s that way for no other reason than tradition, like black people sitting in the back of the bus. Bigot!
It’s going to be interesting times. The only decision reached was by the majority one judge in Hollyfornia.
That’s one state. 49 to go? or will that be 57 more to go if one does Obama counting? :)
What if the other states that might striked down the decision (and the decision is theirs) don’t recognize the marriages from Hollyfornia between a man and man or woman and a woman.
Is everyone going to be forced to be in the fight whether they want to or not?
I have mixed feelings about it, but to be brutally honest, feelings should never be used in rendering a legal issue.
If feelings were the determining factor, then there would be some really weird judicial decisions out there.
We’ll see how it works out. I’ll be in my quiet little corner here contemplating the implications.
I didn’t get to see this. I need to view it later.
Ellen DeGeneres is a class act. She remembers where she came from and appreciates her fans.
She also has a rapier sharp ascerbic wit. If she wanted to, she could have chopped McCain into small, quivering pieces in frong of millions of people. That or turn him into a red faced, blustering fool.
But she didn’t do that. I wish she would have. But she is a better person than John McCain and those like him.
Gay marriage IS going to happen. What is really sad is that when it does and it hurts no one, we will realize as a society that we have for years been hurting and persecuting people for no good reason at all.
Of course, there will still (for a time) be folks like Boxlock who will blame every natural disaster or other hardship as judgement from “God” because gay people are allowed to marry. But time and change will eventually swallow them. They and their beliefs will be something we will remember and cringe.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the two main reasons for GETTING married:
Companionship and intimacy between a man and a woman (sex is only one part of that).
Bearing children and creating an environment that is conducive for raising children.
Please do not assume that because, for whatever reason, a married husband and wife are unable to have children now, that their marriage does not have value. They may have had children in their earlier years.
I am only saying that the main reason for GETTING married is for the two reasons above.
“Is marriage a right or a privilege?”
The right marriage cannot be denied given that the participants are consenting, unrelated adults of the opposite sex.
Therefore, marriage is a right, not a privilege.
Drop the “opposite sex qualifier” and you have a deal.
“I am only saying that the main reason for GETTING married is for the two reasons above.”
Jeez, all this time I thought the main reason for marriage was that you were in love.
“Jed
Posted May 23, 2008 at 9:21 am | Permalink
Am,
“Is marriage a right or a privilege?”
It would seem that marriage is only a privilege you won’t grant for gay couples. It’s a right for heterosexuals only. And it’s that way for no other reason than tradition, like black people sitting in the back of the bus. Bigot!”
Jed,
The majority of black people would be highly offended by being used in that comparison.
You demean only yourself by calling others names.
Please explain how marriage is a “right”.
“Please explain how marriage is a “right”.”
I already did.
“WSClark
Posted May 23, 2008 at 9:32 am | Permalink
“I am only saying that the main reason for GETTING married is for the two reasons above.”
Jeez, all this time I thought the main reason for marriage was that you were in love.”
WS,
Wouldn’t you say that intimacy involves loving each other?
You are only talking about semantics here.
Uh yeah.
I’m a parent. But I’ve never been married. Not legally anyway.
““Please explain how marriage is a “right”.”
I already did.”
Where is that in the US Constitution, which SPs (Secular Progressives) are famous for referring to as the bases for all laws?
“Where is that in the US Constitution, which SPs (Secular Progressives) are famous for referring to as the bases for all laws?”
Where is marriage for heterosexuals in the Constitution?
Ellen is a class act and she remembers where she came from. (A Father and a Mother)
She is so great. She can now get married and somehow have kids.
She can chew gum and walk at the same time, too. And ties her own shoes.
She will make a great wife for her wife.
Gay marriage is terrific.
Marriage is after all the civil and/or religious union of a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Haven’t you ever heard that song: When a man loves a woman, and When a man loves a man, and When a woman loves a woman?
It’s so special, I could just cry.
“Wouldn’t you say that intimacy involves loving each other?”
Not necessarily.
What is the origin of marriage?
Then there’s that old childhood favorite, I saw “Grandpa kissing Santa Claus.”
“What is the origin of marriage?”
Pray tell, what difference does that make?
There are many more issues that we have as a nation, other than homosexual/gay issues, that effect us as a society in the building of families:
The high divorce rate.
Infidelity.
Sex outside of marriage.
Children born out of wedlock.
Abortion.
These MAY have a greater effect on the family than homosexual/gay issues.
Other than abortion, do you see similar movements as compared to the sanctioning the homosexual/gay lifestyle?
Why not just go ahead and spontaneously combust Jam…er…”Max”?
We all know you are on a constant build up to detonation.
Society needs to evolve. The news organizations can help in this. The newly allowed marriage ceremonies in California should be given much air. Now, yes, across the country, several heads WILL explode. But we’re well rid of such folks anyway.
And once we get the the majority or the minority of the rest of society past their “ick” factor, we can have done with all this bother over people with nose trouble.
Let Ellen the Degenerate doe as it wants
“do you see similar movements as compared to the sanctioning the homosexual/gay lifestyle?”
What “sanctioning” are you referring to? Homosexuality is no illegal, nor are homosexual sex acts.
Gay marriage has zero impact on heterosexual marriages. Gay marriage only affects the partners in that marriage.
So why should anyone else care?
Marriage is actually based in religious background. I think the whole debate is ridiculous. With today’s technology, gay couples can also procreate, so there goes one facet of your argument. The divorce rate is so high among heterosexuals that your arguments about establishing a solid base for a family flies out the window as well. (Not to mention your slap in the face to all single parents who work hard to establish a good home life for their children WITHOUT the help of a partner). There are no facts on divorce rates for homosexuals because under current law, homosexuals cannot get married, so how do you determine a divorce rate? I would be willing to bet that their seperation rate would wind up being a lot lower than heterosexual couples in similarly committed relationships.
As a newlywed, I have to tell you that I find that the sanctity of my marriage lies only with me and my husband in MY marriage. Someone else’s marriage has no effect on the sanctity of MY marriage. If your argument is that allowing gay couples to marry somehow undermines or destroys the sanctity of marriage, then your priorities are not in order. You need to be worrying more about the state of your own marriage than whether or not somebody else can get married…
Yeah JR, you are a perfect example of society evolving.
Wow, clever, Jack.
And next year, you’ll be in junior high!
How will Brownback square his support of McCain with his faithful followers after this?
I mean didn’t he block a judicial appt. because a judge had been an invitee to a civil union?
Another busy day at work for Max . . . thanks to the Bush economy.
