Archive for Friday, April 4, 2008

Clinton: Law should be same for gay couples

April 4, 2008

Advertisement

— Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.

Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples "and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that."

Clinton's comments came in an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News that was posted on its Web site Thursday.

Clinton said she opposes a measure that would ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania.

Comments

jafs 7 years ago

And, the Supreme Court is supposed to hear cases with consitutional issues.

It seems like a constitutional issue to me - are the laws defining marriage enacted by the state and/or the federal government constitutional?

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion the troll rides again...

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says:

"If you know what you're talking about. Using the benefit argument is so: LAME."

I realize reading English isn't your strong suit, but I was hardly using benefits as an argument against ... or for ... same sex marriage. My comment was narrowly directed in response to another poster's contention that allowing same-sex marriage would have no effect on her. Whether it's good or bad, whether it's an argument for or against, whether the point is valid or not, it is a fact that there would be an economic impact by expanding the definition of marriage.

"Get a grip dude. Stick to the issue of gay marriage, not Clintons."

Lordie you're a troll, livingstone. I posted my comments to a thread attached to a story with the headline "Clinton: Law should be same for gay couples," and talking about "Clintons" is off-topic? Because someone put you in charge and you've decided we should talk about gay marriage without talking about "Clintons," which is, after all, what the article is about? Moron.


dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says:

"Why is it ok to pay for all these opposite sex spouses and not a same sex spouse."

Well, for one thing, because opposite-sex marriage is legal. As I said to someone else earlier, why is it okay to give Medicaid benefits to American citizens and not illegal aliens?

"And if the person adopted a baby they would have insurance for them anyway, so adding their partner wouldn't be that much more."

Have you ever had group health insurance, dorothy? In every place I've worked, or applied to and investigated their health benefits, the cost of adding even multiple children is lower (in my last job about half) than the cost for the employee himself, the cost of adding a spouse is much higher (about twice what the employee cost is).

"Of course some of you would prefer that gays didn't get any health insurance anyway, because you think they deserve to die, admit it openly, instead of hiding behind these faux arguments. Bigotry is as bigotry does."

Uh huh. The old if-you-oppose-gay-marriage-you-must-be-a-bigot argument. This is precisely the kind of thinking that had proponents of same-sex marriage rights lining up behind the first Clinton ... he's a liberal so if we elect him we'll get what we're asking for. How'd that work out, by the way? The fact is that a Democratic president signed the DOMA (with a significant number of Democratic Congressmen voting for it) and gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell." If same-sex marriage proponents ever want to get what they want, they need to figure out what the objections are that are being held by the majority of the population and address those concerns. Or you can just continue to write their concerns off as bigotry ... something that'd you'd have little success at changing, by the way ... and feel as self-righteous as you want without getting anything.

World_Vision 7 years ago

Wow. Hillary is sucking up to the Gay vote.That is really going to screw things up for the neo-cons and right wing republicans who have fear-mongered the Gay issues in the last several elections. If this actually gets Clinton votes, we are going to see some neo-con christofacists spin faster then Richard Simons on a merry go round. But it also might put her on an even keel with Obama. The redneck vote certainly isn't going to Obama anyway, and now they are really in a bind if their option is Clinton. But whatever, those people will vote for McCain anyway.Illegal immigration is the new Gay Marriage for this election.But will Obama beat Clinton out by swearing to same-sex marriage for illegal immigrants?A recent poll showed that close to 60% of the populace doesn't really care one way or the other about Gay marriage. And most of those are actually for it. It is just the loud mouth redneck types that are vociferously against it.

M. Lindeman 7 years ago

People Same sex marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. Gays all have the same legal rights that all others have. VALIDATION! Is the only real reason for this push for marriage. It has always been their argument, that it is a normal behavior, no different than between a man and a woman. So if they can force society to recognize same sex marriage. Then they can force society to view it as normal behavior. It really is that simple.

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

If "gay marriage" were the same as marriage, this would make sense. But "gay marriage" is not marriage.I'm sure the Philadelphia Gay News would disagree.

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, it's interesting that you say misleading, as if there is some better alternative explanation, but then you offer none. What is misleading is the simplistic concept that creating a legal fiction of a gay couple being "married" is somehow about equal rights. That's as silly as trying to declare that men can get pregnant in the name of equal rights.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 7 years ago

A civil contract between two adults is the same no matter what gender they are.KansasEqualityCoalition.org

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

It's just not marriage, right gayokay? Just a contract like buying a car or selliing a business?Or are you advocating societal acceptance of homosexual "marriage"?

Chris Golledge 7 years ago

STRS, what is the difference? For the purposes of taxation and property law, the government doesn't care whether couples are married in a religious manner or hooked up with a secular judge, etc. Therefore the spiritual aspect of a marriage does not enter into the government's definition. (If the wording does happen to be there, then it's unconstitutional.) As far as the government should be concerned, the terms civil union and marriage should have the same meaning. Marriage might imply more to the individuals involved, but whatever is there is not in the government's domain.Clinton, you go girl!

Brittanicus 7 years ago

We must follow the wishes of the majority of the American people, not the Special interests. That is certainly obvious will the illegal immigration occupation of our nation.That is pure propaganda, spin or rhetoric of the pro-illegal immigrant zealots. Read the forums, bulletin boards and comments? You will quickly learn that predator employers are hiring illegal immigrants, because its cheaper and they don't have to pay out of their profits. Not only are illegals stealing African-Americans jobs, but all citizens. They are taking the jobs of a wide spectrum of American workers with no consequences. That is why we must enact the Federal SAVE ACT and stop this travesty of our immigration laws. Democrat lawmakers are the real culprits, because their holding back their vote in Congress. They now that the new president will sign into law a massive AMNESTY, giving the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Democrats who believe in enforcement must register their outrage with their representative. Find out the raw truth about illegal immigration. NUMBERSUSA!

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

posessionannex (Anonymous) says:Legalize it! And while you're at it, legalize polygamy.Would that also apply to polyandry? But who on earth would want 2 spouses? I wouldn't give mine up, but I wouldn't want someone else to worry about.

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says: "What about her dear husband's "Don't ask, don't tell!" policy?"Would that be the same dear husband who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, per chance?

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

cg22165,The difference between a contract and a marriage is that a contract is not sexual in nature, but marriage is. Marriage is a government-endorsed sexual relationship; is both legal and sexual.Our government does not endorse homosexual "marriage," nor should it.

costello 7 years ago

autie says: "Is it just me or a computer error? What in the world does immigration reform have to do with gay marriage?"If a straight American falls in love with a foreigner, he or she can get married and keep his or her partner in the U.S., and the spouse can become a citizen.When gay Americans fall in love with foreigners, they can't marry their partners to keep them here.

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: The difference between a contract and a marriage is that a contract is not sexual in nature, but marriage is. Marriage is a government-endorsed sexual relationship; is both legal and sexual.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Oh that's the biggest load of horse hockey I have ever heard. Marriage is a contractual arrangement, period. The government doesn't say "okay, you can get married, but here, sign this sex pledge first." One would hope that in a marriage there would be sex involved--but it's not mandated. There are countless couples in sexless marriages all over, for lots of reasons. If you're going to try and support your argument, support it with an assertion that holds some water.

Chris Golledge 7 years ago

Thanks HodgePodge.STRS, what, you really think the government should be able to tell us who we can and can't have sex with? (Let's assume consenting adults and skip the usual drivel about animals, etc.):-) just hoping sex is a part of my marriage someday

denak 7 years ago

Whether or not you like the idea of marriage rights being extended to homosexuals and lesbians, the one thing that is obvious is that this issue is going to have to be addressed on a federal level.The 14th amendment dictates that the states give full faith and credit, to the rights and priviledges of citizens of other states. As things stand now, a lot of states do not recognize the marriages of individuals from Vermont and Mass.Interracial couples were not recognized in certain states until Loving v Virginia in 1967.Eventually, the issue of homosexual marriages will end up in the Supreme Court like Loving v Virginia, but I would hope that the Executive Office and the Legislature would take a proactive stance on this issue and legalize homosexual and lesbian marriage since there is no legitimate legal reason for them to be denied the right to marry. The objections to this type of marriage are the same objections to interracial marriage.And the law is based on precedent, and that is what the government and the Supreme Court will eventually have to follow.DenaP.S. For those who want polygamy or polyandry, that isn't going to happen. If you want to know why, talk to a probate judge. Trust me, NO ONE wants that headache is someone dies without a will!

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

Most of you are liberals are pathetically wandering through the dark woods of moral relativism and societal subjectivism. You need to just get to a point where you ask yourselves what marriage really is. It is not simply a contract. Society's definition of marriage - for thousands of years and through all people groups to have ever lived on the planet - has been, in theory, a relationship between one man and one woman. It is only in recent history that radical social engineers have tried to pervert this time-tested institution and change it into something that it isn't.If you're a dude and you want to have sex with another dude, fine. Just don't tell me about it, and please don't try to get the rest of us to willingly let our society be corrupted into embracing radical and dangerous concepts like homosexual "marriage."

ndmoderate 7 years ago

Just keep telling yourself that, STRS.I'm sorry that the possibility of two homosexuals entering into a marriage (or civil union to be less religious about it I suppose) somewhere in the U.S. is somehow threatening heterosexual marriages everywhere.The idea is certainly not threatening my marriage, nor will it ever.But by all means, go ahead and prop up any and all "moral" boogeymen you can come up with.

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

Two homosexuals getting "married" threatens way more than marriage. It threatens the whole of society. Don't limit the damage just to marriage.

mick 7 years ago

Her daughter wears an inverted cross around her neck. Guess whose side the Clintons are on. McCain and Obama are just as bad.

acoupstick 7 years ago

"Two homosexuals getting "married" threatens way more than marriage. It threatens the whole of society."Why? Feel free to give specifics.

jonas 7 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:"Most of you are liberals are pathetically wandering through the dark woods of moral relativism and societal subjectivism."While others wall themselves in with pre-supposed truths and refuse to question their own presumption

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

When a man and a women buy a marriage license they are entering into a civil union that makes them each others next of kin, and all that legally means. Some then go to a preacher, rabbi, or other religious figure to have a marriage ceremony, but some go to a judge. In the eyes of religious people, are these people not married?

