A commenter named NorthDallas30 has stirred up some intense debate on this blog. That’s useful. We’ve seen previously that the more explicitly our opponents state their positions, the easier it is to dismantle their reasoning. ND30 has some utility because he offers up a common straw-man caricature of our beliefs and tries to use it against us. That gives us a chance for target practice.
For instance, he insists our arguments for marriage equality would also legitimize things like adult-child marriage. He defies us to prove otherwise, and insists we abide by the following rules that we ourselves supposedly established.
1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.
2) You are not allowed to use any form of moral disapproval
3) You are not allowed to invoke majority rules or laws
4) You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.
These are all nonsense, but I’ll start with the last one because it’s the most pernicious.
4) You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.
I’ve heard people go into rhetorical overload and say this as hyperbole, but I never said it myself, so I was stunned when he claimed I had actually “stated” that “everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they ‘love.’” I asked him to point where, and he failed. Instead, he pointed to Ted Olson’s opening statement in the Prop 8 trial, which I had linked to and called a “lovely read.”
Ignoring ND30′s misuse of the verb, “to state,” did Olson really say “everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they ‘love’”? Or, as ND30 put in a comment on this blog,
…being called “degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote” automatically means that laws preventing such people from marrying are wrong.
I added the emphasis, because “automatically” is the part he’s dishonestly sneaking in. It’s ironic that he points to Olson’s opening statement for this, because Olson disproves ND30′s point. In his opening statement, Olson promised to establish three things:
- Marriage is a vitally important good.
- Excluding same-sex couple from marriage excludes them from that good, and in fact does them harm.
- Proposition 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.
Olson’s argument stands on these three legs, and item 3 is crucial: Olson acknowledges his burden to show there is no good reason for Prop 8. Why? Because even rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution are rarely absolute. We have freedom of speech, but not the right to incite violence. We have free exercise of religion, but not the right to perform human sacrifice.
Olson knows that, of course, so he takes his three-pronged approach seriously. Read the trial transcript, and you’ll find he spends much time establishing the harm done to gay and lesbian families (he even gets the opposing side’s star witness to agree). And far from arguing it doesn’t matter whether there is good reason for Prop 8, he devotes considerable effort to demolishing the ban’s supposed rationales.
In other words, with this three-pronged strategy Olson acknowledges there can be good reason for banning some types of marriage, and accepts responsibility for knocking down the alleged good reasons for Prop 8. That’s about as far as you can get from saying that, “You have no right to deny anyone else marriage to the person they love or the companion of their choice.”
At this point we should thank ND30, because he’s shown us the dangers of over-the-top rhetoric. He’s also readied us to correct ridiculous caricatures of pro-equality legal reasoning.
Now let’s quickly dismiss ND30′s other points.
1) You must prove how your own relationship is negatively affected by people marrying children, animals, multiple people, cousins, etc.
No we don’t. See, it’s our opponents who claim same-sex marriage will hurt marriage itself. So we ask them the utterly fair question, “How?” and find they can’t answer us. But the issue only arises because they brought into it the conversation. We’ve never argued that the rationale for banning child marriage is the harm it will do our own relationships; we ban it to prevent harm to the child.
2) You are not allowed to use any form of moral disapproval
This is an odd one for me, because I use moral disapproval on this blog all the time. He’s since clarified this by asking me,
Do I really need to link to all of the posts in which you have insisted that peoples’ personal morals, i.e. religious beliefs, are irrelevant to government and should not be used as a reference?
Ah, see what he’s doing? He’s saying that personal morals are the same as religious beliefs. Of course, they’re not. For many of us, “personal morals” are about doing good or doing harm to others. But he does have half a point: Policy shouldn’t be based on personal morals that invoke “because I say so” or “because my sacred book says so.” Policy should rely on demonstrable harm and good — which for some of us is the basis of morality, allowing us to invoke morality without invoking religion. They’re not the same. Though we probably should be careful about the confusion.
3) You are not allowed to invoke majority rules or laws
Now that’s just silly. Most of our arguments invoke the supreme law of the land, our Constitution. Which, of course, can be changed through majority rule.
I’d like to point out one more thing about ND30. He commonly offers up a bigoted and prejudiced kind of logical error. You see it these three habits:
- He offers up isolated instances as trends.
- He finds a statement or action by a gay person or group and declares it to be the position of you and the entire gay community — even when his source names other gay people who disagreed with the statement or action, even when you’ve personally disavowed it.