WSClark
Posted May 23, 2008 at 9:50 am | Permalink
“What is the origin of marriage?”
Pray tell, what difference does that make?
———————————————–
Oh I don’t know Clark, sometimes the original use of a word, and subsequent use of a word, is helpful in defining a given word TODAY.
The question here is just WTF is marriage.
“The question here is just WTF is marriage.”
The legal status of two people as recognized by the State.
Let’s put it to a vote.
“The heart of the issue is one of semantics. What exactly do we mean by the word marriage? Regular readers of Wordorigins.org are no doubt aware that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. If we extend the meaning of marriage to include gay unions, then that is what the word means.”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
So, Society can change the meaning of “marriage” into anything it wants to.
Which is what I was saying the other day. You can argue that gay marriage should be allowed “because you want to”.
Instead, you twist it into a civil rights argument, when you are actually changing the Definition of Marriage.
Because you want to.
So, a child molestor could attempt to change the definition of “age of consent” to age 10 – same difference, same reason for doing so.
Because you want to.
Age of Consent by State
STATE AGE
Alabama 16
Alaska 16
Arizona 18
Arkansas 16
California 18
Colorado 15
Connecticut 15
D.C. 16
Delaware 16
Florida 16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia 16
Hawaii 14
Idaho 14
Illinois 16/17
Indiana 16
Iowa 18
Kansas 16
Kentucky 16 – [1]
Louisiana 17
Maine 16
Maryland 16
Massachusetts 16/18
Michigan 16
Minnesota 16
Mississippi 16 – [2]
Missouri 17
Montana 16
Nebraska 16
Nevada 16
New Hampshire 16/18
New Jersey 16/18
New Mexico 17
New York 17
North Carolina 16
North Dakota 18
Ohio 16
Oklahoma 16
Oregon 18
Pennsylvania 16
Rhode Island 16
South Carolina 14/16
South Dakota 16
Tennessee 18
Texas 17
Utah 16/18
Vermont 16
Virginia 15
Washington 16
West Virginia 16
Wisconsin 18
Wyoming 16
Puerto Rico 18
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
Is one state right and another wrong? No. They establish whatever age of consent “they want to”.
So we have McCain who cheats on his first wife and ditches him to marry an old tart for the money being against gay marriage because it disrespects the institution of marriage. What business of his if two consenting adults get married anyway? Oh yeah, he’s a Republican therefore he’s in favor of big, intrusive government.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 23, 2008 at 10:23 am | Permalink
So we have McCain who cheats on his first wife and ditches him to marry an old tart for the money being against gay marriage because it disrespects the institution of marriage. What business of his if two consenting adults get married anyway? Oh yeah, he’s a Republican therefore he’s in favor of big, intrusive government.
———————————————-
Great point Maggot. (There’s always a first time.)
What business of Government is marriage? Why should Government recognize or not recognize marriage? Do we not all have individual rights?
Why does the Government regulate marriage at all? It’s none of their or your business!
Of course, the really screws up genealogy lineage charts for good now.
Grandfather – John I
Grandmother – Myrtle
Father-Sperm Donor (Papa John, Jr.)
Father (Mother Fred)
Egg Bank (Frigidaire Wife)—–Child
Brother to Papa John, Jr. – Michael
His Spouse – Aunt Bruce
Spouse of Sarah – Uncle Debbie?
Sister to Papa John, Jr. – Sarah
“Let’s put it to a vote.”
Let’s not – a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is just pandering to intolerance. Denying right to a minority is not the purpose of the constitution, at the state or Federal level.
One of the reasons for the Judicial branch of government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is to protect the rights of minorities.
As stated previously, a gay marriage only impacts the partners in that marriage.
Why should anyone else care?
Marriage doesn’t have its roots in religion. It started as a legal arrangement to combine two families’ wealth and property. It’s been used to secure alliances between government. It’s the key monarchies, securing an appropriate heir for dynasties. Sanctifying such arrangements with ritual is a relative latecomer in mix. And religions are nothing if not good at rituals.
I find it odd that so-called CONservatives, who used to whine about the so-called “Marriage Penalty” now blithely deny there are any discriminatory elements involved with same-gender unions. I suspect the Cons find it odd, too, since they’re all too willing to bring up frivolous arguments such as man-dog marriage, incest, child brides.
What part of two consenting adults do they not understand?
Yeah, same-gendered couples can pay a lawyer thousands of dollars for hundreds of hours of legal fees to draw up documents and powers-of-attorney, inheritance rights, etc. But for a (what?) $20 marriage license heterosexual couples (regardless of childbearing potential) can get all those legal rights in 20 minutes.
How is that not discriminatory? And what’s the basis for said discrimination? How the couple gets its jollies in bed! C’mon, Cons. Doesn’t that seem a tad crazy?
Try this hypothetical: Imagine that, say, “Regular et al” gets laid. (Told ya it was hypothetical) And if he prefers the missionary position, he gets a 50% reduction in property taxes. But if he likes it dogggie-style, he’s taxed at a 150% higher rate.
I can see it now – little Johny the third complaining about Grandmapa Fred’s scratchy beard.
Mother’s day will be a celebration of frozen storage facilities (for egg and sperm.)
Surrogate females will be relegated to biological oven status.
Future Mormon compounds will be herds of males seeking relief from oppression, all with the same first name and wearing brightly colored smocks to indicate their stellar cosmic appeal.
Sex education will have be changed in order to explain to little Mary why Grandmapa Fred stands up while he pees.
Conjugal visits to the ‘big house’ will certainly invoke different discussions.
hmmm, the changes will be endless…until we get that point where…
Damn it, Monkey Hawk, now you’ve gone and put these horrible mental images in my brain.
I’ll be back later – got to go wash my mind out with soap.
Seriously, you really think a family tree chart is a good reason to ban gay marriage? You might have to make an extra notation or line?
Oh boy.
When you haven’t got something worthwhile, by all means make something up! No matter how silly it sounds.
So there is no Right to marriage. Not in the Constitution.
Marriage is whatever people want it to be. Vote on it.
“So there is no Right to marriage.”
Not in the Constitution……………….. so what. The Constitution does not cover everything.
But any consenting, unrelated heterosexual couple of age can marry and there is NOTHING that can stop them.
Therefore it is their RIGHT.
Drop the heterosexual part of the equation – get over your intolerance.
Sorry, “WSClark,” but it could have been worse –
I could have used “MaxGrobnik” getting laid in my hypothetical. Like that could happen!
