Not really your bad.  Remember the msm (sometimes it really is the boogeyman true conservatives claim others acuse it of being.) believe all republicans hate gays and want to make sure their rights are taken away.  So when they write their articles their bias will show through and they’ll twist words intentionally or subconsciously because its what they thought they heard.

Now, I still don’t believe the issue requires amending the Constitution

There are two ways of looking at this:

1) The Amendment would be needed to override/alter the “Full Faith and Credit” clause (Article 4, Section 1).

2) The Tenth Amendment should be sufficient to override, inasmuch as it gives the controlling authority in any topic not covered by the Constitution to the States to decide for themselves.

Until we get a SCOTUS determination one way or the other, with no guarantees that they will get it right - see also Kelo v. City of New London and McConnell v. FEC (aka “McCain-Feingold survives SCOTUS challenge") - we can’t know what the courts will do with it.

Judges in Massachusetts found a right to gay marriage in a document written by John Adams more than 230 years ago fercrissake, and gay marriage proponents were crowing that they could get married in Boston and force Boise to acknowledge it, local preferences (aka Federalism) be damned.

So this is the political equivalent of not taking nukes off the table.

And if it takes a new Amendment to get the courts to understand that when as much as 85% of the people don’t want something (a six-to-one margin), you don’t get to have one fuckin’ guy reverse that vox populi, even if he does wear a black robe.

drum, its only judicial activism if its a ruling by a judge appointed by a conservative.  Otherwise its holy doctrine which cannot be questioned.

Drum, I could not care less what 86% of the population wants.  I think that not allowing gay people to marry infringes on their rights. I also believe that we are supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Furthermore, I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams thinking that marriage of ANY kind needs a constitutional amendment.

Might I remind you that polls can be used for a great many things?  I don’t care or trust any polling data, even when it supports my position.  I’m concerned with right and wrong and the Constitution.

That having been said...let’s say I fear gay marriage and want it destroyed.  why do we need an amendment for anything?  You yourself just laid out the legal argument for one state to ban it while another upholds it.  So there may be judicial challenges along the way -once again, that is how the system is supposed to work.  You’re not supposed to strong-arm your way to amending the Constitution because *today* you have a majority.  Prohibition, anyone?

Buzzion said:

drum, its only judicial activism if its a ruling by a judge appointed by a conservative.  Otherwise its holy doctrine which cannot be questioned.

Same goes the other way though.  If it’s a judicial ruling that conservatives like, it’s right and good and proper.  If it’s something they don’t like, or in this case irrationally fear, then they cry judicial activism.

I think that not allowing gay people to marry infringes on their rights. I also believe that we are supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

But is that not the crux of the whole thing?  When does protecting the minority become making the minority’s rights more important than the will of the people?  Are we to only go with what will protect the minority? Doesn’t that make create a new tyranny? This time with the 5% telling the other 95% how to live, and how they should think?

Personally I think gays, straights, bi’s and asexual’s should all be able to marry whomever they want, when they want, and how they want. I’m even for polygamy and bigamy.  Legislating morality and family structure always fails, and is not the real job of the government anyway.  But we have to to find some kind of balance between protecting the rights of one group over the rights of another. 

And a quick sidebar your honor, when did marriage become a right? Where in the Constitution is this right enumerated? Seems to me its a religious and even societal custom, not what we would normally consider a “right”.  Why not just allow whoever you want to be the recipient of your property, and the beneficiary of whatever benefits you enjoy? Wouldn’t that just be much simpler?

I think that not allowing gay people to marry infringes on their rights.

I think forcing a populace that clearly does not want it infringes upon THEIR rights. Gays aren’t being shuffled off to gulags or having their property confiscated or locked up as “undesireable” or any of that. They are not being told they cannot live together, they are not being denied anything that is not available through other perfectly ordinary means (with less legal hassle than getting married would entail).

I also believe that we are supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What about protecting the majority from the unreasonable whim of the minority? (I can’t call it “tyranny” since they are not getting their will imposed, which is why they are whining so much about it.)

I’m concerned with right and wrong and the Constitution.

Great, me, too! Is gay marriage right or wrong, what scale are you using to make that determination, and why should others use the same scale?

These aren’t polls, by the way, but actual election results for those states that put a ban on gay marriage on the polls. Even the most liberal of the 11 states that voted on it in the ‘04 election cycle - Oregon - voted gay marriage down. In Mississippi, it was a 6-1 margin in favor of the ban.

That isn’t a poll, that is a hard number.

You’re not supposed to strong-arm your way to amending the Constitution because *today* you have a majority.