- He defames people with a strategy of: You’re gay, so you’re part of the gay community, and a gay person stated such-and-such, and since you’re part of the gay community, I can say you stated it too.
Where’s the prejudice in these statements? It’s in the assumption that all gay people are the same. That when one gay person says or does something, then all gay people can be prejudged as having said or done it, too. It’s like presuming Condoleezza Rice agrees with gangsta rap, because, ya know, she’s black and so is Ice-T. Our opponents apply this kind of reasoning to us all the time, and we mustn’t ever let them get away with it.
Ultimately, ND30 isn’t really that important. He can’t be argued with or persuaded; he won’t even acknowledge his own errors when they’re plainly pointed out. But I’ll be happy if he spurs people to post comments and gives everyone a chance to hone their own arguments by cutting down his. At the same time, realize that he’s a gay man himself, ponder what hell it must be to live inside his head, and remember the ancient Greek proverb, Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
thank you! I will be smiling all week
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
Ugh, I cannot stand selective citation to anything; anecdotes are the most useless thing ever. Do we ascribe the statements of Fred Phelps to all straight people? Of course not.
But the media feed it, at least w/r/t teh gaiz. After all, whenever a newspaper reports on gay pride, is the picture one of, say, the Stanley Cup in Chicago? Or of, say, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP marching in Toronto? Or of the Anglican Church or the United Church of Canada marching? Or of any of the tens of thousands of perfectly unexceptional unremarkable people watching? No. It’s always a drag queen or a leather daddy in buttless chaps or some hot muscleboy dancing on a float.
Honestly, Rob. How you find the energy to continue to engage these astounds me. I understand how vitally important it is to keep up the fight, and I wholeheartedly admire your doing so, but I do wonder when you take a break; doesn’t this hurt your heart after a while?
Re:#1 Same sex marriage assumes mutual consent between adults. Animals cannot give consent. Children’s ability to give consent is limited.
Let us also note that “Facts” and “Reality” are hard for the crazy. Like your commentator (the one that showed up after Dan Savage linked to you) who went on and on and on about things being “extra-constitutional.” In 9 years of law school and practice, I have never, ever heard that phrase other than from tea partiers and the-black-helicopters-are-coming militia types. People who don’t know what they’re talking about should honestly never be allowed to have opinions. Very Brave New World, I know, but what sort of horrible poison is it on our politics and society that people can stand up and say demonstrably false nonsense or recite talking points that they don’t understand, and be taken seriously?
These people forget that in order to enter into a contract such as marriage, both parties must be capable of informed consent. This is why you can’t sign contracts until you come of age, before that time, any contracts you make must be signed by your parents or guardians.
As far as polygamy goes, though, I’d have thought that fundamentalist Christians would be all for it, seeing as how prevalent it is in the bible.
Ignoring ND30’s misuse of the verb, “to state,” did Olson really say “everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they ‘love’”?
Actually, Rob, there’s a far more appropriate quote that you should be using.
Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.
Bluntly put, both you and Ted Olsen are arguing that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they love and whomever they choose to marry, and that to tell anyone else otherwise is “demeaning and insulting” and causes them “harm” and “suffering”.
Furthermore, Rob, you are establishing as the authority on “love” and “choice” the person involved and arguing that no one else has the right to judge whether or not their “love” is valid or prevent them from marrying their “choice”.
No we don’t.
Yes you do. You demanded that everyone else prove how their relationships would be harmed by allowing gay-sex marriage. At least attempt to be intellectually honest and admit that, by your standards, your relationship would not be harmed by allowing plural, child, bestial, or incestuous marriage.
The reason you refuse to state that, Rob, is because it makes obvious the fallacy of the gay and lesbian argument that you have no right to pass judgment on any relationship that doesn’t harm your own.
Next up:
Policy should rely on demonstrable harm and good
Indeed.
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children.
Now, obviously, according to this parent, who is also a psychologist, there is no harm whatsoever, and in fact a great deal of good, in dressing two toddlers as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair to “show off” in front of naked, masturbating adults. Therefore, you should not interfere, criticize, or advocate for laws stating otherwise, Rob, because that would be imposing your “personal opinion” and “because I say so” on others.
Now that’s just silly. Most of our arguments invoke the supreme law of the land, our Constitution. Which, of course, can be changed through majority rule.
Which, of course, you adamantly oppose doing and insist that such is immoral.Your own commenters have stated that imposing laws by a majority against a sexual minority is “mob rule” and is unconstitutional.