Keep in mind in the Christian religion women are just property. Men with multiple wives were considered rich because they could afford a lot more property.
Our government doesn’t need to be reflected the amoral Christian view, it needs to reflect practical secular values. Marriage is a contract concerning property sharing, taxes and inheritance. There is no reason a gay couple should be prevented from entering into a contract with the government.
“No doubt WSClark, you’ve always been interested in my sexual life, you keep bringing it up.”
Nope, I just mention your various incarnations on a regular (pun intended) basis…….
Married w/ children v. never married.
Viet Nam – too young for ‘Nam.
Etc.
As for my “bragging?” I don’t brag, I just mention that healthy adult in relationships have sex.
Get over it.
“Regular” reverts to name-calling again with –
“MonkeyHock appears to be keenly interested in my sex life (along with WSClark), hypothetically speaking.”
Yeah, well, “Regular.” Your “sex life” seemed about as hypothetical as possible.
“I bet MonkeyHock gets some wood when he sees two dogs bound up.”
You lose the bet, “Regular.” I didn’t know such a reaction was possible, as you obviously do. I bow to your personal experience on such matters.
“Is marriage a right or a privilege?”
It’s neither. It’s a restriction placed on people by the culture in order to make them behave.
Do you mean the Regular is a nic-switching troll and a voyeur? Isn’t that the “Trifecta”?
Hmmm, I see duh Libs have once again turned a thread on discussing a topic into a personal attack thread.
Guess it shows what they are actually made of.
The party of “Change,” appears to be like their old racist selves of the Democratic “Jim Crow” era.
Let’s attack posters by name, because we don’t want to hear their opinion.
We can’t deal with the reality of the discussion, so we just attack the person and use insults to drive them out.
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should call them the party of “hate” instead.
WS,
Legally, a man can’t get married, if he is already married to a living wife.
Freedom doesn’t mean you could or should do anything you want to do at any time.
Freedom comes with reponsibility.
Justice is tempered with mercy
The SPs believe that we must “evolve” and progress to a higher level. Evolution and atheism play a big role in that. They don’t seem to care about responsibility or justice.
“Regular” whines that “libs” –
“…have once again turned a thread on discussing a topic into a personal attack thread.”
That’s droll. Worthy, even, of a (chortle).
You chose to ignore my original post and zero into your personal fascination with watching dogs having sex… and project it onto me.
“Guess it shows what [you're] actually made of.”
“Let’s attack posters by name, because we don’t want to hear their opinion.”
Or let’s call “Monkeyhawk” “MonkeyHock.” Or “CapnAmerica” “CrapnAmerica.” Y’know, real substantive refutation of the ideas and opinions presented.
Ah, but in a fit of honesty, “Regular” admits –
“We can’t deal with the reality of the discussion, so we just attack the person and use insults to drive them out.”
And they say irony is dead.
MonkeyHock leads off the personal attack at 10:42 and then whines about my returning comment at 10:54.
MonkeyHock fails to see that he is the initial cause of the problem and diverts his hatred towards others by diverting the truth of who starts ‘crap’ on threads.
Then WSClark starts in with his usual attack mantra, followed by Gster.
Duh Libs, Hypocrisy is thy name.
“Please do not assume that because, for whatever reason, a married husband and wife are unable to have children now, that their marriage does not have value“.
Thank you America that was the point I was trying to express, no one has to be married to have children.
The real benefit of a Male Female marriage is that of a role model for the same sex child. Something that can be accomplish by a same sex friend. It is far more important that a child has a loving caring relationship to grow up in. Be it a male/female or same sex relationship that is a parental unit.
A loving relationship is key whether it be a gay couple, straight or single parent.
Homosexually is not something learned, if the child does not have that impulse they could hang around a gay bar, gay couple or a flaming gay and not be gay when they grow up.
In reality what is the benefit of marriage and why does anyone want to be married? By answering the first question you answer the reasons a Gay couple would want to marry. LOL as for Ellen, have you seen Porsche?
Companionship and intimacy between a man and a woman (sex is only one part of that).
Bearing children and creating an environment that is conducive for raising children.
And the only thing in those listed above is the “bearing children”, and even that isn’t true. Doesn’t Dick Cheney have a grandchild “born” of the gay mother?
So I guess that means it comes down to SEX, not even procreation, since it happens to gay couples.
Heterosexuals are allowed to take advantage of the technologies available to create a fetus, just as homosexuals are. AI, if you haven’t figured that out. So this whole ridiculous debate is over the “yuck” factor for the homophobes and nothing more.
“Regular” lies –
“MonkeyHock leads off the personal attack at 10:42 and then whines about my returning comment at 10:54.”
“MonkeyHock fails to see that he is the initial cause of the problem….”
Are you going to claim your 8th Grade name-calling sneer “MonkeyHock” began at 10:54 this morning?
Short-term memory loss, “Regular?” Or a deteriorating mind?
But, just to quiet your sniveling, lets go back to the bulk of my 10:42 post that got you off to fantasizing about dog sex… with no reference whatsoever to the clearly-stated hypothetical analogy at the end of the original post:
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 23, 2008 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Marriage doesn’t have its roots in religion. It started as a legal arrangement to combine two families’ wealth and property. It’s been used to secure alliances between government. It’s the key monarchies, securing an appropriate heir for dynasties. Sanctifying such arrangements with ritual is a relative latecomer in mix. And religions are nothing if not good at rituals.
I find it odd that so-called CONservatives, who used to whine about the so-called “Marriage Penalty” now blithely deny there are any discriminatory elements involved with same-gender unions. I suspect the Cons find it odd, too, since they’re all too willing to bring up frivolous arguments such as man-dog marriage, incest, child brides.
What part of two consenting adults do they not understand?
Yeah, same-gendered couples can pay a lawyer thousands of dollars for hundreds of hours of legal fees to draw up documents and powers-of-attorney, inheritance rights, etc. But for a (what?) $20 marriage license heterosexual couples (regardless of childbearing potential) can get all those legal rights in 20 minutes.
How is that not discriminatory? And what’s the basis for said discrimination? How the couple gets its jollies in bed! C’mon, Cons. Doesn’t that seem a tad crazy?
Care to address the issues, “Regular?”
Odd don’t you think that MonkeyHock left this important paragraph from his 10:42 am post out of his 12:04 pm post.
Try this hypothetical: Imagine that, say, “Regular et al” gets laid. (Told ya it was hypothetical) And if he prefers the missionary position, he gets a 50% reduction in property taxes. But if he likes it dogggie-style, he’s taxed at a 150% higher rate.