Not a single state in the union has actually banned gay marriage. Not one. What they (and the Federal Government) have done is to clearly state that they simply don’t recognize those marriages as valid and binding under State and Federal domestic laws.

The Amendment being discussed is to prevent any one state from imposing its judicially-designed will on the residents of all of the other states by using an obscure clause and Congressional apathy (ignoring the plain text), not to ban gay marriage.

It would be to strengthen and uphold the rights of the states to define such things for themselves, rather than have it defined for them by unelected numbskulls pushing a minority agenda.

or in this case irrationally fear

Homophobia? Is that your argument? If someone is against allowing gays to marry, it’s because they are irrationally afraid of them?

I hope you have something better than that…

I think forcing a populace that clearly does not want it infringes upon THEIR rights.

You’re right, Drum. Obviously black people should still be slaves and women should still lack the right to vote.

You know, I hate when you dance your bigotry out to show it off, like it was something to be proud of.

And of course you’re afraid of gay people. You hate them because of fear. You fear “What if they’re lusting after me?” or “What does it say about my manhood if they do lust after me?” or “What if I’m gay?” or “It’s so DIFFERENT” or whatever.

Oh, and Drum, just to knock these down ahead of time:

You: “I’m not a bigot. I just don’t think people should get special rights.”

Me: “So when it’s something you can do, it’s normal and legal, but when it’s something they want to do, it’s special?”

You: “They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex I do.”

Me: “And if gay marriage was legal, you’d have the same right to marry someone of the same sex that they do. See, same rights for everybody.”

You: *don’t post about it again until the next time in hopes people have forgotten*

You’re a bigot. Plain and simple, end of discussion. All this talk of “special rights” and “activist judges” is just another way of saying “I don’t want them to be my equals.”

You know, maybe that’s what you’re afraid of. You can’t fire ‘em anymore just for being gay. You can’t beat ‘em up just for being gay. If they can marry each other, why, it’s almost like they’re legally your equals. And isn’t THAT scary? A fag might think he’s just as good as you, an upstanding woman-fucking straight guy. How dare he?

Gee Rann, Want to throw out any other gross simplifications of people?  I’ve heard gay people that are not totally on board with gay marriage too.  What are they, self hating bigots?

You’re a bigot to anyone who doesn’t follow you lockstep rann.  Its true because I said so, and anything you say otherwise will just prove it.

What are they, self hating bigots?

Yep. It happens.

The difference between you calling me a bigot and me calling Drumwaster, and now you, a bigot is that you’re parading your bigotry around. You just don’t like being called on it. It gives you that dirty feeling that makes you realize you’re treating someone badly because of the way they’re born, which polite society says you’re not supposed to do.

Go on. Explain why you’re not a bigot. I can because I want everyone to be treated equally. But you want certain people to not be able to do things that everyone else can do, so you really need to explain why that’s not bigotry.

How about you tell me what I want since you know so well.  Then prove it by showing where I said it.  Stick to your irrational rants and insults rann.  Its all your good at.

So that would be “No, I can’t explain why I’m not a bigot.” You defended someone who doesn’t want equal rights for gay people. Then when you’re asked to explain how what you want isn’t bigotry, you descend to sulkishness and snappishness. (By the way, nice subtle thing there, decapitalizing my name. One more little way to make the half-a-fag not feel human, the same as you, right?)

How about you stick to dressing up in hoods and hanging people out on the old lynching tree, since that’s all you’re good at, apparently?

No I can explain why I’m not a bigot you stupid insulting little shit.  The thing is you decided I was a certain way already with no proof.  I don’t really need to answer to you though.  So since you obviously know me so well you should be able to tell me.  You should of course have some real proof.  Can you find anywhere, that I don’t think that homosexuals don’t deserve the same rights?  I’m betting no.

(By the way, nice subtle thing there, decapitalizing my name. One more little way to make the half-a-fag not feel human, the same as you, right?)

Jesus Christ, you are a whining little pissant.  I’m so sorry Rann, I didn’t capitalize your name.  Oops I’m sorry, I didn’t use your full name Rann Aridorn.  I better do that too or else I hate the gheys.  I bet somewhere I didn’t use proper punctuation either.  Must be to denigrate homosexuals right?  Some days you really are a dipshit Rann.

So do you think they deserve the same rights, Buzzion? Because you’ve never just come out and said that. In fact, you defended Drumwaster, who’s being quite the bigot. And instead of saying “You’re wrong, I do think gay people should be able to get married”, you decided to fly into a rage. In fact, you’ve gone out of your way to avoid saying exactly that.