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: Two homosexuals getting "married" threatens way more than marriage. It threatens the whole of society. Don't limit the damage just to marriage.--------------------------------------------------------------------How exactly? And please provide examples.......I'm curious to know what you think is going to happen......PS: I don't think you needed the word "two" in that sentence--marriage would imply two people--you can't marry yourself or I would have done that a long time ago. ;)

RedwoodCoast 7 years ago

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_20.pdfTotal divorces per year in Kansas as a percentage of total marriages in those same years:2006:48.6% (may be under-reported figure)2005: 45.3%2004: 47.7%Now tell me, who is threatening the societal tradition of marriage?STRS: "for thousands of years and through all people groups to have ever lived on the planet"STRS, do some reading on Native American tribes. In many of them, a societal role exists for "men-women," sometimes referred to as "berdache," which is what the French called them. Basically, at puberty, a male can choose to take up women's dress and activities. Although they were not always fully regarded as women, (and here's the point)... men were allowed to marry them. Eat that.Besides, there is no way for us to tell what marriage/gender practices were like in the majority of the archaeological record.

sfjayhawk 7 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

sfjayhawk 7 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 7 years ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: "STRS & the other bigots - please give me one good reason why gays should be denied the same rights as non-gays?"Well, for one thing, they aren't. Gay men can marry same as I can ... they can pick any person of legal age and the opposite sex that will have them. (And I'm sure we're all aware that many have availed themselves to this right.) No, they can't marry another man ... neither can I. Sounds pretty equal to me.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - denak (Anonymous) says: "The objections to this type of marriage are the same objections to interracial marriage."Well, not exactly ... that was a case of discrimination, as a black man wasn't allowed to marry a white woman, and a white man could. A black man now has the right to marry interracially, but he can't marry another man, just as the white man can't.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Why not legalize gay marriage? Why should we? The current law of the land (signed into law by none other than Ms. Clinton's beloved hubby, for those of you who forget ... and Hillary is banking on her experience as a player in White House policy to get elected this time, isn't she) defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Why should we change that for gays but not for, say, polygamists? What about the next group that says they should be allowed to marry, too?

RedwoodCoast 7 years ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says:Well, not exactly : that was a case of discrimination, as a black man wasn't allowed to marry a white woman, and a white man could.---------------So if homosexuality is part of the human condition (which it is), then how are you not being discriminatory? You're denying rights that should be granted to people in loving and life-long committed relationships. I think we're all aware of the dark side to polygamy--treating women like property. Just look at Warren Jeffs. Why would anyone who is "rescued" from polygamous marriages be considered a polygamy "survivor"? The point is, there are victims in polygamy (at least Mormon-style), but who is the victim if two "gays" (nice use of dehumanizing language) get married?

Katara 7 years ago

STRS writes:"You need to just get to a point where you ask yourselves what marriage really is. It is not simply a contract. Society's definition of marriage - for thousands of years and through all people groups to have ever lived on the planet - has been, in theory, a relationship between one man and one woman.It is only in recent history that radical social engineers have tried to pervert this time-tested institution and change it into something that it isn't."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pure BS from STRS. Anyhow, to save myself some typing, here is the c/p from the last time this discussion appeared on LJW...Anyhow, this is probably fairly simplistic but I think this helps show what I mean about marriage being an institution and not a religious institution. Please bear in my that I'm sleepy so I took the lazy way out on the Google.'Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs.""Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons."The Church took a role in marriage in early times because actually the Church was one of the groups that spoke up in favor of the couple's consent to marriage. Prior to those times, it didn't matter whether the couple wanted to be married or not but having a priest or other religious person officiate or give legitimacy to marriage did not occur until much. much later."There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era."All info from http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhist...The Council of Trent seem to be a big turning point in how marriage was viewed....The fundamental nature of marriage is not a religious one. It is to protect property rights, inheritance rights & bloodlines (especially if you are talking royalty).Political alliances through marriage existed way before organized religion. It happens in many tribal cultures today.It is hard to wage a war against a family that not only one of your members is now a part of but also your grandchildren.

acoupstick 7 years ago

"Some researchers think that an ancient clay tabletfound in the ruins of the royal palace at Ninevehrecords the destruction and impact of an asteroid thathit in the Austrian Alps in 3123 BC." Unfortunately, the debris from which the tablet was retrieved was dated to about 9000 years ago. Who to believe?

notajayhawk 7 years ago

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says: " You're denying rights that should be granted to people in loving and life-long committed relationships."What rights?Show me in the constitution where it says you have the right to marry solely based on love or any other aspect of the "human condition." Nobody is being told they can't be in love, they can't be in a relationship, they can't live together and share their lives. The only things they're supposedly being "denied" are the legal rights associated with marriage - tax breaks, for instance. But they're really not being denied those things - they can have them, as long as they get married to a person of the opposite sex. And if that means they can't marry the person they really want to, the one they love? Oh well. It happens all the time. There are countless reasons why people marry without being in love."I think we're all aware of the dark side to polygamy..."And here's where you blow the whole argument, where you turn it into gays just demanding their rights, not equal rights. Because if people should be able to marry anyone they love, if the government has no business telling people who they can marry and who they can't, then polygamy is justified at least as much as gay marriage. You think that there are only victims in polygamous relationships? Every type of relationship has its share of victims, and yes, that includes same-sex ones. A gay person who screams for their right to marry but says polygamists shouldn't have that right is nothing but a hypocrite - saying the government can't tell me who I can't marry, but it's okay to tell them who they can't marry.The government can and does define acceptable marriage partners. You can't marry someone below a certain age, or (in most places) of a certain family relationship. You can't marry more than one person, and yes, you can't marry something other than a human being (you can't, for instance, declare that you and your dog are married, for tax purposes, or any other). You can't marry someone of the same sex. And those rules apply to everyone equally. If that means that some people can't marry the one person they really believe is the only person for them, as I said, happens all the time. But the same rules apply to everyone.

RedwoodCoast 7 years ago

notajayhawk, you should read up on argument fallacies. You commit many in your address to my post. "A gay person who screams for their right to marry but says polygamists shouldn't have that right is nothing but a hypocrite - saying the government can't tell me who I can't marry, but it's okay to tell them who they can't marry."I think it has been fairly well established that polygamy quite often results in abuse and victimization, especially when is occurs under the framework of fundamental Mormonism."Every type of relationship has its share of victims, and yes, that includes same-sex ones."OK, so how does that differentiate same-sex relationships from other relationships? You're saying they're the same in that respect, right?"But they're really not being denied those things - they can have them, as long as they get married to a person of the opposite sex."And as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically states marriage=1 man + 1 woman. If "gays" received equal rights, then what had to have occurred? Well, someone received some rights.

notajayhawk 7 years ago

Speaking of weak arguments, RedwoodCoast, read your own posts a little better.If polygamy should be banned on the basis that it "quite often results in abuse and victimization," then not only all marriage should be banned, but all interpersonal relationships. As I said, all relationships have that potential. You're not somehow deluded enough to think that gay relationships are never abusive, are you?And by the way, your addition of the comment regarding Mormons reflects exactly the kind of prejudice that you seem to be accusing others of. Intolerance of gays is not allowed, but intolerance of fundamentalist Mormons is okay, right? Like I said, not too hypocritical."OK, so how does that differentiate same-sex relationships from other relationships? You're saying they're the same in that respect, right?"Well, let's see: For a start, YOU were the one who said they were differentiated, that it was justified to ban polygamy but not gay marriage, not me. And I'm not too sure what your argument is here - are you saying that the fact that same-sex relationships are equal in that they have the same potential to be abusive is a good argument in favor of allowing them to marry? Gee, there's a strong selling point."And as far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically states marriage=1 man + 1 woman."Maybe because there's nothing in the Constitution about it at all. Seems like someone said that - oh, yeah, I did. By the way, there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids polygamy, or marrying your sister, or marrying a twelve-year-old. It IS, however, the law of the land. And so is the DOMA, signed into law by such a fine upstanding liberal as Billy boy himself.

kansas778 7 years ago

Marriage is a contract, and an extremely important one at that. One of the important agreements the couple makes upon entering the marriage is that they will be monogamous. The state has an important interest in incouraging people to be monogamous. It ensures that the fatherhood of the children will be more certain, so that fathers will stick around and help raise the children. Also men are not out fathering other children with other women that will become a burden on society. This interest simply does not exist among gay couples. The danger comes from the change in the definition of what a marriage is in general. Our cultural belief is that if you want to start a family, you need to get married, but by creating the legal fiction of a "gay marriage" you are saying that having a family is not what marriage is about, but simply two people who want to be together, being together. The danger is that people just won't get married anymore when they start having kids, they won't see it as the required step. So they don't have the legally enforcement monogamy or the property rights that come with marraige. This is indeed what we see in countries with these legal fictions: people often wait until they have their second child before getting married. Their divorce rates haven't gone up because people aren't getting married in the first place.

mom_of_three 7 years ago

You call can spout whatever you want for your reasons against gay marriage. But no one has answered this - why not allow it? what are you all afraid of? (actually, that's two questions).It won't affect me or my marriage. It's not going to change what I have. But it just might give another portion of Americans the idea that the government cares about what it says it does.

mom_of_three 7 years ago

For once, I agree with something a Clinton says.

kansas778 7 years ago

mom of three, that question has been answered.

acoupstick 7 years ago

"Our cultural belief is that if you want to start a family, you need to get married, but by creating the legal fiction of a "gay marriage" you are saying that having a family is not what marriage is about, but simply two people who want to be together, being together"By that logic, couples who have no desire for children (and I know more than a few) should not be allowed to marry. What about homosexual couples who adopt? Other than sexual orientation, how are they any different that straight couples who adopt?"So they don't have the legally enforcement monogamy or the property rights that come with marraige."The legal enforcement of monogamy, while well-intentioned, is a joke. And legal rights of spouse with regard to property, next-of-kin status, etc. is exactly what this fight should be about.

kansas778 7 years ago

Good questions acoupstick, couples who have no desire for children or are infertile don't redefine marriage as they still fit the characteristics. No one looks at their marriage as something different, while everyone will look at a "gay" marriage differently. The legal enforcement of monogamy is no joke in a divorce court. Cheating can cost you a lot of money, and there's a social stigma attached to it as well that is far greater than cheating on your girlfriend/boyfriend. And you're right, the property rights of women in particular are what this is about, and creating the fiction of gay marriage will hurt women the most in this area. Women are the stay at home partner far more often then men, and as such they don't accumulate assets, experience, or promotions, so that upon a separation, without the marriage contract, they would be left with nothing to show for their years of work. Sending people the message that marriage is not the step you take when having children, but is just two adults wanting to be together, will have the harmful effect that people will not get married when they start having kids, like they do in Sweden and Denmark. Their generous nanny-state programs pay for raising out-of-wedlock children there, we don't have that kind of money here.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