MonkeyHock tries to weasel out of another personal attack, but it’s right there in plain sight.
MonkeyHock, hypocrisy is thy name
“MonkeyHock fails to see that he is the initial cause of the problem and diverts his hatred towards others by diverting the truth of who starts ‘crap’ on threads.”
Clark and Monkeyhawk, can you not see you are responsible for James’s behavior. Please straighten him up. Thank you.
Not odd at all, “Regular,” since I specifically asked you if you wanted to address the bulk of that original post, and acquiesced to your tender feelings an omitted the hypothetical that somehow got you off to fantasizing about dog sex. (sorry about that distraction)
The original post is there for all to see.
And all can see how you chose to respond.
Now then. Do you want to address the issues presented? Or is name-calling all you’ve got?
How about apologizing for your ‘hypothetical’ and being a man?
Nevermind,
Off to McConnell AFB in a few, the board is yours.
If you want to be treated reasonably, then treat me reasonably.
gone…
Do
Not
Feed
The
Blog
Fly
Wendyjovb,
Right on! And very well said.
“Regular” –
I apologize for the hypothetical that got you off to fantasizing about dog sex while you ignored the bulk of my 10:42 post.
I had no idea you were such a sensitive lover of dogs. Hell, I had no idea they even made blow-up dog sex dolls.
Oh, and for those of you scoring at home (and you know who you are) –
I have to leave for a meeting at 1pm. So if this total crushing of “Regular” extends ’til then, my lack of responses for a couple of hours past 1 pm won’t due to “Regular” somehow running me off.
Democrats (liberals mostly)
Never
Formulate
The
Truth
So what is the standard that we live by then?
Regular posted May 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
“If you want to be treated reasonably, then treat me reasonably.”
If jimmymac wanted to be treated “reasonably”, then he should not have posted so many lies, using so many different nics.
Will one of you from (wherever) explain how the evolutionary theory is related in any manner to atheism?
Please.
I know for a fact that I believe in God. I also know for a fact that I believe that evolution is a well supported scientific theory.
So, explain the “atheism” connection.
Okay, you have a point. But OUR basic concept of the idea of marriage, and what it should or should not entail, is based in religion. Is that more acceptable for you?
Besides which, in the early days of marriage as a legal contract, consent had nothing to do with the matter. Women were chattel, property, and they did what they were told to do. The facets of marriage that they are currently arguing are centered around a much more personal ideology which finds it’s roots in the religious connotations given to marriage today.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. If a church does not want to perform same sex marriages because it goes against the basis of their religious belief, they shouldn’t have to. But the STATE should still allow those that want to marry the ability to marry. (And it’s $50 for a marriage license in the state of Kansas, FYI).
And again, I maintain that a homosexual couple is just as capable of providing a loving home for children and having a fulfilling relationship as a heterosexual couple is. It is all about the sex. I wish someone would just admit that it is.
“Wouldn’t you say that intimacy involves loving each other?” [American]
Ummmm NO…. Prostitutes have intimate relations with their clients… I dont beleive there is any love involved… unless you include “love for the job”!! LOL
Intimacy and Love is not necessarily an equation…
Leave it to the CONS
WHO/WHAT issues a marriage license??
WHO/WHAT issues a divorce decree??
Hint: It isnt any religious establishment!!
Marriage has ALWAYS been at the licensure of the State… ALWAYS!! The Church only adds its blessing on the Marriage with the appropriate rituals…
So, lets knock off this BS about putting marriage in the hands of religion….
The Church already has the power, right, and authority, to not recognize Same Gender Marriage… The STATE cannot stop that!!
Allow Same sex marriage, and forget it!! If you and your CHURCH dont want to recognize, then dont recognize it!! And STOP trying to make your religious beliefs into the Law of the Land!! THAT violates the meaning of the First Amendment!!
Check these links — Look like anything we see here on the Blog almost daily?? Scary stuff!!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html
Please check these out!! You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….
Chas- “You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….”
Please don’t associate my nic that way again, or I will report you. :)
My view on this subject is simple. What ever floats your boat is fine. Just keep your boat out of my pond. Ya dig?
So WSClark, (hypothetically speaking) how long does it take for you and MonkeyHawk to get each other off in that ‘69′ position?
So WSClark refuses to acknowledge publically the hypothetical act of ‘69ing’ with MonkeyHawk. Perhaps with some more coaxing and more beer WSClark will be more forthcoming?
Viet Nam v. too young for ‘Nam.
JM v. I am not JM.
Never married v. wife left me with our kid.
Mississippi v. “I’m still here under another nic!”
Slashed tires v. tire are fine.
And the list goes on and on and on and on.
WSClark
Posted May 23, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
Will one of you from (wherever) explain how the evolutionary theory is related in any manner to atheism?
**********
I’d like to hear that one, too. My best guess, Clark, is that some people are just reallllll… confused.
Have to give ya credit, Clark, at least you don’t have to make up sh^t like some poeple do.
Oh btw, JM is CapnAmerica if you didn’t know. Just ask him, he’s posted several hundred times as JM.
ANTI
Posted May 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
Chas- “You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….”
Please don’t associate my nic that way again, or I will report you.
========================================
Please, be my guest… idiot!!
Chas, you have been reported to the shadow gov. of Chuck Norris. They (Chuck Norris Nation or CNN) will be contacting you. It is out of my hands…..they are real…
James — this one is way too far over the edge — even for you!! Get some help!!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/mccain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98respectful-disagreement%e2%80%99-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-355464
Oh goody!! Now am I supposed to be afraid?? or just ANTI-Right wing!! LOL
ANTI = Scroll Over
Friggin Trolls!!
http://www.chuck’sbeardloveschas.com
My name is Fleettwood. Fleettwood Montoya.
Prepare to die.
“So WSClark refuses to acknowledge publically the hypothetical act of ‘69ing’ with MonkeyHawk.”
Isn’t interesting how the asexual CONs are just fascinated by the sex they fantasize other people might be having.
So CapnAmerica, why don’t you relate to WSClark all those times you posted as JM.
Why doesn’t WSClark ask you about posting with multiple nics? Eh Galahad? Brad?
Why, Ultimately, Opposition To Gay Marriage Will Fail
Check out this video. Look at how uncomfortable John mccain gets when ellen asks him simply why she and her partner can??t have the same recognition as their fellow citizens. This is the kind of thing that can??t hold for long and no, the Democratic candidates aren??t much better but they don??t exhibit the glee in attacks on gay Americans that the right does. Sure, you will have people who dig themselves into the dirt, some for honest reasons and others for political opportunism, but at the end
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/05/22/why-ultimately-opposition-to-gay-marriage-will-fail/
Why are all the asexual males that post here CONs?