So tell you what, Buzzion. Step up. Say “I support gay marriage”, and I will apologize for calling you a bigot. Until then, the label stands, and if you don’t like it, maybe it fits too well.

Boy, the silence in here is deafening.

Christ, Rann… you’re being awfully caustic, today.

And no, I won’t say that I support gay marriage OR that I oppose it.
What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that you’re being intentionally obnoxious, here.

Is Drum a bigot? I have no idea. I don’t know him well enough to make that decision, and neither do you, really… and that’s the point.

For the record, I had no idea you were gay, or bi, or whatever “half a fag” is supposed to mean.
And I don’t really give a rat’s ass, either.

What I do know is that it must be a painful personal issue for you, to cause you to attack people with ridiculous blanket labels like that.

You cry about Drum “parading” his “bigotry” here, but in what way is insulting people with the disgusting “bigot” label just because they might disagree with you on a purely political subject, any different? How are you not parading your bigotry toward straight people?

Now, before you answer, I know that sounds ridiculous to you. But what you are (intentionally, perhaps) failing to understand is that from Drum’s and Buzz’s POV, your argument is equally ridiculous.

I’m just asking you to make an effort to try to see their POV without being blinded by rage and hate, here, man.
I mean… can’t we all just get along?

While I totally agree with artmonkey’s proposal that we all get along without the namecalling - mainly because I like everyone involved in this conversation and I do NOT want to see this place devolve into constant battling like others we all know - I find myself understanding why Rann is so angry.

See, this is not an issue of pure politics.  It’s about the very core essence of who we are as a nation.  Do we ban thing based on simple majority rule?  Do we discriminate against a sub-group simply because we can?  Do we openly hate because we believe the Bible gives us the right?  Do we codify that fear and hatred into law?  Is that what we do now?  It’s also about the essence of humanity - love, and taking it a step further, the public declaration of a bond with another.  We’re seriously talking about telling a group of people - who simply feel compelled to be sexually and emotionally committed to partners that happen to be the same sex - that they are not worthy of being legally recognized as a true couple.  We’re talking about telling them that legally, they are simply not as good as straight people.

Drum asked about the right of the majority.  What right?  The right to hate gays?  The right to repress them, even if it’s not done out of hate?  The right to prevent them from the same emotional and legal commitment that everyone else is allowed?

Ultimately, gays being allowed to marry has ZERO - absolutely no, none, zilch, zip - effect on anyone except gay people.  Two gay men or women marrying DOESN’T AFFECT ANYONE ELSE.  There is no right that is suppressed.  The majority loses *nothing* and their rights, behavior and actions are completely unaffected.

Meanwhile, by preventing gays from marrying, that IS a denial of rights.  That is preventing them from the pursuance of life, liberty and happiness.  You are making them lesser than.  You are trying to legally tell them that they are not good enough to be allowed to marry.  Civil unions and complicated legal agreements over property and rights of survivorship are in no way the same thing, nor are they as easy as simply getting a license and having a ceremony.

The idea that civil unions are the right and moral solution here is awfully similar to the position taken by opponents of racially mixed marriages.  “Hey, you can marry each other just like we can, so your rights aren’t being violated!  You just can’t marry a white person.” Gee...that’s mighty white of ya, to grant a “separate but equal” standing.  Last time I checked, that wasn’t acceptable in my country anymore.  It’s no wonder that anyone who is gay or bi - or simply cares about right, wrong and fairness under the law - gets angry.

Once again, I ask a simple question to which, in all the years I have been writing about this topic I have not received an answer:

How does two men or two women marrying each other affect *your* straight marriage?

I get a lot of hot air and misdirection every time I ask this question, but no straight person ever tells me how gay marriage will SPECIFICALLY affect them.  I want to hear how two men getting married will bring about the ruin of *your* marriage and if you like, how it will prevent other straight couples from every getting married in the future.

A “straight” answer would be nice...pun fully intended.

Purely political subject?

Yes. That’s right. Human rights are purely political.

Oh, you don’t think that’s what it’s about? The whole thing is just another way to say “I will not allow you to be my equal.” If straight people can marry but gay people can’t, it’s something for straights to say “This is mine, you can’t have it, I’m better than you.”

Calling it purely political is disingenuous and proves that not only are you a bigot, you’re the kind of mealy-mouthed bigot who can’t even stand up and say what he is. “I’m not for it or against it” is just a bunch of flip-flopping Kerry-esque bullshit that really means “I’m against it but I don’t want to step out on a limb and say it.”

Fuck, at least a Klansman’s wearing the white robe so that you know what he is. At least the “God Hates Fags” guy can step up and say what he’s thinking. You sit there, waffling and hemming and hawing, trying to say you’re not for or against it, that being against gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot, and you’re worse than them because at least they have the courage that God gave the average dog.