So to sum it all up, Rob:
Who are you to judge other peoples’ “love” of children, or animals, or whatnot, or prevent them from marrying the “partner of their choice”? After all, it’s none of your business what they do in private. It doesn’t affect your relationship at all. A majority of people voting against a sexual minority is “mob rule” and is unconstitutional. Just because you find something personally uncomfortable doesn’t mean that you have the right to impose it on anyone else.
That, perhaps, is the greatest damage that gay-sex marriage will do; by establishing that structure is irrelevant, that the primary concern is whether or not you “love” and “choose” the person involved and that any restrictions on either is unconstitutional, you essentially make marriage meaningless and open the door to government sanction of everything.
Which is, more than likely, the point.
ND30, all you’ve done is reiterate your errors. I hope you find some solace.
Meanwhile, I found this juxtaposition to be most amusing.
Where’s the prejudice in these statements? It’s in the assumption that all gay people are the same. That when one gay person says or does something, then all gay people can be prejudged as having said or done it, too.
Followed closely by:
At the same time, realize that he’s a gay man himself, ponder what hell it must be to live inside his head
Now, what, indeed, would my sexual orientation have to do with that — unless you were prejudging what I was thinking based on my sexual orientation?
Therein lies the problem, Rob. You are convinced that being gay or lesbian produces a specific, distinct thought and behavior pattern. I don’t. You think it impossible to be gay and Republican, or gay and Christian, etc.; I do not. I don’t think it’s at all impossible to be gay or lesbian and not support gay marriage, hate crimes laws, or ENDA; you cannot even comprehend how that is possible.
Really, that’s why we keep talking past each other. I am judging people based on character and actions; you are judging them based on their minority status. I am comparing peoples’ behavior to a standard that functions independently of sexual orientation; you have a specific pattern in your mind of how gay and lesbian people should think, act, respond, and so forth, and anyone who falls outside that is either a) not gay or b) crazy.
Granted, yours is the sort of behavior that the gay and lesbian community encourages; however, I keep hoping that someday, you will wake up and recognize the incongruity, for example, of pleading for donations to fight HIV as you endorse and support people who troll for bareback sex with multiple partners.
Then again, why hold gay and lesbian people responsible for their behavior, when you can just blame drug company advertisements for making you have promiscuous sex?
Also, it’s interesting to point out the attempts by Ted Olsen to push through logical fallacies in his “arguments”.
For example:
In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.
Incorrect. Proposition 8 does not in fact mention anything about sexual orientation; it simply says that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Another example.
But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.
Proposition 8 in fact says nothing about gay men or lesbians. Indeed, as we have seen from excellent examples of gay and lesbian community heroes such as Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson, people who claim to be gay or lesbian have absolutely no trouble whatsoever in accessing the institution of marriage.
And those two in fact demonstrate the point nicely. After loving, marrying, having sex, and producing children with members of the opposite sex, these two individuals then demanded that the state recognize their desired relationships with other sexual partners. Again, this had nothing to do with being unable to marry at all due to their sexual orientation; it had to do with the fact that laws precluded them from marrying their preferred sexual partners.
And that really is the issue. Gays and lesbians are insisting that it is unconstitutional to prevent them from marrying that with which they wish to have sex, and that the limitations on marriage passed by a majority of voters are evil and wrong because it prevents them from marrying the sex partner of their choice.
But it gets even better, as Olsen whines:
And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.
But, when you look at it, interestingly enough:
Beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[3][31][32] poorer scores on memory tests,[31] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[3][31][33][34] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[35] lesser physical height,[36] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[37][38] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[39][40][41] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability “suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible” for the development of pedophilia.[42]
And:
A number of proposed treatment techniques for pedophilia have been developed, though the success rate of these therapies has been very low.[61]
So let’s see; the research is pretty clear, on a par with the biological basis of homosexuality, that pedophiles may not choose their orientation and that it is resistant to change. Therefore, by Olsen’s argument, pedophiles should be allowed to marry the partners of their choice, because to do otherwise would be discriminating against them based on their orientation that they didn’t choose to have and over which they have no real power.
This is why I really wish the gay and lesbian community encouraged intelligent thought, review, and questioning dogma, instead of just mindlessly repeating the gay party line.
“So let’s see; the research is pretty clear, on a par with the biological basis of homosexuality, that pedophiles may not choose their orientation and that it is resistant to change. Therefore, by Olsen’s argument, pedophiles should be allowed to marry the partners of their choice, because to do otherwise would be discriminating against them based on their orientation that they didn’t choose to have and over which they have no real power.”