Which leads to the next question–if we bought ‘em a 20 dollar hooker once in awhile, would they be more pleasant to blog with?
We don’t care about your “private life” (hehehe), Regular.
So far, the only life you seem to have–public or private–is making up false stories on the WEBlog.
We refer to them as examples of your lying . . . nothing more.
But then, you already knew that.
This thread is starting to become another “all Reguliar, all the time” thread.
Let the dead bury the dead . . .
See this thread? Right here?
This is what happens when you feed trolls.
Hey, everyone!
I’m back from my meeting.
Did I miss anything?
Monkeyhawk Posted May 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
“Hey, everyone!
I’m back from my meeting.
Did I miss anything?”
No….and no one missed you!
BlueJay posts;
“Of course, there will still (for a time) be folks like Boxlock who will blame every natural disaster or other hardship as judgement from “God” because gay people are allowed to marry.”
Well, I don’t know about that, but I do consider it a judgment and punishment that I have to endure you BlueJay. You are a real pain in the a$$. For someone with such limited ability you are absolutely caustic.
“but I do consider it a judgment and punishment that I have to endure you BlueJay.”
Unlike the people in New Orleans, Bloxlock, you have a choice. If you do not want to “endure” someone here, you can aways reach over and shut off your computer.
The people in New Orleans did not have that option when it came to Katrina.
“but I do consider it a judgment and punishment that I have to endure you BlueJay.”
From you or anyone remotely like you?
That is HIGH praise! I’m now good for another half a million posts!
“For someone with such limited ability …”
Uh huh.
Hey posters? You’d have to look a bit for my quote that Boxy brings here.
I’m SO “limited” that I dragged him across 10 hours to hit back at me.
Because I landed a roundhose right on his busy nose.
Boxy is older than me. MAYBE he will die before his prejudices do from society.
Or maybe he will live to see gay marriage.
I don’t THINK that will kill him. Prejudice usually has pretty far reaching roots. No doubt boxy has had to adjust to LOTS of things he diapproves of over his life. Probably he didn’t like inter racial dating. I suspect women’s rights would end about where he says they should with him too.
And those changes didn’t kill him.
Your grandkids, if you have any, are gonna be embarrassed by you boxy. They’ll treat you and your old dead hatreds like something that fell out of a tree.
That would be a roundhouse that I landed on boxy.
Heh, just noticed the judgement and punishment bit.
I’m not heavenly sent or divinely guided there boxy. I don’t even claim to be. Thanks for another compliment.
That would be folks like you.
“I’m SO “limited” that I dragged him across 10 hours to hit back at me.”
No BlueJay, I’m just a busy guy, and when I’m out working I will be away from a computer for 10 hours. Something you would never understand… that is being away from this blog for that long, OR WORKING.
Besides I am beginning to find this whole scene to be less, much less, interesting and it is not holding my attention like it did. Same old battles over and over, that of Good (Conservatives) VS Evil (DemLibs) and nothing really ever changes. Either in the fine minds of the conservatives or the mental vacuum of the DemLibs. It hasn’t taken long to pretty much hear it all
“I’m not heavenly sent or divinely guided there boxy.”
BlueJay, that’s the wisest thing I have ever heard you say. More likely Hades sent and I am made to endure the torture of your opinions as my punishment for not being a more aggressive conservative.
Even though I disagree with you most of teh time Box, I totally agree with you that things are getting pretty stale here. It’s no longer the fun it used to be…it’s become the same ‘ole stuff over and over. Boring…
FORGET FOREX E-BOOKS! Get the software that tells you what to do and WHEN to do it and finally start earning the big bucks you truly deserve. Many People earn thousands of dollars each month useing the “Forex-Killer” Software and even quit their own day jobs! Why don`t you too? I urge you to take this chance ASAP! Besides what do you have to loose? They have a full 58 days refund policy in place supervised by clickbank: http://www.urlpire.com/?MALFY
So leave Boxy. Take Mary with you.
There are no posts of mine here between the one you quoted and the feeble swing you took at me 10 hours later.
See I work too.
And I will lay you odds I can find more con posts in working hours than mine or any other poster like me.
It does merit mentioning that Mary had not even posted here as to the issue.
That being gay marriage.
She DID manage to join “Boxlock” hitting at me though.
And “Boxlock” was hitting me because I hit him right where he lives. He’s a bigot.
If we are rid of them and it is my “fault”.
Small loss.
Well, a fine mess this thread has turned into. Too bad. It was a decent subject to discuss.
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html
Check these links — Look like anything we see here on the Blog almost daily?? Scary stuff!!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html
Please check these out!! You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….
Mary posts;
“I totally agree with you that things are getting pretty stale here. It’s no longer the fun it used to be…it’s become the same ‘ole stuff over and over. Boring…”
I know Mary,
When I first found the blog I really thought it would be a great opportunity to explore ideas and frankly to try and examine other ideas, and in turn provide another point of view than what I was seeing written here.
Little did I expect to get hit on, attacked, from a group, the same group doing it today and everyday, that resembles a pack of hyenas. They are like scavengers, a pack of animals, that are an enemy of any idea other than their own.
At first it was a challenge, in a masochistic way, to try and converse but frankly it’s really getting boring. I’m back to reading half a dozen to ten news sites, the financial, and precious metals reports and just plain using the net like a learning library. Far more interesting.
The way I see it is, the company these hyenas keep with each other is their own curse put on themselves by themselves. I return from time to time to see if anything has changed, and throw them a scrap of meat, or to see if there are any new folks with fresh ideas, and more a more polite manor of presenting, but I’m always disappointed.
Mary, just in case you haven’t picked up on it but I think you have, I simply say that from your saying, “Even though I disagree with you most of teh time Box”, I frequently, and very intentionally go way out, more extreme, in my position just to incite them as they are so inflamed by positions other than their own. There is a small group, and you know who, that just burn up when one of the conservatives chimes in and it’s a bit of a perverse sport of mine to throw something out and wait for the feeding frenzy to begin.
Funny thing is, even saying this will make no difference at all, they don’t learn, they are too entrenched and self righteous to be able to change or even figure it out for longer than a few minutes.
I don’t always agree with you either, but at least you are polite, and an express yourself with a lot more class than the jackal pack.
Good night!
“Please check these out!! You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….”