What is Marriage? It is a tough question to answer. It depends on the settings of society and, now, nation. Polygamous relationships were allowed in some societies in history because men fought and died in war, thus, more women had to be married to the lesser surviving men. With our society having nearly equal number of women and men, this has become an unnecessary taboo. Women used to be married as young as they reached child bearing age. If we listen to nature, we can definitely marry our children off at a very tender age. Now, we set it at the level where we think they're matured enough to think (but we fail to address that many younger generations will never become mature...).Some societies set discriminatory rules that only allow richer men to marry poorer women. There are tribes around the world that make women the head of household, and allow them to marry several husbands, and of course, their children bear the last name of the mom. Our marriage system may be a taboo to many, high divorce rate especially... a marriage can be a try-out, sometimes is just not imaginable in many societies.So, let me go back to my argument: Is marriage between a real man and a real woman? Bibilically, it is. But if we take out religion, it becomes a very loose definition, as again, depends a lot on the setting of society. Are we facing shortage of human beings? Not really. Even if we are, the birthrate in country is really low and we cannot make sure that everyone give birth to a certain number of babies. So the argument that marriage is for the survival of human kind is out of the door.I don't know, but we constantly have to ask what the society really needs. We will tend fabricate our society based on these needs. In this case, gay marriage sounds right as least to me. There are very few but significant number of gay couples around, and it will never affect our survival, plus we need to resolve their issues of divorce etc. We're not using the bible to define marriage. If you use the bible, then divorce is not even allowed if you interpret the bible strict enough. Will gay marriage create a chaos in America? I don't think so. These gay couples are already having fun in their bedrooms, one more extra paperwork will not create a havoc, unless you're talking about God punishing us. That, I cannot confirm, because I don't know God well enough to know that he will punish us. Will gay marriage bring disease to our society? I don't think so. As long as they use the right protection, like condoms...So, why are we stopping gay marriage?

kansas778 7 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says: So, why are we stopping gay marriage?*****Why are we stopping male pregnancy? The world won't end if men can be pregnant, and I don't think some god will punish us. So why not?

user_name 7 years ago

Marriage is not a "required" step in having children, I don't know where that came from. And the only people that will look at gay marriage differently are the close-minded people. Why is it my business or yours if two people want to be together and be recognized legally. That should be their choice...not anybody else's. The definition of marriage...yada, yada. Society is constantly changing and the government is supposed to change with it, or it fails the people.

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, my philosophies don't come from 5000 years ago but much more recently. I don't know who you think my "Lord" should be, but I call no one or anything imaginary my Lord. What exactly do you mean by my "Cross" with a capital C? I don't possess any crosses nor understand your reference to them. And why exactly would I sacrifice a lamb for anything other than my dinner? I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't believe in any gods, goddesses, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, fairies, witches, devils, ghouls, or any other kind of supernatural beings or phenomena. Please take your straw man argument and shove it.

kansas778 7 years ago

Axinn, W. G. & A. Thornton 1992. The influence of parental resources on the timing of the transition to marriage. Social Science Research 21: 261-285.Axinn, W. G. & A. Thornton 2000. The transformation in the meaning of marriage. In: Waite, Linda (ed.) 2000. Ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Bachrach, C., M. J. Hindin & E. Thomson 2000. The changing shape of ties that bind: an overview and synthesis. In: Waite, Linda (ed.) 2000. Ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Bernhardt, Eva 2002. Cohabitation and marriage among young adults in Sweden: attitudes, expectations and plans. Nordic demography: trends and differentials. Scandinavian Population Studies 13: 157-170. Oslo: Unipub.Bernhardt, Eva & Guy Moors 2003. The impact of attitudes on the transition to marriage among cohabiting couples in Sweden. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 1-3 2003.Billari, Francesco 2004. Choices, opportunities and constraints on partnerships, childbearing and parenting: the patterns. Background paper to the European Population Forum 2004, Geneva, 12-14 January 2004.Blom, Svein 1994. Marriage and cohabitation in a changing society: experiences of Norwegian men and women born in 1945 and 1960. European Journal of Population 10 (2): 143-174.Bracher, M. & G. Santow 1998. Economic independence and union formation in Sweden. Population Studies 52: 275-294.Brown, Susan L. 2000. Union transitions among cohabitors: the significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 833-846.Cherlin, Andrew 1992. Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cherlin, Andrew 2000. Toward a new home socio-economics of union formation. In: Waite, Linda (ed.) 2000. Ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Duvander, Ann-Zofie 1998. Why do Swedish cohabitants marry? Licentiate thesis, Demography Unit, Stockholm University.Duvander, Ann-Zofie 1999. The transition from cohabitation to marriage: a longitudinal study of the propensity to marry in the early 1990s. Journal of Family Issues 20 (5): 698-717.Goldscheider, Frances & Linda Waite 1986. Sex differences in the entry to marriage. American Journal of Sociology 92: 91-109.Heuveline, Patrick & J. M. Timberlake 2003. Cohabitation and family formation across western nations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 1-3 2003.

kansas778 7 years ago

Kiernan, Kathleen 2000. European perspectives on union formation. In: Waite, Linda (ed.) 2000. Ties that bind: perspectives on marriage and cohabitation. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lesthaeghe, Ron 1995. The second demographic transition in western countries: an interpretation. In: Mason, Karen O. & A-M. Jensen (eds.): Gender and family change in industrialized countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lichter, D. T, F. B. LeClere & D. K. McLaughlin 1991. Local marriage markets and the marriage behavior of black and white women. American Journal of Sociology, 96 (4): 843-67.Liefbroer, Aat C. 1991. The choice between a married or unmarried first union by young adults: acompeting risk analysis. European Journal of Population 7: 273-298.McGinnis, Sandra L. 2003. Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: a model of marriage entry. Journal of Marriage and the Family 65: 105-116.Oppenheimer, Valerie, M. Kalmijn & Nelson Lim 1997. Men's career development and marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography 34: 311-330. Rindfuss, R. R. & A. Van der Heuvel 1990. Cohabitation: a precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review 16 (4): 703-726.Sassler, S. & R. Schoen 1999. The effects of attitudes and economic activity on marriage. Journal ofMarriage and the Family 61: 147-159.Statistics Sweden 1995. Kvinnors och mäns liv. Del 2. Parbildning och separationer. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

kansas778 (Anonymous) says:"Why are we stopping male pregnancy? The world won't end if men can be pregnant, and I don't think some god will punish us. So why not?"Yeap, I agree. The world won't end if murderers go around killing people. But there are some activities that will disrupt society but gay marriage is not one of those. Gay marriage is not going to affect our society until a time when there are way too many gays that our society is at the brink of extinction.... if not, I don't see the problem.Remember the days when teenage pregnancy was fine? Children as young as 14 got married and pregnant? Society back then were able to accept and was part of life. Well, back then homosexuality was a taboo. Now, we're shocked to see a 14 yo getting pregnant and doesn't know how to deal with it till she had to flush her baby into the toilet bowl.Marriage is not as sacred as we thought. People who defend it mainly draws it to their religious belief, but if it's sacred, why are there so many "religious" folks getting divorced and having extramarital affairs?

kansas778 7 years ago

The most convincing argument for me is how those in favor proclaim there will be absolutely no effect of a legal redefinition of marriage. This is simply head in the sand thinking.

kansas778 7 years ago

What's this Marion? Are you going to give me the respect of an intelligent person who's argument is based on reason? Don't act like you weren't hoping I would cite to some christer website. Do you really want to talk about the issue on its merits, or are you just looking for a way to assure yourself that I'm really full of it? I'm not going to waste my time if you're preconvinced that I'm a fundie christer who hates gays. This was a big issue in 2004, if you remember, and I haven't done any more reading on the topic since then, so I would rather not waste my time looking all this stuff up again trying to convince someone that I don't hate gays if there's nothing that would do that.

mom_of_three 7 years ago

No, my question hasn't been answered. What is it going to hurt if gay marriage allowed?There are already sky high divorce rates from hetero couples, children are already born our of wedlock, and have been for years. Real reason why you are afraid of gay marriage....Give me a new one........

mom_of_three 7 years ago

allowing gay marriage isn't going to affect my marriage. It isn't going to make mine less legal, less loving, less important. Will it affect yours?

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says: "It won't affect me or my marriage. It's not going to change what I have."Well, not entirely true. If the number of people that are entitled to the tax breaks and group insurance is increased, then all of us will end up paying more in taxes and insurance premiums to make up the difference."For once, I agree with something a Clinton says."Must be this aged and failing memory ... I would have sworn the Clintons were saying the same things before they actually got to the White House and gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the DOMA.

kansas778 7 years ago

And what exactly do you want a citation of Marion? Your contention has not been that my facts are wrong, but that I'm a fundie christer who hates gays. So what type of quote do I need to rebut that? Is this your issue that you tell your liberal friends about so they'll respect you? Do you doubt that people in sweden have children out of wedlock and don't marry until after having one or two children or not at all? "Swedes marry less, cohabit more, live in single-person households more, and marry at later ages than the people of any other rich country in the world. They divorce almost as much as Americans, the world's champions. Re-marriage rates are low. Since the late 1980s a small majority of all births and a large majority of first births have been to unwed mothers and fathers. " http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3760/is_199810/ai_n8826358Do you doubt that attitudes about marriage have an effect on marriage rates? http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41316Does any of this really matter to you? Because we both know you don't give a crap about my argument, you are dead set in your bigoted views. I really don't feel web links to this are as good as citations to journals, and when I was a student at KU I could find most of these in the library.

kansas778 7 years ago

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says: No, my question hasn't been answered. What is it going to hurt if gay marriage allowed?There are already sky high divorce rates from hetero couples, children are already born our of wedlock, and have been for years. Real reason why you are afraid of gay marriage:.Give me a new one::..******If yout think the number of children born out of wedlock is bad here, take a look at sweden where the numbers look like an American ghetto. But keep on denying that there's a legitimate reason to be against a redefinition of marriage, that way you won't have to actually support your beliefs.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

pisafromthewest"Well, not entirely true. If the number of people that are entitled to the tax breaks and group insurance is increased, then all of us will end up paying more in taxes and insurance premiums to make up the difference."I'm not sure what you mean by tax breaks, except that married people don't pay quite as many taxes, but it's not that big of a difference. Perhaps you are concerned that when 2 people live together, they are only paying taxes on 1 house instead of two. But they are probably living together anyway. I do know if there are more people in your insurance group, as long as they're healthy, the rates go down, because you are spreading out the costs. Can you show me the numbers for this. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

user_name 7 years ago

Who cares if a legal definition is changed? Big whoop...they have to change and amend things constantly when new laws are passed, this wouldn't be any different.