I think the question you ought to be asking here is “Should a child who is under the age of consent be allowed to enter into a contract such as marriage?” There’s a reason we don’t allow children to marry adults, or even other children. They have not reached a point in their life where they can make informed decisions for themselves. The exact age that we gain the ability to make informed decisions for ourselves varies from person to person, but it’s reasonably expected that by the age of 18, everyone should have at least had a chance to acquire these decision making skills.
Marriage between same sex couples who are both consenting adults is not hindered by that problem. The only basis your side has for disallowing same sex marriage is a prejudice against gender. Yes, I said gender, not sexual orientation. Just as it was wrong for the government to prevent a couple from marrying because one of the two parties was of the “wrong” race, it is also wrong to prevent a couple from marrying simply because one of the two parties is the “wrong” gender.
Perhaps one day you’ll take the shutters from your eyes.
Oh man, that was a good one. Where do you find trolls like him? I haven’t laughed this hard in ages. I just wish you could get them to do it on video. I mean, think of the sheer entertainment value… *wiping tears of laughter from my eyes* Wheee… okay, back to work… *snicker*
Oh my; did he really link to the Sullivan milky-load ‘controversy’?
Because, you know, it proves so much!
Rob, I admire you for arguing with the man, even though he’s an idiot, albeit a fairly intelligent one. And I understand your purpose– education– just not of Our Boy Here.
But I was taken with something you said. He’s gay! Really? In other words, all this boils down to is that we have yet another homo-hatin’-homo, so wrapped up in self-hatred, and self-hatred’s BFF– projection– that he can’t make any sense at all. But he can still be down get his luggage lifted, you betcha.
It hadn’t even occurred to me. No wonder he’s obsessed with child sex and goat-f**cking. After all, if all gay people were like this homo-hatin’-homo, he’d be right, because we know what HE’S like.
Homobigot. Homophobe. Heterosexist. and now, homo-hatin’-homo.
All I can say is: how disappointing. What a failure of imagination.
What a bore.
The only basis your side has for disallowing same sex marriage is a prejudice against gender. Yes, I said gender, not sexual orientation.
Well, we’re making progress; at least the gays are admitting that Ted Olsen lied in court and that Proposition 8 does not single out people based on sexual orientation.
But really, tell me, have all gay and lesbian people undergone psychotectic treatment?
And also, really. If, as you and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals insist, there is no difference whatsoever between the genders and that any distinction between the two is a sign of “prejudice”, then wouldn’t being attracted to only one gender make you prejudiced? Better yet, how could you even tell the difference, since you insist that there is none?
Since opposite-sex coupling includes BOTH genders, that would seem the least discriminatory and most inclusive of all. Same-sex coupling is exclusionary and discriminatory.
Just as it was wrong for the government to prevent a couple from marrying because one of the two parties was of the “wrong” race, it is also wrong to prevent a couple from marrying simply because one of the two parties is the “wrong” gender.
Except for one simple problem; as the Loving decision pointed out, race is a virtually undefinable concept, and certainly not one with any degree of consistency or solid basis in biology and physiology.
Gender? Not so much. Which is likely why the same Supreme Court that wrote Loving had no problem a few years later dismissing Baker for want of a Federal question.
Next up.
The exact age that we gain the ability to make informed decisions for ourselves varies from person to person, but it’s reasonably expected that by the age of 18, everyone should have at least had a chance to acquire these decision making skills.
Or, put differently, since there is a tiny minority of people who are capable of consenting, it is discriminatory to prevent them from marrying and stigmatizes them; therefore laws based on age are arbitrary and a sign of discrimination.
There is always a funny reaction when you watch a typical gay-sex marriage supporter noodle through that one; most of them will argue that the laws shouldn’t be changed just to make a tiny minority of people who are inconvenienced feel better, and then go wide-eyed when they realize they just undercut their argument.
Meanwhile, I will simply point out the gay and lesbian community’s long history of opposition to age-of-consent laws as oppressive and preventing children from exercising their rights, and then ask if a community that counted NAMBLA as one of its esteemed members (and only dumped them when they became a public-relations disaster) REALLY thinks that underage children cannot give consent.
It hadn’t even occurred to me. No wonder he’s obsessed with child sex and goat-f**cking. After all, if all gay people were like this homo-hatin’-homo, he’d be right, because we know what HE’S like.
Hmmmm….so are you saying that I have sex, or want to have sex, with children and animals?
I do find this a fascinating phenomenon. It alone probably explains why gay and lesbian people have so much trouble condemning and criticizing child sexual abuse; after all, the mentality is that if you criticize it, you must be a hypocrite who practices it.