Alert…Alert!!!
Chas as amazingly, somehow figured out what our true plan is!!!
I can’t imagine how he has suddenly become so perceptive and cut to the heart of our conspiracy.
Begin plan ‘B’ immediately, they have discovered the true intent of plan ‘A’. This blog will no longer be the battle ground of Armageddon toward our goals, we must move to and begin plan ‘B’ immediately.
Or….jump straight to plan ‘C’…and not have to worry about them getting in the way of our takeover ever again.
Here BlueJay,
Try the link for a little taste of serenity, I know this will help you relax.
http://hytaipan.home.comcast.net/~hytaipan/media/serenity2.html
Roswell Facts
July 8, 1947
Many of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, just over 60 Years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with
five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.
This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S Air Force and other federal agencies and
organizations.
However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were
born:
Albert A. Gore , Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep?
You get DemLibs!
I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you.
It did for me.
Boxlock,
That was disgraceful flaming. And you complain when libs return such in kind. I had sympathy for your position, but no longer. You deserve all the crap you will get and have received thus far. Dumb Ass…
StevenD.,
You have to wonder if Boxlock’s company has a webmaster who monitors web activity.
He might have a tough time explaining how he can work efficiently and blog all day too . . .
And decent jobs are so hard to find these days in the Bush economy.
Capn,
I am my own boss and webmaster, and I approve of Boxlock’s messages.
Thanks for clarifying, Boxlock.
Tell your boss, he’s losing a lot of money on you.
You DemLibs literally can’t stand to have a free man around you, can you?
What does it do to you to see a man who doesn’t want or need the Nanny government you must have to survive?
Is that why you hate so much?
Your’s is a sorry condition, Capn, et. al., ie. BlueJay, Monkey, cosmos, Chas, abridged.
Much of the time I feel sorry for you all, but then you always do something that corrects that charitable feeling posthaste.
Oh Capn,I would but he keeps promoting me!
Really, Boxlock?
Because I would trade my financial situation with yours or my job with yours.
But enjoy your fantasy . . .
Well, I’ve done it again…had too much fun.
But all good things must come to an end, even playing with friends.
And in spite of my harsh words, in a way, you are all friends…in a really strange way though.
So, good night, may God keep you safe through the night and somehow through His infinite power transform you all into more human, human beings.
Sleep tight.
correction: Because I wouldn’t trade . . .
BTW, you’re one major illness away from bankruptcy, Smart Guy.
And before you blurt out, “but I have insurance,” that’s assuming that your for-profit insurance will actually pay to keep you alive.
A lot of dead people unfortunately believed that . . .
I’d pray for you, Boxlock.
But it’s obvious that you already believe that you are God.
DemLibs literally can’t stand to have a free man around you, can you?
What does it do to you to see a man who doesn’t want or need the Nanny government you must have to survive?
box If I recall correctly you sell medical equipment right? The gov. is currently paying about 65% of all medical bills. Which means in a round about way you too are slurping on the socialist teat of the nanny state. Yum Yum
BTW, if I were Clark, I’d knock on your door and when you answered, I’d punch the teeth down your throat for saying what you said to him.
But, hey, that’s just me . .
——————————-
Tell him to come on by Crapn. I’ll show him what 1/8 ton of thunder feels like when I knock his dick in the dirt.
Please, give me the opportunity to blast him on my own doorstep, I’ll do extra damage just for good measure.
Already done.
At the very least these posts should be removed.
Nathan won’t be alone in emailing Brownlee Junior and it won’t be just me. Figure it out.
Feel free, Nathan.
Because there’s no way that they will ban me without banning Reguliar for accusing Clark of what he accused him of.
And that would totally be worth it.
Actually, this is a problem caused entirely by how the WEBlog is run.
As soon as Reguliar posted his despicable lies about Clark, they should have been pulled.
Everything simply escalated from that . . .
Wow, can anybody say “Meltdown”??
I have a voice here too Nathan.
And your step mama’s money can’t entirely outweigh it.
IF the editors want to make this the Price approved blog?
They can do that. Of course, the posts will be reduced to the most unsavory.
And, they will decrease.
JUST as they have since Your Dad got the format changed.
WOW!! what the FaQ Capn’A?
Jail time.
Nucking futs.
Regular?? Victim?? Keep that up CapN, and you might make it on Copmedy Central!! LOL
jimmymac (aka ‘Regular‘),
We are all still waiting on ‘Open’ for you to explain what makes you more qualified than all of the peer-reviewed, published climate scientists worldwide.
It’s a very easy question. Why doesn’t jimmymac answer?
Cosmos, seriously at this point who gives a damn about GW?
anti,
It’s about credibility. And jimmymac has none.
If anyone interpreted what I wrote as a threat, I apologize.
I didn’t mean it that way.
I was simply pointing out that calling someone a child-molester of one’s own grand-child may anger someone to the point of violence.
In no way was I encouraging violence. I was simply pointing out that in real life we don’t say things like that because of the threat of retaliation.
The anonyminity of the blog is no reason to assume that people won’t react in a similar way than they would in real life.
But if I seemed threatening, I apologize.
CapnAmerica,
The bully would be WS Clark who is always attacking Regular for being a nic switcher or calling him a liar.
As he did in this thread and in almost every thread.
When he does that then Regular gets riled up and WS Clark knows that.
And yet MORE warnings?? Hmmmm… Smoke and mirrors is more like it…
Are y’all keeping an eye on the weather?
Thanks for the heads up Roxie. Going to shut down the system to prevent electrical damage.
I am Pre.
I’m going to log off in a minute because I don’t want to get a lightning strike and fry my computer.
NWS radar:
http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=ICT&product=N0R&overlay=11101111&loop=yes
Looks like it’s beginning to weaken a little. Not so much red as before, but still not good.
I’m out. Time to get the flashlights and the candles ready.
Take care Chas, BlueJay, Pre, and MonkeyH.
Someday, I’m going to live in a place with normal weather.
Where they have gentle little showers and cooling breezes . . .
Instead of tornado effing alley . . .
Sounds like Hawaii, Capn, but then there’s those pesky volcanoes there.
No place is perfect. If there was, we’d all live there. :)
Well, tis late…
Good night; Good luck; God bless –
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
Blessings on Mariah, the wind…
Distant thunder here in Southeast Wichita.
I’m up to call Mom in West Wichita if it gets bad.
And we have something of a storm of our own.
I’ve never written the editors. Well, except to invite them to a meet up.
IF we want to get into a pissing war complaining to the editors?