kansas778 7 years ago

kansas778 (Anonymous) says: Marion (Marion Lynn) says:So?Over 60% of marriages in the USA fail anyway.Explain to us exactly how allowing gays to marry is going to affect these rates.*****Dr. K778: let's get to work on that cure for cancer.Dr. Marion: No, over 60% of patients die anyway, I'm going golfing.Again, how exactly are you going to allow gays to marry? That's like allowing a dog to be a cat. You don't allow gays to marry, you change what you mean by the word marriage. You have offered no argument for redefining what the term means other than: why not. If I fail to be convinced by that argument you'll have to forgive me. So exactly (as if social phenomena could be explained with mathematical precision) how does redefining the concept of marriage effect the institution of marriage? First of all, you seem to be in complete denial that redefining it would have any effect upon it at all. Definitions of what is "sex" and what is "virginity" are having a major impact on the sex lives of teenagers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-18-teens-sex_x.htmRedefining marriage will* have some effect upon society. What effect will that be? You offer nothing on this question because you deny that it even exists. I'll stop here for now, since if you can't come this far in the analysis there's no point in going any further. Are you up to speed or do you need me to explain any of this to you again?______With supporting quotes and source citations, please.*******I give quotes and citations when I feel they are necessary to add to my point,.or to resolve any question of fact. My reasoning and arguments are mine and mine alone. If you cannot find any fault with my argument other than that it is not someone else's, then I humbly suggest there is no fault to be found.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"Well, not entirely true. If the number of people that are entitled to the tax breaks and group insurance is increased, then all of us will end up paying more in taxes and insurance premiums to make up the difference."Then we should stop everyone from marrying! Since the more people getting married, or the more kids they have, the more taxes we need to pay for the new marriages, and the kids that they're going to have. Don't you think so?It'll also cost us more to run civil rights program that promotes racial harmony and integration. So are you suggesting we're wasting all our monies on that?"Must be this aged and failing memory : I would have sworn the Clintons were saying the same things before they actually got to the White House and gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the DOMA."Clintons? As far as I know, this is Obama's stand: "He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized."So basically, it's a half-yes too. So what's wrong with Clinton on this issue? By the way, stick to the issue dude.

user_name 7 years ago

I'm sorry, but kansas778...you make no sense. You are not proving your point at all. You have said that Marion failed to give an argument for redefining marriage other than why not? But you have failed to answer the question WHY NOT? WHO is it going to hurt and specifically HOW? What's the big deal? So instead of saying a man and a woman, it says two people or something to that effect...oh no! LOL

user_name 7 years ago

sodomy laws (the ones concerning gay sex between consenting adults) were invalidated in 2003 by the Supreme Court

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says: "I'm not sure what you mean by tax breaks, except that married people don't pay quite as many taxes, but it's not that big of a difference."It depends on their relative incomes. If a married couple has comparable income, they're actually better off filing as singles. But with a one earner couple, or a couple with a wide discrepancy between the two incomes, it has the effect of averaging their income and taxing it at the rate of a lower marginal bracket. (E.g. a single earner household with an income of $120K that files as married-joint would end up paying the tax rate that a taxpayer filing single would have to pay for a $60 income.)"I do know if there are more people in your insurance group, as long as they're healthy, the rates go down, because you are spreading out the costs."This is only true if everyone in the pool works. For example, if a company with 200 employees grows to 300 employees, that does (usually) have the effect of lowering costs per employee. But if a company with 200 employees adds 100 dependents to their coverage, than the total cost of the group policy skyrockets, and the employer's share in particular increases dramatically. Combine that with the fact that the largest employer for a given area is usually the various levels of government, who also tend to make the largest contributions to their employees insurance plans, and it means increasing the number of eligible dependents costs everyone money in higher taxes. (Many states publish on the web information about their healt plans including the state's contributions ... it many cases that contribution can be around $800 per month per employee with family coverage ... multiply that by millions of government employees to get some idea of how much we're already paying.)

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says: "So basically, it's a half-yes too. So what's wrong with Clinton on this issue? By the way, stick to the issue dude."Are you so brain dead that you don't grasp what the issue is?- The article is about Hillary saying that she's in favor of allowing same-sex marriage.- Hillary has repeatedly touted her experience as a contributor to White House policy during her husband's presidency as a major factor in her qualifications to be the next president.- During that time her husband was in office and she was (supposedly) such a major contributor, the nation got handed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the DOMA.So tell me, livingrock, how the past record of the Clinton presidency contrasting with what Hillary claims is her current stance isn't relevant to the issue? You bring Obama into it and I'm the one not sticking to the issue? Get a grip.

Katara 7 years ago

"In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The "essentials" of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife's obedience to the husband, the husband's absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband's last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.Valentine's decision mirrors the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage today. His sincerity and conviction were no less than the sincerity and conviction of those who claim that a valid marriage, by definition, cannot exist for same-sex couples. The things which Valentine regarded as absolutely essential and indispensable to marriage are today unnecessary for most who marry. >>>Thus it's not enough for opponents of gay marriage to simply assert that it would be contrary to the definition of marriage. Instead, they must explain why it is essential to the definition of marriage that a couple must consist of different sexes, and moreover why a change to include gay couples would be any less valid (or any more of a danger) than the changes we've experienced since Valentine's day<<<."http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageDefinit.htm

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says: "Then we should stop everyone from marrying! "Now there's a brilliant statement. By that logic if we can't afford to extend health benefits to everyone we should stop giving them to anyone. Brilliant idea. Look up the expression "cut off your nose to spite your face" and have someone explain to you what it means.

kansas778 7 years ago

user_name (Anonymous) says: who is it going to hurt and specifically HOW?******I've not gotten to that yet. I must first establish that:1. this is an attempt to redefine marriage2. definitions have consequencesDefinitions have very specific consequences in the courtroom, like what is the definition of a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in a rental car where the driver wasn't on the rental agreement? If it's one way you win, if it's the other way you lose. For social concerns, the definitions of things like marriage, family, sex, etc. have consequences as well. In the past, a family was a mother, father, and children. Today we've defined family to mean a much broader range of possiblities. People are no longer concerned with keeping their families together, as that word no longer has a precise meaning. It can mean anything, so it really means nothing. This redefinition has played a huge impact in the rise of out-of-wedlock births, fatherless children, high divorce rates, and the consequences that result from these things such as higher crime rates and cycles of poverty. Redefining marriage so that it means everything, and thus nothing, will have the same effect.

Katara 7 years ago

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. !*Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."**!http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm"The statement was proposed by Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College in Claremont (Los Angeles County), who called Bush's conception of the history of marriage "patently false.""If he were to take even the first semester of anthropology, he would know that's not true," said Segal, a member of the anthropological association's Executive Committee.Ghita Levine, communications director for the association, said the issue struck a nerve in the profession."They feel strongly about it because they are the people who study the culture through time and across the world," she said. "They are the people who know what cultures consist of."!*Segal pointed to "sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males. "****!http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL

Katara 7 years ago

"Indeed, marriage has traditionally been more concerned with -- and successful in -- regulating property relations and determining lineage or inheritance rights than with confining passion and sexual behavior.""What, then, about restriction of the legal bond of marriage to a man and a woman? Does marriage have to be heterosexual? The human record tells us otherwise. While the model of marriage is arguably heterosexual, the practice of marriage is not. In a broad spectrum of societies in Africa, for example, when a woman's husband dies, she may take on his legal role in the family, and acquire a legal "wife" to help manage the domestic establishment. This role of wife is above all social, and not contingent on her sexual relations. These societies, which practice heterosexuality, take this woman-woman marriage as commonsensical; they recognize that above all marriage functions socially to extend and stabilize the network of care."http://www.aaanet.org/press/min_borneman_4-15-04.htm

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, you'd never make it as a lawyer. You completely misunderstand what I said--as I figured you would--in your haste to find any fault with my post. Your "interpretation" is that I want you to just trust what I say is correct. I clearly said that I cite sources to resolve any issue of fact. If you have an issue of fact, I will cite. Hastily jumping to conclusions without thinking?You say I am not showing the foundation of my beliefs, but what does that mean exactly? I know that the foundation of my beliefs are rooted in logic, reason, experience, history, philosophy and science. Now how exactly do I show that to you? No, this was really a slip of the fingers on your part. What you really meant was that you think I'm getting all this from some christer fundie website, and that is the foundation of my beliefs. We'll never know if my reasoning and argument is superior to yours since you refuse to offer any.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

I say:"Then we should stop everyone from marrying! "pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"Now there's a brilliant statement. By that logic if we can't afford to extend health benefits to everyone we should stop giving them to anyone. Brilliant idea. Look up the expression "cut off your nose to spite your face" and have someone explain to you what it means."But didn't you just say:"Well, not entirely true. If the number of people that are entitled to the tax breaks and group insurance is increased, then all of us will end up paying more in taxes and insurance premiums to make up the difference."If you know what you're talking about. Using the benefit argument is so... LAME.pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"Are you so brain dead that you don't grasp what the issue is?- The article is about Hillary saying that she's in favor of allowing same-sex marriage.- Hillary has repeatedly touted her experience as a contributor to White House policy during her husband's presidency as a major factor in her qualifications to be the next president.- During that time her husband was in office and she was (supposedly) such a major contributor, the nation got handed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the DOMA.So tell me, livingrock, how the past record of the Clinton presidency contrasting with what Hillary claims is her current stance isn't relevant to the issue? You bring Obama into it and I'm the one not sticking to the issue? Get a grip"Get a grip dude. Stick to the issue of gay marriage, not Clintons. Of course, I intentionally brought Obama up. Why? Has it got to do with this issue on gay marriage? Nope. It's about gay marriage, just as much as gay wants to marry gay, it's just like black wants to marry white. Who cares? Give them their rights. In 20 years time, we will be looking at ourselves so foolishly by denying marriage right to gays.... just like the time we denied marriage rights across races.

Katara 7 years ago

"In his recent book, "The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture," George Mason University anthropologist Roger Lancaster argues that the notion of one-man, one-woman marriage crept into the collective consciousness of American society only within the past 200 years - a result of both the industrial revolution, and the media's influence."Leaders often make global pronouncements about 'marriage,' as though it were a self-evident institution," Lancaster said. "Depending on its cultural context, marital unions can involve a host of different persons in a number of possible combinations. People are inventive and creative about the way they create kinship networks.""http://washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm

kansas778 7 years ago

Katara--thank you for an intelligent response. I actually have my undergraduate degree in Anthropology from KU, and these same professors that will tell you all about how successful other social strategies can be will also tell you how trying to implement Western European culture on other soceities has disasterous results. I wrote a paper about how our concept of elected representatives being forced on the peoples of Papua New Guiea made the exploitation of the indigenous peoples inevitable. One thing you are conveniently leaving out is that there is an entire culture and belief system that goes along with these marriage practices. When you say that Native American males married males, that is not quite correct. Physically they were both men, but their society recognized more than two genders. The very fact that you discussed them as males points to your European notion of gender, and to why it would not be the same.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

"Combine that with the fact that the largest employer for a given area is usually the various levels of government, who also tend to make the largest contributions to their employees insurance plans, and it means increasing the number of eligible dependents costs everyone money in higher taxes. (Many states publish on the web information about their healt plans including the state's contributions : it many cases that contribution can be around $800 per month per employee with family coverage : multiply that by millions of government employees to get some idea of how much we're already paying.)"So then you would argue that the government should only hire single, childless people so we can save money. Why is it ok to pay for all these opposite sex spouses and not a same sex spouse. And if the person adopted a baby they would have insurance for them anyway, so adding their partner wouldn't be that much more. Of course some of you would prefer that gays didn't get any health insurance anyway, because you think they deserve to die, admit it openly, instead of hiding behind these faux arguments. Bigotry is as bigotry does.