I think that’s more a commentary on the typical gay and lesbian person than it is their opponent, but so be it.
Dallas,
you are a complete imbecile.
Rob, welcome to the world of having your very own resident troll (ND30). I live in Seattle and read Dan Savage’s (The Stranger) blog all the time, and there too is a couple “resident” trolls that post arguments against every gay-related article, with the same douche-baggery you are experiencing here. Rather than using logic, empathy, and the very human ability to understand what is being said and done, they will keep you running in circles over split hairs and semantics. That’s the basis of their platform. No substance. No ability to reason. Simply inane circular arguments.
However, take solace in knowing the majority of people are intelligent enough to see their fallacies for what they are: Distract and redirect. Plain and simple.
Yes. but are you gay? Ormerely struggling iwth same sex attraction.
“Well, we’re making progress; at least the gays are admitting that Ted Olsen lied in court and that Proposition 8 does not single out people based on sexual orientation.”
Not really, seeing as how discrimination against sexual orientation was the Yes on 8 campaign’s intention, a topic of which I was not going in to in my post. I was simply explaining the very basic mechanics of the discrimination. Do try to pay attention next time, okay?
“And also, really. If, as you and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals insist, there is no difference whatsoever between the genders”
That’s about as stupid as saying there’s no difference between people of different races. Of course there are differences, everyone is different. Identical twins are going to have differences no matter how many similarities they share. The thing is, the differences are not prevalent or absolute enough to warrant discrimination.
“and that any distinction between the two is a sign of “prejudice”, then wouldn’t being attracted to only one gender make you prejudiced? ”
This is some strange, backwards reasoning. You can’t help who you’re attracted to any more than you can help which foods you enjoy the most. People are going to have prejudices, and that in itself is not illegal per se, but the government isn’t supposed to have these sort of prejudices.
“Since opposite-sex coupling includes BOTH genders, that would seem the least discriminatory and most inclusive of all. Same-sex coupling is exclusionary and discriminatory.”
Wouldn’t you then be able to make the argument that an interracial couple, since it includes two races and not just one, is less discriminatory? Do you think you could possibly use this as an argument against same-race marriages?
“Except for one simple problem; as the Loving decision pointed out, race is a virtually undefinable concept, and certainly not one with any degree of consistency or solid basis in biology and physiology.
Gender? Not so much.”
Are you SERIOUS?! Oh come on, you can’t be. Any means by which you could use to determine gender is always going to have a gray area. Do you determine based on genitals and how the person looks? Then what about hermaphrodites and the inter-sexed? Would somebody loose their gender and become an “it” if all their defining gender features were somehow burned off beyond recognition?
Do you determine it by chromosomes? What about all the gender marking chromosome variables? What about someone who has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome? Are they male or female? And if we’re going by chromosomes, what about those people who identify internally with the other gender? What about those people who identify with neither gender?
“Or, put differently, since there is a tiny minority of people who are capable of consenting, it is discriminatory to prevent them from marrying and stigmatizes them; therefore laws based on age are arbitrary and a sign of discrimination.”
Actually, that’s why we have the emancipation of minors laws in our country, to prevent that sort of discrimination without simply lowering the age of consent and exposing impressionable minors to being compelled into things. Minors are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and if found competent enough they are freed from the control of their parents. This not only allows the small minority of minors who can take care of themselves a way of escaping the age of majority early, but also continues to protect the well being of those who can’t make decisions for themselves who are under 18 years old.
Boy, that was a pretty easy one to refute.
“There is always a funny reaction when you watch a typical gay-sex marriage supporter noodle through that one; most of them will argue that the laws shouldn’t be changed just to make a tiny minority of people who are inconvenienced feel better, and then go wide-eyed when they realize they just undercut their argument.”
But this isn’t even close to what you were advocating with the age of consent laws. Lowering the age of consent so that the few who ARE able to consent can do so freely may be good for a few, but it leaves the rest of those minors who aren’t quite ready to take care of themselves vulnerable to coercion and extortion.
Allowing gay marriage causes no such harm. As much as the opposition wishes otherwise, they don’t have a single shred of evidence to prove that any harm will necessarily come about by allowing gay couples to marry. Every study that has looked at same sex couples has determined that they perform just as well or better than opposite sex couples when raising a family.
“Meanwhile, I will simply point out the gay and lesbian community’s long history of opposition to age-of-consent laws as oppressive and preventing children from exercising their rights, and then ask if a community that counted NAMBLA as one of its esteemed members (and only dumped them when they became a public-relations disaster) REALLY thinks that underage children cannot give consent.”