I’ve my share of beefs.
I’d much prefer we settle things here. And I do keep my efforts there.
“They Call the Wind Mariah”
Away out here they have a name
for rain and wind and fire.
The rain is Tess, the fire’s Joe
and they call the wind Mariah.
Mariah blows the stars around
and sets the clouds a-flyin’.
Mariah makes the mountains sound
like folks was out there dyin’.
Mariah. (Mariah).
Mariah. (Mariah).
They call the wind Mariah.
Before I knew Mariah’s name
and heard her wail and whinin’,
I had a gal and she had me
and the sun was always shinin’.
But then one day I left my gal.
I left her far behind me
and now I’m lost, so gol’ darn lost
not even God can find me.
Mariah. (Mariah).
Mariah. (Mariah).
They call the wind Mariah.
Out here they have a name
for rain and wind and fire only.
When you’re lost and all alone,
there ain’t no name for lonely.
And I’m a lost and lonely man
without a star to guide me.
Mariah blow my love to me.
I need my gal beside me.
Mariah. (Mariah.)
They call the wind Mariah.
Mariah! Mariah. (Mariah.)
They call the wind Mariah.
“BlueJay” –
A good piece in the new Harper’s magazine I think you’ll like:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/06/0082039
I’ll have to read it later monkeyhawk.
No severe weather so I am retiring.
I don’t want lightning, divinely sent or otherwise to shut me up.
J R is offline.
For those of you that may not know Chas well let me explain, he highly values “displays of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity” and continually strives to exhibit those ‘qualities’ in himself, so his comments are truly intended as a compliment.
Just thought I should make that understood.
Wasn’t that nice of him?
Do Not Feed The Troll
Now, what was this thread about?
Guys, you feed the trolls and this is what happens. It becomes about them, and how “evil” the opposition is, and not about the topic.
“Oh, and agnostic,
“Notice how almost no one pays any attention to you. That should be a clue about what folks think of you, and what influence you have.
“Have a nice day, or as nice as someone as miserable as yourself can have…got run, big weekend.”
Nothing but attempted provocation.
Re: Boxlock
DNFTT
“Nothing but attempted provocation.”
agnostic, you are wrong there again. It’s much more accurately labeled ‘ACCOMPLISHED provocation’.
You’re easy fella.
But have a really nice Memorial Day Weekend.
We should try to be a little nicer since it’s a holiday, not too nice of course as that would provide no sport, but then you aren’t much anyway.
Are we serving up ‘jawless fish’ this weekend ksagnostic? :)
agnostic like to post;
“Re: Boxlock
DNFTT”
I on the other hand would much rather post;
Re: ksagnostic
DFTT
Meaning ‘DO feed the trolls’, when it’s agnostic it provides such entertainment.
Marriage is a beneficial institution especially to the future of society. It simply cannot be confused with someother relationship. Many countries in Europe have gone that way and now their population is decreasing. Society can survive without gay relationships but cannot survive without marriage. That itself is a huge difference.
“Are we serving up ‘jawless fish’ this weekend ksagnostic?”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
“I on the other hand would much rather post;
“Re: ksagnostic
“DFTT
“Meaning ‘DO feed the trolls’, when it’s agnostic it provides such entertainment.”
Re: Boxlock
DNFTWT
“Marriage is a beneficial institution especially to the future of society. It simply cannot be confused with someother relationship. Many countries in Europe have gone that way and now their population is decreasing. Society can survive without gay relationships but cannot survive without marriage. That itself is a huge difference.”
John, you are still confusing correlation with causation. And Kurtz, the source you used, is a shill who misused statistics in exactly that fashion.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
Heterosexual arriage is not threatened by gay marriage. Neither are children.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
However, John, I must say this for you. You actually wrote a post on the topic, rather than juvenile trolling or equally juvenile responses to troll baits (and you guys know who you are too, right?). For that…
Re: John_S
Merits a response. Not a troll.
Cutting to the chase:
“In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
Notice the divorce rates by state for the year 2005. Note which state has the lowest divorce rate for that year among those from which data was obtained. Note what else that state is famous for.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html
And yet, gay marriage is somehow supposed to damage “traditional” heterosexual marriage?
The evidence isn’t there.
And as far as the decreasing number of children being born in Europe…it’s good to see the human population decreasing somewhere. There are plenty of straight people in this country who have no business being a parent. I would love to see the same trend happening here.
The earth is way overpopulated.
Ksagnostic,
There is no country in the world where marriage rates have increased after gay ‘marriage’. That itself should indicate that gay ‘marriage’ is a major player in the decrease in marriage and birth rates. It may not be the only factor but it definitely is a big one.
The slate.com article accuses Kurtz of putting forward smoke and mirrors argument and then proceeds to do the same. The article itself states that marriage was on the decline when gay ‘marriage’ was introduced in scandanavian countries. Something that has happened in places like San Fransisco and Boston. The decline in marriage is neccesary for gay relationships to be viewed as marriage. Then it says that marriage rates have increased in those places in the past few year but it will be interesting to see how much the immigrant population contributed to the increase in marriage rates. I am sure most of the immigrants they have do not believe in gay ‘marriage’. I bring this up because the immigrant population in the US has helped keep the birth rates at replacement levels. As far as saying the majority of the hetersexual couples with children are married, the article hides the fact that the children in the family may not be from that mother and father. It is common in scandanavia for step-children to be in the family. I think a very small percentage of married households have children because of one marriage. It also states that the cohabitation and nonmarital birth rates did not increase as much after gay ‘marriage’ than it did before. This is again a sleight of hand, because if 100% of a population group cohabits now then in subsequent years there will be no increase at all in cohabitation. So after an initial accelerated increase in cohabitation and non marital births, it is natural that the cohabitation rate would decrease. What is important to note is that it didn’t turn around. I guess it is best to look statistics first hand than through an article with a spin.
The infoplease.com link you provided is informative but unfortunately it doesn’t give the whole picture. I tried looking for the marriage rates and the number of people cohabiting but there was no state by state breakdown. Just looking at the divorce rate is not the whole picture because the marriage rate maybe low to begin with and so the divorce rate is low. At least this link was better than the nytimes article in the previous blog. That article was more like an opinion piece. And nytimes is notorious for parading opinion pieces as objective news.
A child in a stable family with a father and a mother is the best scenario for the child. This cannot be substituted by a gay relationship.
Right-On john_s !!!
Keep after those moral degenerates.
And don’t let them weaken you, as they will try, but like everything else they attempt…it fails.