Katara 7 years ago

kansas778 writes:"One thing you are conveniently leaving out is that there is an entire culture and belief system that goes along with these marriage practices. When you say that Native American males married males, that is not quite correct. Physically they were both men, but their society recognized more than two genders. The very fact that you discussed them as males points to your European notion of gender, and to why it would not be the same."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Well, no. I simply quoted the articles. None of those words are mine (the quotation marks give that away). Neither is the ethnocentric thinking that you seem to be trying to hang on me.BTW, I, too have an undergrad degree in Anthropology and if your paper was for ANTH 370, we had the same professor. My paper was on adoption and fosterage in Pacific cultures. It is amazing the institutions and systems that cultures come up with so as to preserve kinship ;) which leads me back to my original point - that marriage has, is & will always be an economic institution. It exists for the purpose of preserving existing kinships and for forming new kinship ties for the transference of property rights and inheritance. In other words, preserving/or increasing the resources your family/clan/tribe possesses.

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, what exactly is it you want? Do you want someone's research paper posted on the web that says the same things? Do my views have to be some hollow echo of some professor for them to be worth your time? I can't cite someone else if the argument is mine dummy. Do you understand what I'm saying? This is MY argument. Your example is you quoting someone else's argument which only would serve that someone agrees with you. So basically what you are saying is that you don't find my argument invalid because it is flawed, but becasue I've yet to produce some scholar that has written a paper that espouses my theory. Keeping digging that hole...

kansas778 7 years ago

Katara, sorry, I didn't think the *! were meant to be quotes. This paper was for Bart Dean's ANTH 360. I didn't realize when I signed up for it that it didn't count as an ANTH elective, but I hadn't taken my non-western class, so it all worked out. I'm guessing 370 was taught by Dr. Hanson, who is one of the best IMO.

jumpin_catfish 7 years ago

Constitutionally a civil union is not the same as marriage. While the idea of civil unions helps those with health care benefits and could be handled in Topeka, it won't be any time soon. There are bigger issues the government needs to address then this one.§ 16: Marriage. (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

Katara 7 years ago

Not a problem, kansas778. I was doing that to highlight an important point since you can't change the font or color.The prof's name is on the tip of my tongue. It wasn't Hanson. I didn't see him on the anthro. website so he must have retired . He was older and very gruff. A lot of the students thought he was a real jerk but that was because he actually expected you to think in his class. He did a lot of work involving the Maori and also the Mariannas Islands.Now I see that you try to argue that redefining marriage is a bad thing & caused all sorts of social problems (also using Swedish society as the basis for that - you are aware that they have a higher standard of living than us, right? And generally receive much better support overall when it comes to family issues?), but I'm still puzzled as to how you are getting there, especially now that I am aware that you have studied Anthropology and thus would be aware that a variety of familial structures work.

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, quit dodging the argument. S--- or get off the pot. Again, how exactly are you going to allow gays to marry? That's like allowing a dog to be a cat. You don't allow gays to marry, you change what you mean by the word marriage. You have offered no argument for redefining what the term means other than: why not. If I fail to be convinced by that argument you'll have to forgive me.So exactly (as if social phenomena could be explained with mathematical precision) how does redefining the concept of marriage effect the institution of marriage? First of all, you seem to be in complete denial that redefining it would have any effect upon it at all. Definitions of what is "sex" and what is "virginity" are having a major impact on the sex lives of teenagers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-18-teens-sex_x.htmRedefining marriage will have some effect upon society. What effect will that be? You offer nothing on this question because you deny that it even exists. I'll stop here for now, since if you can't come this far in the analysis there's no point in going any further. Are you up to speed or do you need me to explain any of this to you again?Definitions have very specific consequences in the courtroom, like what is the definition of a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in a rental car where the driver wasn't on the rental agreement? If it's one way you win, if it's the other way you lose.For social concerns, the definitions of things like marriage, family, sex, etc. have consequences as well. In the past, a family was a mother, father, and children. Today we've defined family to mean a much broader range of possibilities. People are no longer concerned with keeping their families together, as that word no longer has a precise meaning. It can mean anything, so it really means nothing. This redefinition has played a huge impact in the rise of out-of-wedlock births, fatherless children, high divorce rates, and the consequences that result from these things such as higher crime rates and cycles of poverty. Redefining marriage so that it means everything, and thus nothing, will have the same effect.

kansas778 7 years ago

I don't find your language amusing, and I hope for your sake that you are intoxicated, and unable to self-censor. I don't understand how you can use such vile language to describe a person you purport to stand behind.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

Marriage should be defined as two people who love each other and want to be partners. That's how my husband and I view our marriage and that's how it is for many gay couples. I feel so sad for them. If one of them would get sick, their parents could step and the person they need the most at such a time, their partner, would be cut out. I know when I'm sick, I no longer call for my mommy; I call for my hubby. How sad you think it's ok that a gay couple doesn't have that right automatically. I'm sorry you are obsessed with sex. I never envision anyone else have sex, gay or straight. I don't want to know what others do in the bedroom. I do like to know that 2 people have found a companion who has made them as happy as my husband has made me. How can this be a bad thing?

RedwoodCoast 7 years ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says: Speaking of weak arguments, RedwoodCoast, read your own posts a little better.If polygamy should be banned on the basis that it "quite often results in abuse and victimization," then not only all marriage should be banned, but all interpersonal relationships. As I said, all relationships have that potential. You're not somehow deluded enough to think that gay relationships are never abusive, are you?---------------Slippery slope. Fallacious argument. I really don't understand your arguments still. If you want to see the dark side of polygamy, just look here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23958307-----------------I acknowledge that all relationships have the potential for abuse. Duh. My point is that polygamous relationships often occur under fundamentalist and repressive religious contexts. The link above quite clearly displays its dark side, and I don't know why anyone in their right mind would be tolerant of it. "And I'm not too sure what your argument is here - are you saying that the fact that same-sex relationships are equal in that they have the same potential to be abusive is a good argument in favor of allowing them to marry?"Nope not what I was saying at all. I was responding to your deluded logic in trying to attack my polygamy argument and place it back in the same category as homosexual unions. It was bad logic then, and it is now. My point was that there is no reason, on this basis, to deny them marriage rights.My primary argument is that homosexuality is part of the human condition. As such, homosexual individuals are capable of the same degree of love and commitment as heterosexual individuals."If that means that some people can't marry the one person they really believe is the only person for them, as I said, happens all the time. But the same rules apply to everyone."So, by this comment, I'll reserve my judgement, but you seem to be saying "this is the way things are and I'm happy with it regardless of who isn't happy with it." Way to go notajayhawk. Remember those Jim Crow laws? A lot of people were happy with the way that worked, and they didn't care who wasn't happy about it. But it's all about accommodating what makes folks like you comfortable, right?

kansas778 7 years ago

Marion, why don't you respond to my post instead of just trolling?

Katara 7 years ago

kansas778 writes:"Marion, why don't you respond to my post instead of just trolling?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And he isn't even that good of a troll but still you should give him an "A" for effort no matter how lame he is. You should check out all his racist and incredibly sexist posts in his posting history.Marion, do you hand out pink triangles with each marriage certificate you hand out to gay couples when you officiate the ceremonies? It is what a good little Nazi does after all.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

Marion,No I even agreed with Bush on something once. Can't remember what it was, but I think it was his original stand on immigrants before he was pressured by his conservatives to be hateful about Mexican immigrants.

user_name 7 years ago

"Today we've defined family to mean a much broader range of possibilities. People are no longer concerned with keeping their families together, as that word no longer has a precise meaning. It can mean anything, so it really means nothing"Redefining something to include other people does not change the initial meaning, it just includes others. I don't know about you, but my family is not "nothing". Just because there are so many different combinations and personal cases of "family" situations doesn't mean that my or anybody else's family is less important. My family is very important because it is MY FAMILY. My son was born "out of wedlock" as you put it..but it's my family--me and him. What is soooo wrong or different about that? I wouldn't want it ANY other way. But "wedlock" is not even an issue these days, and thank God. Because every man I've ever dated has been a jerk, and why subject myself to that for life because of what other's think. Years and years ago, I would have been walking around with the big A, but things change, people change. Just like being gay is becoming more and more accepted. Times are different, our culture and society is different. IT'S OKAY TO CHANGE.

kansas778 7 years ago

No, I define an answer as one which address my points or questions, not cursing and using vile language in a sick attempt to be humorous. You can't argue with it, you've only continued to say it's "unsupported," as if that's a substitution for an argument. Your position is completely unsupported, you've offered nothing but hate and vile posts.

kansas778 7 years ago

I'm sorry I don't fit your mold Marion, but as I said, I don't believe in any supernatural gods or deities or their books about their penis-cutting cult. You continue to use vile language: Marion writes: how does the "marriage" of two fags, bis or lezzies affect a "traditional" marriage?*****Again, how exactly are you going to allow gays to marry? That's like allowing a dog to be a cat. You don't allow gays to marry, you change what you mean by the word marriage. You have offered no argument for redefining what the term means other than: why not. If I fail to be convinced by that argument you'll have to forgive me.So exactly (as if social phenomena could be explained with mathematical precision) how does redefining the concept of marriage effect the institution of marriage? First of all, you seem to be in complete denial that redefining it would have any effect upon it at all. Definitions of what is "sex" and what is "virginity" are having a major impact on the sex lives of teenagers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005:Redefining marriage will* have some effect upon society. What effect will that be? You offer nothing on this question because you deny that it even exists. I'll stop here for now, since if you can't come this far in the analysis there's no point in going any further. Are you up to speed or do you need me to explain any of this to you again?Definitions have very specific consequences in the courtroom, like what is the definition of a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in a rental car where the driver wasn't on the rental agreement? If it's one way you win, if it's the other way you lose.For social concerns, the definitions of things like marriage, family, sex, etc. have consequences as well. In the past, a family was a mother, father, and children. Today we've defined family to mean a much broader range of possibilities. People are no longer concerned with keeping their families together, as that word no longer has a precise meaning. It can mean anything, so it really means nothing. This redefinition has played a huge impact in the rise of out-of-wedlock births, fatherless children, high divorce rates, and the consequences that result from these things such as higher crime rates and cycles of poverty. Redefining marriage so that it means everything, and thus nothing, will have the same effect.