Of course, Rob is right. To you anti-gay idiots, we all look the same. Maybe you should go read Rob’s latest blog post again.
@ND30
Indeed, it seems you are right.
When indicating Prop. 8’s marriage restrictions on California’s gays, rather than “…instead of the person they love…”, Ted Olson perhaps should have stated, “…instead of the (1.) one, (2.) unrelated, (3.) consenting, (4.) human (5.) adult, who just so happens to be of duplicate sex,…”
Of course, because of business, citizenship or monetary motivations (among many other possible incentives), we know that “love” isn’t always a marriage component (though legally sanctioned nonetheless, kinda).
So since opposite-sex couples who:
• share a 100-year age difference
• barely speak the same language
• even are complete strangers
…can simply strut into any Vegas wedding chapel and instantaneously receive the U.S.’s full stamp of approval on their marriages, wouldn’t your energy be more productively focused on preventing their unions?
If you fear national legalization of same-sex marriage because it could lead to child marriage, then why won’t you either a.) cross that bridge when/if you get to it (Like I’d hope you’re doing now with sham heterosexual marriages, as well as with society’s other child abuse issues), or b.) endeavor to eliminate all legal marriage?
You see, so long as marriage is offered, gays will demand legal access to it. Terminate it for the straights, then the gays will be silenced. And also your child-marriage phobia would be alleviated (sort of a “two birds” kind of thing).
We’re saying that 5 of the 6 criteria (again: 1. two; 2. unrelated; 3. mutually consenting; 4. adult; 5. human beings) for nationally-recognized marriage are reasonable, but if our opponents say that all 6 require adherence (6. opposite-sex only), then evidence must be provided illustrating number 6’s superiority.
I know, “Babies, babies, babies! We have to make babies. Where would we be without the babies?”
Well, given we are how many now? About 7 billion strong? And counting? No?
Though mankind’s existence does indeed depend on procreation, it’s survival depends on the availability of resources. Or no?
Just how many of us do you think would be enough? 2, 3, 4 times as many? 14 billion? 21 billion? 28 billion?
Yeah. Like I thought. Our survival on this planet is predicated on both replication and limitation; and therefore those who choose to produce population are no more significant than those who choose to regulate it—and neither therefore are their relationships.
Yes. I still want to know.
Are you gay? Are you a closeted homosexual? Are you struggling with same sex attractions? Are you a homo-hatin’homo? Are you heterosexual?
Seems like a very simple question.
And please, no equivocations such as “I’m a heterosexual” but my fingers are crossed.
Or, “I’m a heterosexual” by my attractions are down on their knees in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport.
Or, “I’m heterosexual” but Jesus is going to make me not-gay as soon as he gets around to it.
Eliot – I can take the “gender” argument a step further. Gender itself is a social construct, just like race. You see, gender doesn’t exactly equal gonadal sex. Gender is a construction of social roles, expectations, and codes that apply to certain people. An example of this could be, say, whom you’re supposed to marry. Gender is as ephemeral as race, and in fact, Tahitian culture has three genders: male, female, and mahu.
And even further on chromosomes! Did you know that there are some gonadal females who are genetically XY? There are multiple points during fetal development where the Y chromosome can be interrupted, causing the baby to come out female. So where do you draw the line?
As for ND30′s “age of consent could be discrimination argument”, it’s null. If you’re too young to get married, it’s not that you’ll never have the right. You wait a few years, then you get married. The barrier disappears at some point. This is not the case for true discrimination laws; those never go away.
Pax,
Kira
You can’t help who you’re attracted to any more than you can help which foods you enjoy the most. People are going to have prejudices, and that in itself is not illegal per se, but the government isn’t supposed to have these sort of prejudices.
So the government must sanction and recognize your marriage to whatever you are attracted to because it cannot be prejudiced.
Which means that bans on child, incestuous, bestial, plural, and other marriages are unconstitutional because they represent state prejudice.
Any means by which you could use to determine gender is always going to have a gray area.
And, as they always do when cornered, the gay-sex marriage supporters invokes every possible exception as a reason for disregarding the rule.
Fine, I’ll play along: let’s uniformly apply the logic that inconvenient exceptions prove that there should be no rule.
In that case, since there are children who have the intellectual maturity to give consent prior to the legal age of it, age-of-consent rules must be disregarded because they discriminate against those children.