Jesus H. Christ, Boxlock and John S. have polluted the blog with their anti-gay, homophobic nonesense.
What the Hell are you boys afraid of?
Contrary to your fears, gays do not recruit, and even if they did, they wouldn’t want you.
“Contrary to your fears, gays do not recruit, and even if they did, they wouldn’t want you.”
GOOD!
Do they want you Clark???
“Ksagnostic,
“There is no country in the world where marriage rates have increased after gay ‘marriage’. In itself should indicate that gay ‘marriage’ is a major player in the decrease in marriage and birth rates. It may not be the only factor but it definitely is a big one
This is an example of logical and statistical illiteracy. I said nothing about marriage rates “increasing” after gay marriage was legalized. However, after gay marriage was legalized in Massachussetts, divorce rates in that state remained the lowest in the country. And there was no decrease in marriage rates. In Scandanavia, the marriage rates declined before gay marriage was legalized, therefore it is a nonsequitur to say that the decline in rates was caused by gay marriage. Nor have you presented any evidence that any such decline in marriage rates accelerated after gay marriage was legalized. All you are left with is making empty, unsupported assertions of opinion. And your assetion that because marriage rates do not “increase” in places where gay marriage is legal, that in itself indicates that gay marriage is a major factor in decreases in marriage and birth rates is downright incoherent.
“The slate.com article accuses Kurtz of putting forward smoke and mirrors argument and then proceeds to do the same. The article itself states that marriage was on the decline when gay ‘marriage’ was introduced in scandanavian countries. Something that has happened in places like San Fransisco and Boston. ”
I call bullsh*t (in the Harry Frankfurt sense). Please demonstrate a decrease in marriage rates concurrently with the legalization of gay marriage. You are simply saying what you want to be, or think must be, true.
“The decline in marriage is neccesary for gay relationships to be viewed as marriage.”
This I can say without qualification. This is flat out bullsh*t. I have already explained my strong belief in marriage. That is what makes me passionate about this subject. There is no good reason, except for religious or social bigotry, to deny two consenting adults who love each other the legal recognition of a relationship they already have. As I have pointed out before, gay marriages have been a reality for a long time. They simply are not recognized as a legal relationship like heterosexual marriages are. You comments here are simply outright false.
“The infoplease.com link you provided is informative but unfortunately it doesn’t give the whole picture. I tried looking for the marriage rates and the number of people cohabiting but there was no state by state breakdown. Just looking at the divorce rate is not the whole picture because the marriage rate maybe low to begin with and so the divorce rate is low. At least this link was better than the nytimes article in the previous blog. That article was more like an opinion piece. And nytimes is notorious for parading opinion pieces as objective news.
A child in a stable family with a father and a mother is the best scenario for the child. This cannot be substituted by a gay relationship.”
This is simply a series of unsupported assertions. You are also moving your goalposts a bit. Instead of claiming that gay marriages causes a breakdown in heterosexual marriages, you are now asserting that gay marriages are only possible in places where heterosexual marriages are breaking down. The fact of the matter is, you have nothing to support that claim. You simply assert it.
And your assertion about hetersexual marriages with a father and a mother being the best scenario for a child, and that a gay relationship can not “substitute” for it, is complete bullsh*t. You simply ignored the APA link and stubbornly repeated your own beliefs.
“‘Contrary to your fears, gays do not recruit, and even if they did, they wouldn’t want you.’”
“GOOD!
“Do they want you Clark???”
Only someone who is homophobic would even consider this to be an insult.
“Do they want you Clark???”
Naw, I am too ugly and I don’t dress well.
Good News: Most Californians Support Traditional Marriage
“The majority of Californians disagree with the state Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage,” according to a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll. Fifty-four percent support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman that will appear on the November ballot.
Thanks to the court’s May 15 ruling, same-sex couples can “marry” in California as early as June 14. The Alliance Defense Fund filed a petition with the California Supreme Court on Thursday, asking it to delay its ruling until after Californians have voted on the marriage amendment.
When voters get a chance to define marriage, they overwhelmingly support one-man, one-woman unions. Twenty-seven states have amended their constitutions to protect traditional marriage.
“Americans have voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman because they recognize marriage does not just affect one couple — it affects all of society,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.”
You completely misunderstand, Boxhead…….
Gay marriage will NOT be MANDATORY.
You can cancel that order of K-Y.
WS posts, “Gay marriage will NOT be MANDATORY. You can cancel that order of K-Y.”
You’d know a lot more about that than I for sure WS.
“You’d know a lot more about that than I for sure WS.”
Yep, K-Y is very useful during heterosexual sex.
Or were you trying to imply, in your own Jr. High School manner, that I am gay?
For the 100th time, just because I support gay rights does not make me gay.
Asshole.
I think that the solution to this is to simply ban all marriage. Marriage is a Church thing. Any two people who want a civil union, should be forced to draw one up. A mandatory prenuptual agreement, but it would be a “civil union” instead. Same thing, different name. And governments/employers should have to honor them.
WS posted;
“Yep, K-Y is very useful during heterosexual sex.”
Well yeah, for a woman that’s not very excited about who’s she’s with I guess it is, probably a necessity. Like I said you’d know far more about that than I.
And WS, we really, really don’t want to know ANYTHING about your sex life….PLEASE!!!
“Good News: Most Californians Support Traditional Marriage
“‘The majority of Californians disagree with the state Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage,” according to a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll. Fifty-four percent support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman that will appear on the November ballot.’”
Boxlock, Boxlock, Boxlock…
Changing the California Constitution is absurdly easy (only 51% have to vote to change it). So, here is the reality…
The 54% almost certainly consists of largely of OLDER voters. More of the 54% will die than the 46%. Plus, it only takes 8% of the voters of California to introduce an amendment to the consistitution. Even if the amendment passes, I can pretty much guarantee you that a counter amendment will be introduced, and it will pass. 54% is hardly an overwhelming majority.
And once again, the idea of marriage being a religious rather than a civil institution is false. As long as marriage is recognized as a civil institution, marriage is the issue.
2 Trackbacks
[...] I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a rhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/mccain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98respectful-disagreement%e2%80%99-on…Ellen Degeneres – Degeneres Argues With Mccain Over Gay Marriage ContactMusicLesbian TV host ellen [...]
[...] as articulated to ellen DeGeneres on her talk show. ???People should be able to enter into legal ahttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/mccain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98respectful-disagreement%e2%80%99-on…McCain’s gay marriage clash with Ellen Daily TelegraphUS Presidential hopeful John McCain has [...]