notajayhawk 7 years ago

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says: "Slippery slope. Fallacious argument."Besides the hilarity of those words coming from you, please explain how these arguments:- That the government should not be telling people who they can or can't marry;- That people who truly love each other should be allowed to have their relationship officially recognized and validated;- That everyone should be entitled to the economic and other benefits and rights associated with marriage even if it's not a one man / one woman marriage;How do those arguments apply to gay marriage but not polygamy? Other than the fact that you personally object to polygamy but not to gay marriage. How do you justify extending what you claim are "equal" rights only to a specific group but not others? How does that make them "equal?""I really don't understand your arguments still."Well, now that's a strong case against them - because you can't understand."If you want to see the dark side of polygamy, just look here:"Ah, yes, the key word here being "side." Yes, there are bad situations that develop out of polygamous relationships, just as there are for monogamous heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual homosexual relationships. So I guess we just ban all things that have the potential for a dark side, right? Good plan."My point is that polygamous relationships often occur under fundamentalist and repressive religious contexts. The link above quite clearly displays its dark side, and I don't know why anyone in their right mind would be tolerant of it."Your point is (as evidenced by your earlier statements like "especially when is occurs under the framework of fundamental Mormonism") that you're a major league bigot. You object to one form of relationship based on your antipathy towards "fundamentalist Mormons" but have no objection to a form of relationship championed by atheistic liberals.[continued]

notajayhawk 7 years ago

[continued]"I was responding to your deluded logic in trying to attack my polygamy argument and place it back in the same category as homosexual unions. It was bad logic then, and it is now."And yet you still don't say how the logic is wrong. You still don't address how any of your arguments favoring gay marriage should not apply to polygamists - other than to say you think polygamy is bad."My point was that there is no reason, on this basis, to deny them marriage rights."And when did I say that was the basis for denying them those "rights?" What I said was that if you extend those "rights" to gays then you have no basis for an objection to polygamy."My primary argument is that homosexuality is part of the human condition. As such, homosexual individuals are capable of the same degree of love and commitment as heterosexual individuals."Speaking of deluded logic, are you saying that being in love with more than one person is not part of the human condition? You don't get out much, do you."this is the way things are and I'm happy with it regardless of who isn't happy with it."Pretty much, if that's the way you choose to word it. A small group of people can turn out in a special election to pass a tax increase that the rest of the people who have to pay it aren't happy about. Just over half the electorate (or less) can choose an administration and legislature that makes the other half very unhappy. Welcome to real life. "Remember those Jim Crow laws? A lot of people were happy with the way that worked, and they didn't care who wasn't happy about it."Yeah, 'cause it's virtually the same thing. Because, after all, gays have to go to separate schools, eat in separate restaurants, and use separate bathrooms."But it's all about accommodating what makes folks like you comfortable, right?"My point was, and remains, that it is the status quo and I have yet to see a compelling argument for changing it. And when someone wants to change the status quo, the burden is for them to prove why it should change, not for others to prove why it shouldn't.

kansas778 7 years ago

What I have gathered from Marion so far...If you can't argue a point just make an absurd misrepresentation of it to argue against. That's much easier than thinking about it.

Katara 7 years ago

Marion writes:"I do notice that both Kansas778 and Katara engage in the usual LJW forum practice of attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the message."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~So says the King of the Ad hominem attacks. Do you have Alzheimer's? Maybe you should review your posting history to check your posting behavior before you start that argument, hypocrite._______Marion writes:"Kansas778's theory is pure unadulterated nonsense and Katara supports Kansas778 only because I oppose Kansas778."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. Maybe it's tied into that Alzheimer's you seem to be suffering from. I don't agree with kansas778's view on whether redefining marriage will have an effect on society in a negative way but I certainly can ask how he/she comes to that conclusion without behaving like a giant flaming horse's patoot such as you.

Katara 7 years ago

Marion writes:"I was going to ask you to participate in the mass wedding and in costume at that!You know, you could do the Dom thing, with lots of leather, chains and open spaces in the right spots, if you know what I mean, a leather push-up and with a leather nurses cap, a black cape, high-heel leather boots, you could be "Nurse Pain" or with a peaked, chained military-style peaked cap, "Sergeant B*tch".I think that based on your less than positive attitude,we'll have to look elsewhere."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~How cliche! A true dominatrix doesn't need all that stereotypical crap to practice her art.And to top it off, your post just proves that all you are all one big giant attentionwhore. Why would your officiating of a marriage make one whit of difference to gay and lesbians. Your offer means nothing. It doesn't do a damn thing to help for what they are fighting for. You can already have commitment ceremonies. They just mean nothing government-wise, just like you. Do you honestly believe that all gay & lesbians want to have such a "in your face" type of ceremony? Putting forth the religious right stereotype of the "scary" homosexuals by popping off about how your ceremonies would be? Wishing for Phelps to show up? You are a sad, pathetic, old, blowhard of an attentionwhore.

Katara 7 years ago

Marion writes:"You seem to be well acquainted with that particular kink known as domination so tell us more; enquiring minds want to know!"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sorry, I don't feel like providing you any wank fodder. Go pull your pud elsewhere.

Katara 7 years ago

kansas778 says:"What I have gathered from Marion so far:If you can't argue a point just make an absurd misrepresentation of it to argue against. That's much easier than thinking about it."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

"Have you ever had group health insurance, dorothy? In every place I've worked, or applied to and investigated their health benefits, the cost of adding even multiple children is lower (in my last job about half) than the cost for the employee himself, the cost of adding a spouse is much higher (about twice what the employee cost is)."I must have worked for generous companies. Where I have worked you paid for single or family, and family included all in your family. Maybe you should look for a better job.

jafs 7 years ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.That's why we should not define marriage in such a way as to exclude gays, lesbians, etc.Or, we should remove any and all civil benefits from the institution of marriage.Allowing one group (straight folks) and not another (gay folks) to enter into legally sanctioned relationships with clear benefits is discrimination.This is tantamount to saying that my right to pursue happiness is guaranteed, but yours isn't.And, for the record, I don't see why polygamy wouldn't be ok as well. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

jafs 7 years ago

And, most all of the arguments against gay marriage were once made against interracial marriage.In Loving vs. Virginia, the courts decided that marriage was a "fundamental right".Defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman" is denying that fundamental right to large numbers of the population.

Katara 7 years ago

none2, you must have the same reading comprehension problem that Marion does. Try going back & re-reading the quotes I posted earlier. If you get that I believe that the world is static from those, I would be amazed.It is too bad that you fall for the same trick Marion tries to pull on people when he doesn't have an argument. He likes to attempt to put words/or positions on them that just aren't there in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that he doesn't have a good answer back to someone's arguments such as kansas778. Which is too bad since there are so many one can use and no one has bothered to bring them forth much.I still have to know from kansas778 as to how redefining marriage would cause or increase all these social ills he/she brings up. If they already exist and marriage has not been redefined to include same sex couples, then how can you say that redefining it would make any impact at all?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Marion, I don't know. What do you do with the pearls? And why would you want to know other than you aren't seeing any action? Marion and the sound of his one hand clapping...fap, fap, fap.

notajayhawk 7 years ago

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says: "I must have worked for generous companies. Where I have worked you paid for single or family, and family included all in your family. Maybe you should look for a better job."Must have been a while since you worked. It generally isn't done that way anymore; you can elect coverage for the employye alone, employee/spouse, employee/children, or employee/spouse/children. By the way, I was talking about a government job that paid almost 80% of our insurance - I'm guessing your employers (however long ago we're talking about) weren't quite that generous. Maybe you should look into what the current state of health insurance coverage is before judging someone else's job.******jafs (Anonymous) says: "And, most all of the arguments against gay marriage were once made against interracial marriage."Not true. The arguments against interracial marriage were to prevent a black man from marrying a white woman. There's nobody saying a gay man can't marry a white woman."In Loving vs. Virginia, the courts decided that marriage was a "fundamental right"."A right to which any gay man can avail himself to: They can marry one person of legal age and outside of familial restrictions as long as they're of the opposite sex. Pretty much the same as the rest of us."Defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman" is denying that fundamental right to large numbers of the population."Funny, must have missed the part in Loving where the justices ruled that a person can marry someone of the same sex.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

Anonymous userpisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"I realize reading English isn't your strong suit, but I was hardly using benefits as an argument against : or for : same sex marriage."Some of the best answers are expressed in numbers not language."My comment was narrowly directed in response to another poster's contention that allowing same-sex marriage would have no effect on her. Whether it's good or bad, whether it's an argument for or against, whether the point is valid or not, it is a fact that there would be an economic impact by expanding the definition of marriage."None of your printed comments highlight anything what you've just said. So how am I supposed to read your mind?"Lordie you're a troll, livingstone. I posted my comments to a thread attached to a story with the headline "Clinton: Law should be same for gay couples," and talking about "Clintons" is off-topic? Because someone put you in charge and you've decided we should talk about gay marriage without talking about "Clintons," which is, after all, what the article is about? Moron."Did any of my postings mentioned Clintons? I'm talking about the issue, I wasn't talking about Clinton. Need I wake you up?

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

pisafromthewest,By the way, from your opinion, you have no stand at all. You like to sway away from the agenda when you got your finger stucked. First, by mentioning Clinton. Then talking about my English. Then, talking about high grounds. Clearly, it shows that you're really desperate in getting yourself out of the mud. And then, finally, calling me a Moron.It seems like you're very angry over what you've just lost... an argument. Get a life dude. Admit defeat if you lose. Stand aside, let the smart ones talk.