And in response to Kira’s argument, a child who is capable of giving consent could have a terminal illness and be likely to die before reaching the age of consent; therefore, the law should be disregarded because it’s discriminatory and would prevent that child from enjoying her freedoms as she should.
If you want to reverse yourself and state that exceptions should not null a law or rule, then feel free.
Next up:
As much as the opposition wishes otherwise, they don’t have a single shred of evidence to prove that any harm will necessarily come about by allowing gay couples to marry.
I repeat my initial challenge, then; prove that allowing incestuous, bestial, child, and plural marriages will cause harm to your relationship.
Of course, Rob is right. To you anti-gay idiots, we all look the same.
Well why not? After all, ILGA claims to represent all gay people worldwide and be speaking on behalf of the gay and lesbian community as a whole. Why aren’t you disagreeing with them?
So, are you ever going to answer my question?
I know, “Babies, babies, babies! We have to make babies. Where would we be without the babies?”
Well, given we are how many now? About 7 billion strong? And counting? No?
Though mankind’s existence does indeed depend on procreation, it’s survival depends on the availability of resources. Or no?
Just how many of us do you think would be enough? 2, 3, 4 times as many? 14 billion? 21 billion? 28 billion?
Yeah. Like I thought. Our survival on this planet is predicated on both replication and limitation; and therefore those who choose to produce population are no more significant than those who choose to regulate it—and neither therefore are their relationships.
One, the idea of limiting for resources has been around since the time of Malthus, with numerous dire predictions being made that the earth could only sustain x number of people — first in the hundreds of thousands, then in the millions, then in the tens of millions, and so forth.
Oddly enough, though, what we’ve seen is that, the more humans you have, the more inventions you come up with, the more innovations you devise, and the more you can produce — which means the more you can sustain. Despite there being 300 million-plus people in the United States, a growth rate of geometric proportions, not only can we produce more than enough food for ourselves, we can feed the rest of the world and struggle with obesity.
According to your logic, that never should have been possible.
Second off, what happens when countries de-emphasize reproduction?
Nothing good, it seems.
Let’s look at a fine example. In Europe, childbearing couples are the distinct minority and the gay-sex liberal movement has done a fine job of ensuring that reproducing couples are treated less significantly than non-reproducing couples.
Currently there are four workers for every pensioner. By 2060, there will be only two workers for each pensioner — meaning that each worker will have to generate sufficient output to pay themselves, plus half of another person who is dependent upon them for every bit of their income and care. In essence, every couple has to support another person — and that is BEFORE producing any additional dependents.
The demographic evidence is clear. The impact of childbearing couples is far greater in a positive sense than for childless couples. Childless couples are ultimately drains on society; childbearing couples actually restore, rebuild, and provide long-term sustenance.
On a more micro level, with that in mind, gay and lesbian couples will never be anything other than an ultimate drain on society. They will not reproduce themselves and thus will not provide long-term or sustainable value; they will always be dependent on childbearing couples to ultimately support them and regenerate for them.
If you choose to be in a non-procreative relationship, that is your prerogative; however, there is no rational or scientific reason for the government to waste limited resources promoting it.
Are you gay?
Yes, I’m gay.
Now, if you would, please answer yes or no: are you saying that I have sex, or want to have sex, with children and animals?
I live in Seattle and read Dan Savage’s (The Stranger) blog all the time
Ah yes, the perfect example of gay and lesbian morality. Nothing like making it obvious that the gay and lesbian community thinks monogamy is delusional and that the world would be much better off if everyone just slept around like Savage and his sex partners do.
The amusing thing about Savage is how he can prattle on about how promiscuity is wonderful and good and how prudish it is to be sexually responsible, and then in the next post bemoan the astronomically-high STD and HIV rates in the gay community.
ND30: According to your logic, that never should have been possible.
Oh. Okay. I see you just make it up as you go. And LOGIC dictates that a box can only hold so many objects—in this case, a sphere.
ND30: …they will always be dependent on childbearing couples to ultimately support them and regenerate for them.
Really now? Always? That’s interesting since many, many gays tend to excel in their careers, earning considerable discretionary income and therefore well capable of financially supporting themselves as seniors. Plus, don’t gays die sooner anyway? So “always,” you say?
ND30: …there is no rational or scientific reason for the government to waste limited resources promoting it.
Thanks for making me lose my coffee. There’s nothing like a hot, caffeinated reverse nose bump. The irony of “limited resources” is SNL worthy. And just what should the government “waste” gay tax dollars on? Equality perhaps?
Isn’t it quite fascinating how hot air diluted with irrelevance/digression/distraction/diversion/deviation/distortion/fallacy/non sequitur/smoke screen/straw man is still HOT AIR all the same?