Sean Livingstone 7 years ago

pisafromthewest,Let me argue just one statement you've made and see how you conflict yourself and got everything messed up (I hope not with your life)"Uh huh. The old if-you-oppose-gay-marriage-you-must-be-a-bigot argument."I didn't say that. If you follow my trial, you will find that my argument is for modification of standards for different time. Interracial marriage used to be a taboo, being gay was. But now it isn't. So gay marriage shouldn't be. People who are against, are simply losing track of time. They're not bigot."This is precisely the kind of thinking that had proponents of same-sex marriage rights lining up behind the first Clinton : he's a liberal so if we elect him we'll get what we're asking for."You mix up a political agenda with a human right issue. Being liberal is not equal to the right of gay marriage. Obama is very liberal, but he's not very pro-gay marriage. Many political liberals are not pro-gay marriage."How'd that work out, by the way? The fact is that a Democratic president signed the DOMA (with a significant number of Democratic Congressmen voting for it) and gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell." If same-sex marriage proponents ever want to get what they want, they need to figure out what the objections are that are being held by the majority of the population and address those concerns. Or you can just continue to write their concerns off as bigotry : something that'd you'd have little success at changing, by the way : and feel as self-righteous as you want without getting anything."Don't ask don't tell is another agenda. Military functions in another way, that I strongly oppose. Most people like yourself mix up political idea with scientific, social whatsoever ideas. That is a very sad thing for this nation. Very very sad. People like yourself like to use big words to pull down others who are standing with you. In short, you're a communist, if I want to use that big word. But I didn't.Crap piece of s....t like yourself, should be removed from further argument with the intellectuals.

pisafromthewest 7 years ago

livingstone (Anonymous) says: "None of your printed comments highlight anything what you've just said. So how am I supposed to read your mind?"Try reading the comment instead of minds. I usually try to be accomodating but now you're just being plain stupid. The original comment I made was directed at a specific post from dorothyhr that I quoted before responding to. It's really not my fault you're not intelligent enough to figure it out from that."Did any of my postings mentioned Clintons? I'm talking about the issue, I wasn't talking about Clinton. Need I wake you up?"You need to wake someone up. livingstone, if you can't read, get someone else to read for you. You jumped into a thread being a troll as you obviously didn't even read the article. Quick question: What's the first word in the headline? If you want your own thread about gay marriage without mentioning the Clintons then start a blog ... the article that spawned this thread is about Clinton's stand on gay marriage. I have never met someone as dense as you are if you really can't figure that out from the freakin' headline, let alone the article."And then, finally, calling me a Moron."If the shoe fits..."I didn't say that."Yeah. Which is pretty much why the comment you quoted was addressed to someone else ... again, if you could freakin' read, dolt, you might have recognized that. By the way, look up a term called "ideas of reference"; it's a common symptom of psychosis. It means you always think people (and the TV and radio etc) are talking to or about you even when they're talking to (or about) someone else."Most people like yourself mix up political idea with scientific, social whatsoever ideas."Whereas people like you just get mixed up period."Crap piece of s:.t like yourself, should be removed from further argument with the intellectuals."Luckily that doesn't apply to yourself, about the most un-intellectual troll these forums have ever had the misfortune to suffer.

kansas778 7 years ago

Katara (Anonymous) says: I still have to know from kansas778 as to how redefining marriage would cause or increase all these social ills he/she brings up. If they already exist and marriage has not been redefined to include same sex couples, then how can you say that redefining it would make any impact at all?****All social ills will always exist, the only question is in what quantity. Divorce rates can go up or down, marriage rates can go up or down, out-of-wedlock childbirths can go up or down. Just because they already exist to a certain degree does not mean they cannot get worse. As for how, normative definitions are agreed upon societal rules and expectations specifying appropriate and inappropriate ways to behave. In other words, definitions affect behavior by directing people how to act. It used to be that a family was a married couple and children, and other styles of families were considered deviant at worst, or alternative at best. With acceptance of single parent families and unmarried cohabitating couples with children as families, the definition has changed, and the effect upon behavior has as well. People who don't meet the 1950s style nuclear family don't feel compelled by the social rules and expectations to conform to that normative definition anymore. So for example, if you are a co-habiting couple, you don't need to be married to be considered a family, as you already are one. By making the definition more inclusive, it has lost its ability to affect people's behavior as it really means nothing because a family can be anything. By redefining marriage we will only make this situation worse. Marriage will lose its normative definition completely as a required part of having a family. Marriage will no longer be the building block of a family, but simply a confirmation of a relationship, or a committment ceremony, and little more. It's not that divorce rates will go up, but marriage rates will go down. There just won't be a point anymore because it won't be what people are supposed* to do anymore.

kansas778 7 years ago

none2, no duh, families have never been exclusively a married couple and children. What a genius you are! Do you wish to address my post where I talk about normative defintions of social instutitions? I'm glad you can't argue with me without accusing me of religious beliefs. It shows me you are looking for a way to just dismiss what I have to say instead of addressing it. It's interesting that you frame what I say in terms of "needing" to be told what to do. You show a complete lack of understanding for how human behavior works. We, more than any other creature, have no instincts, but are taught all of our behaviors. Clearly you espouse the view that traditions and norms are restricting and should be done away with. After all, only sheep would follow normative definitions right? A pretty foolish position considering the purpose and origin of normative definitions, of which, no doubt, you haven't a clue.

jafs 7 years ago

The arguments were much the same about interracial marriage - bad effect on society, unnatural, etc.The case in Loving was a case of interracial marriage - thus the judge would not have commented on anything else.It seems that the anti-gay marriage crowd is the one creating new laws/definitions of marriage which exclude, rather than the other way around.Without the DOMA, I wonder what would be happening.Obviously, the Supreme Court needs to hear a case about this, but I doubt they will, given the current makeup of the court, and the strange (check/balance-less) fact that they can decide whether or not to hear cases.It's very hard to understand the fear/anger of the anti crowd. We have many children in foster care, waiting to be adopted, who need good homes. Why not have gay/lesbian couples provide good, loving homes for them?For many years, the anti crowd has been calling the gay/lesbian folks "perverted" for their lack of monogamous, committed relationships. You'd think they'd be glad to hear that many gay couples want to form loving, committed relationships. Oh well.

kansas778 7 years ago

Claiming that the argument against gay marriage is the same as the one made against interracial marriage is an easy way to dismiss the arguments, and is also patently false. In the appellate brief to the Supreme Court written by the Attorney General of Virginia Robert Y. Button, his argument was made primarily in terms of eugenics and the desires of "improving" the races. He states that: "there is authority for the conclusion that the crossing of the primary races leads gradually to retrogression and to eventual extinction of the resultant type unless it is fortified by reunion with the parent stock." "The results of racial intermarriage have been exceedingly variable. Sometimes it has produced a better race. This is the case when the crossing has been between different but closely allied stocks...It is an unquestionable fact that the yellow, as well as the negroid peoples possess many desirable qualities in which the whites are deficient. From this it has been argued that it would be advantageous if all races were blended into a universal type embodying the excellencies of each. But scientific breeders have long ago demonstrated that the most desirable results are secured by specializing types rather than by merging them.""the intermixtures which have been beneficial to the progress of mankind have been between nearly related peoples and that the results of a mixture of widely divergent stock serve to warn against the miscegenation of distinct races.""where two such races are in contact the inferior qualities are not bred out, but may be emphasized in the progeny, a principle widely expressed in modern eugenic literature. "***Rather comical, but still a bit frightening since most of these quotes had citations to scientific journals (albeit from the heyday of eugenics in the late 1800s and early 1900s.)No, it is not the same arguments in the slightest. The only social concern it raises about divorce is that interracial marriages will have a higher divorce rate since their racist families will make life hell for them. The Virginia statute did not prohibit interracial marriage. It prohibited white people from marrying non-white people. Asians, Africans, Native Americans could all intermarry and be recognized by Virginia. The main concern was with eugenics and keeping the white race "pure."

jafs 7 years ago

That particular quote is quite frightening - but of course it shows how strange views are held by many in our society.There were many people at the time who felt similarly to the anti gay marriage crowd today as well. That it would hurt society in some way, that it was unnatural to "mix" between races, etc.As strange as the views quoted seem today, let's hope that in some measure of time the views of the anti gay marriage crowd will be similarly viewed.The history of our country has, in large part, been the extension of rights to those previously denied them - this concern about "protecting" marriage is a bit of an anomaly.And, again, I fail to see what we should be protecting marriage from, exactly. If gay and lesbian couples wish to enter into committed, loving relationships with all of their benefits/drawbacks/difficulties, more power to them.I have yet to see any response to my citation of our founding documents - all are supposed to be guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our pursuit of happiness, straight couples are allowed to enter into legally sanctioned marriages which include civil benefits. On what grounds do we deny that right to non-straight couples?

jafs 7 years ago

And, I'm a little surprised that kansas doesn't see the irony of the quote - those arguments were buttressed with scientific citations as well.

kansas778 7 years ago

none2, You say the definition of a sibling has changed, but people are still smart enough to know that it's not really their sibling, even though they treat them like one. It seems your argument is that while the term was redefined, it has not had an effect on behavior since it's not the definition that guides people's behavior but their reasoning. As such, I would presume, that you argue that while marriage may be redefined, it will not affect behavior since people will still be guided by their reasoning. Correct? Here's the problem with that reasoning: you don't address all the ways that normative definitions affect our behavior. Certainly I argue that we behave how we think we are supposed to behave, that normative definitions affect us from within. Your post argues against this, as you say that reason allows us to make these decisions absent any preconceived definitions. However, definitions are also imposed on us from without, you said as much yourself: "However, for step siblings [to marry] there may be some social stigma." So unfortunately your assessment falls apart, as the definition does have an impact because of the social stigma that influences behavior. Society enforces its norms through social stigma.I also argue against your theory in particular, and that normative definitions influence behavior from within as well. You say that people could use their reasoning to figure out these decisions, but that doesn't mean that they do. You can open most any sociology textbook to read about the effect of social norms upon behavior. "Although many people think of themselves as individuals, the strong tendency of people to conform to group patterns and expectations is consistently documented in laboratory experiments, social surveys, and observations of mass behavior." Professor H. Wesley Perkins, A Brief Summary of Social Norms Theory and the Approach to Promoting Healthhttp://alcohol.hws.edu/Social%20Norms%20Summary.pdfSorry to burst your bubble, but this is completely about your worldview. You can trace your ideology back to people like Godwin and Condorcet who believed that such definitions and norms were restricting and harmful. I of course trace mine to people like Adam Smith who thought they could be useful. So anyway, your bald assertion that it is not normative definitions but reasoning that leads people to understand the different relationship options with siblings compared to step siblings is unfounded and refuted.

kansas778 7 years ago

jafs, I'll forgive your misunderstanding of constitutional law as you are not a lawyer. The 14th amendment due process clause protecting life, liberty and property have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to basically mean the bill of rights. Your argument would have to be that gay marriage is a fundamental right that is rooted in the traditions of this country. At this point in time, as I think only Vermont has outright gay marriage, and few other states have equivilants, that argument would hardly hold up. Due process arguments revolve mainly on the definition of the right that is being deprived. The more general the right, the more likely it is fundamental. The more specific it is, the more likely it is not fundamental. The effect is that non-fundamental rights are only subject to rational basis review. So as long as the government can come up with any rational basis for the law, which is shown by being reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, then it will be upheld. Perhaps in time, (and clearly with an entirely different court) if more states adopted gay marriage you could make the argument that it is a fundamental right, but as for now that argument fails, especially in light of the many states that have banned gay marriage, it appears that traditional marriage is what is rooted in well, the traditions of our country.Your argument would probably be more properly brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. You would have to argue that sexual orientation should be considered as a suspect-class, and therefore the court should use strict scrutiny when deciding the case. However, the court has not extended suspect-class status based on sexual orientation. Even if you were to prove as such, then you would have to prove discriminatory intent, as discriminatory effect is not enough anymore to win your equal protection case. I personally don't agree with that view, as I think discriminatory effect should be enough, but that is the current standard. Regardless, you are unlikely to win on either theory.

jafs 7 years ago

Kansas,I'll forgive your assumptions about me.Pursuit of happiness is a broad term and should include such things as where one works, how one dresses, and whom, if anyone, one chooses to marry.If we picked another activity or another group, the obvious discrimination of the anti gay marriage laws would be highlighted:For example,Straight people can live where they want; gay people cannot.Or skinny people can marry, fat people cannot.Or white people can dress how they like, black people cannot.Loving vs. Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right, not to be abridged without very good reason. And, that court found that the concerns about interracial marriage were not sufficient grounds to abridge that right.I'd argue the same about today's gay marriage discussion. The concerns about the outcomes are not sufficient grounds to deny gay people the right to marry.And, again, the laws we're discussing are laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman - while this may be consistent with our generally prevailing concept of marriage, it is discrimination, pure and simple.Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution - as a civil one, it should be non-discriminatory.The history of this country is full of examples of how we've had to interpret and apply the principles of our Constitution in order to apply it to situations that were not previously an issue.As America was founded on the principles of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, it seems to me more in keeping with the spirit/language of the Constitution to allow a broadening of our social understanding of marriage.And, again, what is the problem? Please don't cite a large number of studies - can you tell me what the terrible outcome of gay marriage would be, in your opinion?

kansas778 7 years ago

No jafs, the term "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the 14th amendment of the constitution. There it is "life, liberty, and property." Every western civ II student at KU knows who coined that phrase, it was John Locke in his second treatise on government. You'll find that Thomas Jefferson was quite a fan, and shared many views, and that is why the phrase is put in the declaration of independence, modified to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness is taken to mean property. Your argument is one of about liberty. I don't know why you keep harping on pursuit of happiness when you clearly don't understand the context of that phrase's inclusion. It is the liberty to work where you want, the liberty to dress how you want, and the liberty of marrying who you want that you are fighting for. So get it straight, you are arguing for liberty, not pursuit of happiness. Have you actually read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)? They clearly state that the right to marry is rooted in the right of liberty: "To deny this fundamental freedom...is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty wihtout due process of law." I'm guessing you haven't read it, so you probably did not read this part as well: "the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power." I never said it wasn't discrimination. Discrimination is quite legal and protected by the constitution, if there is a rational basis, or a compelling interest, depending on who is being discriminated against. The state makes many laws restricting people's activities because they are minors. That is age discrimination. Only men are required to sign up for the draft, that is sex discrimination. Blind people are not given driver's licenses, again, more discrimination. The point is, if there is a rational basis for it, discrimination is not unconstitutional. In Loving v. Virginia, the court held that "there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification." So your assertion that the "court found that the concerns about interracial marriage were not sufficient grounds to abridge that right" is wrong. They did not find them insufficient, but completely lacking.Simply arguing that it is discriminatory is not nearly enough, otherwise 18 year olds could sue for the right to purchase alcohol. It must be without justification. The justification is what I have been talking about.

kansas778 7 years ago

So what is the problem? I doubt there is anything I could say to persuade you. You've already set it up so that you can dismiss it, by saying "tell me what the terrible outcome of gay marriage would be." You've already dismissed my argument by belittling it. If I predict the world will end you'll dismiss it and say that's ridiculous, if I predict a simple worsening of the current state of things you'll dismiss it and say that can't be what I am really concerned about, and that I must have some other motive, and am trying to find anything to stop gay marriage. We should choose policies that have a net benefit for society. It is naive to think that there are no detrimental costs associated with any policy. To look at gay marriage as only a gain in individual liberty and then ignore any social costs is just sticking your head in the sand.

notajayhawk 7 years ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "If we picked another activity or another group, the obvious discrimination of the anti gay marriage laws would be highlighted:For example,"Again, untrue. Gay people can marry - just like straight people, they can marry anyone old enough of the opposite sex.Let's take three people, one woman and two men. One of the men is white and one of some other race. The law that was struck down in Loving was discriminatory because it said that one of those men could marry the woman but the other couldn't. Now, let's take the same situation, one woman, two men, and the men can be any race at all, but one's gay and one's not. There is no discrimination because they both can marry the woman (and neither can marry a man).Now that may sound like it's discriminatory because one can't marry his partner of choice, or the one that they love. But there's nothing in the Constitution or in the Loving decision that says there's any fundamental right to marry any person you choose (nor would that be possible to guarantee) or that there's some fundamental right to have your romantic relationship officially recognized by the state. Plus, as has been stated repeatedly, often by the very proponents of gay marriage, marriage quite often has nothing to do with love or sex or any type of romantic relationship. There's also a fundamental difference in the purpose of the interracial marriage ban in Virginia and the same sex marriage ban. As someone else pointed out, the purpose of the interracial marriage ban had to do with procreation, which isn't much of a concern with same-sex marriage, is it?The state can and pretty much always has limited the choices of marriage partners - by age, by family relationship, etc. Maybe the reason the Supremes haven't taken up the issue thus far is because they don't see it as one of discrimination, not because of the current membership of the court.

jafs 7 years ago

It is of course partly freedom; the freedom to pursue happiness which is the issue.I wasn't discussing the 14th amendment, but the Declaration of Independence, one of the basic founding documents of our nation.Our history is full of examples of how we've broadened our understanding of individual rights - for example, women weren't allowed to vote initially, black people weren't considered people, etc.Loving vs. Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right. The issue is the definition of marriage, and whether the state or federal government has the right to define it in such a way as to exclude gays/lesbians.I maintain that it does not.We do restrict individual liberties for a variety of compelling reasons - so far I have not heard any compelling reasons for disallowing gay/lesbian couples from marrying.Do I think that all gay/lesbian couples will be happy, productive, wonderful families? Of course not, no more than straight couples are.Do I think that all gay/lesbian couples will stay married? Of course not, no more than straight couples do.Do I think that all gay/lesbian couples will be monogamous, and not cheat on their partners? Of course not, no more than straight couples are.Since kansas has not answered my question about the ill effects, I can't respond to any of those.I maintain that it would be:a. Completely in line with our founding principles to allow gay/lesbian marriage.b. A more positive than negative social outcome.Personally, I know several committed gay/lesbian partnerships - these folks seem to be just as capable, if not more so, of navigating the waters of committed relationships as straight people.For an interesting book on the subject, I refer you the author Evan Gershmann, a lawyer (for you, kansas) who began with your opinion and arrived at mine after much research and thought on the issue.

jafs 7 years ago

The reason I resist the argument that this should be decided based on the 14th amendment is that the amendment is about "due process".But either way, the question is whether the definition of marriage laws are constitutional. And whether the Supreme Court will hear cases regarding them.You make my point for me - the Supreme Court has the right to decide which cases it will hear. This seems to me to lack a certain element of "checks and balances".And, the question of possible social consequences is important, but also can lead down a rather frightening path. For example, before women were allowed to vote, I'm sure there were many who were concerned about the effects on the social order. And, similarly, when slavery was abolished. Anytime we expand our understanding and safeguarding of individual rights, there may be possible impacts on society. Whether these are positive, neutral, or negative probably depends a great deal on one's point of view. I'm sure plantation owners thought the abolition of slavery was a bad idea.And, even in situations where there are clearly negative outcomes, we seem to value individual liberties - for example, I see many people who, in my opinion, are not ready to be parents, do not raise their children well, and are probably creating some negative outcomes for themselves and their children.However, any attempt to regulate bearing/raising of children would undoubtedly be met with great resistance. Who decides what the criteria should be? Who decides who should/should not have children? Etc.It seems much the same with marriage - if we are concerned with making sure marriages last longer, we'd need to make sure people choose more wisely, handle their problems better, honor their commitments, etc. rather than limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. But that would be seen as an unfair intrusion into individual rights/freedoms, which seem to include the right to make mistakes, even ones which affect other people negatively.

kansas778 7 years ago

jafs, OK, you're completely lost here. Loving v. Virginia was decided on the 14th amendment. Discrimination cases are decided under the 14th amendment. Civil rights cases are decided under the 14th amendment. Abortion cases are decided under the 14th amendment. Deprivation of rights cases are decided under the 14th amendment. Are you noticing a trend here? The Declaration was a founding document and is persuasive in any court, but the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. It trumps anything else. The language of the 14th amendment to the constitution is "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." If you want to make an argument that will stand in an American court of law, you must make it under the constitution. OK, you misinterpreted what "pursuit of happiness" meant by taking it out of the temporal context it was written in, and you has misapplied your misinterpretation to the present issue. It doesn't defeat your argument, so I don't know why you are so stubbornly couching your language in incorrect terminology. The Supreme Court has appellate review of state law cases and can chose which ones it wants to hear. I've already addressed the consequences of redefining marriage above. See my posts from7 April 2008 at 2:11 a.m6 April 2008 at 11:22 a.m.5 April 2008 at 2:01 a.m7 April 2008 at 11:55 a.m.

Alexander Smith 7 years ago

The GOOD OL USA is about equality and acceptance and trying to view everyone on a neutral basis.NOW when we start getting laws passed to FORCE us to accept people based on sex? That's just wrong. When I heard about one of the schools trying to force students to read books about gay relationships I about crapped my shorts. Thank the Lord it got shot down.When the gay movement is trying to force their views down the children's throats that wrong and you all should be ashamed. Activist will argue that we are forcing man/woman relationships in schools with the books that are there. WAKE UP.. the don't. There is no laws forcing these books in. The activist community is tyring to get the laws to force them in on topic of gay relationships. WRONG.The US is about equality, SEX PREFERENCE needs to be LEFT OUT! In the laws. NO sexual preference should be stated. Sex preference has NOTHING to do with equality and rights. In order to look at people on a neutral basis, sexual preference is a private thing and has no bearing on what we do. Hence forth LEAVE IT OUT OF THE LAW.We should change the marriage laws to "persons" not male or female. What people want to do in their private relations is for them. NOT for the Law to decide who is right on who they have sex with.I say NO to special laws about ones sexual preference.I say YES to changing wordings to make it neutral and saying things like "person" rather then MAN or WOMAN.If we start making laws that force us to accept a sexual preference, something private, something that causes no harm to anyone. Then you might as well make it legal to have multiple wifes or husbands.Whats funny is the Bible clearly states that same sex relationships is wrong. WHICH everyone is fighting to make legal and all that other BS.But in the Bible, many icons had multiple wives and everyone says NO to that?YOU ALL are screwed up who want special laws based on sex preference.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.