So you ARE gay. Great.
Actually no you are not gay. You’re just another homo-hatin’-homo. But you are in great company. Ted Haggard. Lonnie Latham. George Rekers. Larry Craig. Randy Thomas. Alan chambers. Half the catholic priesthood. and a host of others.
And actually, no, it’s not great. not for you, not for me, not for gay people in this country, not for the country itself, not for anyone. Because you wil continue to damage gay people, including yourself.
And for what? Becuase you hate yourself so very much.
And all of those nice things you are insisting are true aobut gay people? And all of these facts– excuse me, “facts”– that you keep citing? Have you ever heaard of projection?
Let’s see. All homos are child rapists and goat fuckers. I’m a homo. therefore, the children and the goats must be protected from me.
OK, everyone: I officially announce this contest is OVER. There is absolutely no point in ever arguing with a homo-hatin’-homo.
Where do we draw the line? If we let them marry they will then want to vote or own property. They should be happy we let them pay taxes!!
That’s interesting since many, many gays tend to excel in their careers, earning considerable discretionary income and therefore well capable of financially supporting themselves as seniors.
That’s funny; according to the gay and lesbian community, gays and lesbians are all uniformly discriminated against in the workplace, hideously underpaid compared to heterosexuals, and thus desperately in need of “nondiscrimination” laws to guarantee them jobs on the basis of their sexual orientation and make sure that they are never judged on the quality of their work or their performance.
Meanwhile, though, even if we entertain your contradictory story about rich gays, when you’re 80 years old, who will you be paying to do things for you?
That’s right; the children of those opposite-sex couples that you insisted forty years earlier were unnecessary.
And that brings us to this.
And just what should the government “waste” gay tax dollars on?
My suggestion would be on making sure that heterosexuals reproduce so that ultimately there are enough children to provide a labor force and income stream capable of taking care of you.
Because, as Japan and Europe are figuring out to their chagrin, you won’t like the end results if you don’t.
And actually, no, it’s not great. not for you, not for me, not for gay people in this country, not for the country itself, not for anyone. Because you wil continue to damage gay people, including yourself.
And for what? Becuase you hate yourself so very much.
Actually, Ben, I would categorize under “self-hating” those people who put popularity ahead of right and wrong.
One wonders what the community would be like had people like yourself had the fortitude to be unpopular long enough to tell people to knock off the irresponsibility, the promiscuity, and the drug use that lit off an epidemic that maimed, disabled, and killed hundreds of thousands of its members and which is still going full steam.
But that would have made you a prude and “sex-negative” in peoples’ eyes, might have made you less socially desirable, might have even gotten you tagged as an Uncle Tom — and what’s a couple cities worth of dead queers when it’s your reputation at stake, right?
Bluntly put, both you and Ted Olsen are arguing that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they love and whomever they choose to marry, and that to tell anyone else otherwise is “demeaning and insulting” and causes them “harm” and “suffering”.
Fascinating misrepresentation of what was actually said there – how one factor pointed out in one opening statement somehow magically becomes the be-all and end-all of all arguments in support of same-sex marriage everywhere.
Furthermore, Rob, you are establishing as the authority on “love” and “choice” the person involved and arguing that no one else has the right to judge whether or not their “love” is valid or prevent them from marrying their “choice”.
Is he now? How so?
Kind of hard to “misrepresent” a direct quote.
Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.
And if you note, the quote specifically says “they love, the companion of their choice”. Hence the argument that it establishes as the authority on “love” and “choice” the person, and that it is wrong for other people to tell them that they cannot marry “the person they love, the companion of their choice”.
Now, again: who are you to tell other people that you don’t accept their “love” and their “choice”, especially when you insist that no one else has the right to judge or to ban yours?
North Dallas Thirty needs not our judgment.
He needs our sympathy and our prayers.
Heterosexuals have quite clearly done quite a number on him. However, he has allowed them to do so, and so ultimately, will have to wake up to himself or suffer even further psychological damage to himself, and in turn, others.
He is exactly what we need to remember and consider in this debate. His thoughts, his views, his obvious self hatred have been spoon-fed to him by heterosexuals. And he is spiritually hungry and has therefore eaten it up in search of his own place in the world.
He is to be pitied and held as an example of the ramifications of heterosexual abuse of gay citizens.
Seriously, North Dallas Thirty, isn’t it time you become a man?
[...] dealt with his habit of mischaracterizing people’s beliefs in this blog [...]