When you say you’re against gay marriage (and let’s face it, considering you’re backing Drumwaster who is openly against it, and you’re refusing to answer outright, the safe bet is you’re against it but too gutless to own up), you’re saying that a straight man deserves the right to go to Las Vegas, get drunk, and marry a coked-up stripper that he met twenty minutes ago, but that two men who have been together fifteen years cannot stand in their church in front of their family and friends and say that they will be together forever. You’re saying that the drunk in Vegas means more than the two people in love. Why? Because it’s a man and a woman getting married. Period.

There isn’t any other explanation for that than bigotry. You can make all the excuses you want, but they’re hollow.

It’s not about politics. Fuck politics. It is about the right to be treated like every other fucking human being in the United States of America and having someone say “No, you’re not, you can’t.”

So if you don’t like the bigot label, you can work to peel it off. It’s a lot of work and it hurts, but you feel a lot better afterwards. Or you can keep trying to cover the label up and get offended when people notice it on you.

I’ll amend. I didn’t notice it was Artmonkey replying, and not Buzzion, who seems to have fled rather than own up one way or the other. (Be nice if the email notifications had usernames included.)

But I will say, if you can take someone to task for being “caustic” about it, if you can call it purely political and say you’re “not for or against it”, then that’s coming off as being against and just not owning up to save face.

You know what? It is personally painful for me. It’s pretty fucking sucky when a country you try so hard to love seems to be busily doing its best to find each and every way to say “Well we hate you.” It’s like a smack in the face to me personally. It should be a smack in the face to everyone that’s ever felt something when they heard “All men are created equal.” It should be a smack in the face to everyone who believes in equality and justice.

As a straight person, you have the right to get married to anyone you would want to. Whatever their race, their religion, their economic status, their country of origin, how you met, how long you’ve known each other, absolutely none of that matters. If you ask them and they say yes, you can get it done pretty much that day. That’s a pretty cool right, wouldn’t you say?

If you’re gay, you do not have the right to get married to anyone you would want to. There is nothing you can do, nothing you can say, that would allow you to go to the altar with someone you wanted to marry and have the nation say “Hey, noticed that. Good luck or whatever.” Instead, pretty much the entire nation is saying “It didn’t happen now you SHUT UP.”

I get tired of it. I get tired of people trying to make me a second-class citizen and make it okay with platitudes or excuses. This is America. There aren’t supposed to BE second-class citizens. If you believe in America, in what it’s supposed to be, how can you say that you’re okay with it?

Drum asked about the right of the majority.  What right?  The right to hate gays?

The right to define a legal term in the manner they wish.

No one is preventing gays from getting married. They are just deciding not to recognize same sex marriage as valid, any more than they would have to recognize a marriage between Rann and his favorite ewe or Saint Andy and his cabana boy or even the Mormons who want polygamous marriages, just that they are not legally recognized by the State, any more than a medical practitioner’s license found in a Crackerjack box would be recognized by the state.

There is a difference between the marriage and the license. You don’t need a license to get married, Rann, what you need is someone willing to marry you and someone willing to marry you. The rest is details.

That is preventing them from the pursuance of life, liberty and happiness.

First, it’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Second, What about all of the “pursuance of life, liberty and happiness” of those who disagree with you?

Oh, wait, that’s right, they’re just homophobes.

Do we openly hate because we believe the Bible gives us the right?

There’s that emotion word again, implying that people either fear or hate gays, when nothing is further from the truth.

I’ll tell you what. How about you go get married and leave the rest of the nation alone, rather than shove the fact in everyone else’s face, forcing them to not only accept you but praise you for your militancy? Your sexuality is of no more interest to me than is whether you are left- or right-handed.

Thanks for imputing all of those arguments that I haven’t proposed to me, though, seeing as how no one has said anything like that, but you’ve got me beat in your head, so who needs reality, right?

You: “I’m not a bigot. I just don’t think people should get special rights.”

Me: “So when it’s something you can do, it’s normal and legal, but when it’s something they want to do, it’s special?”

You: “They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex I do.”

Me: “And if gay marriage was legal, you’d have the same right to marry someone of the same sex that they do. See, same rights for everybody.”

Great. Guess we’re done. The point is, I don’t have to persuade the populace to agree with me, and making up and knocking down straw men arguments like this won’t quite cut it.

Claims of “we’re just like them po’ slaves” and “if’n ev’one was gay, you’d feel difernt” don’t do anything to persuade anyone, because you are NOT black, you are not being oppressed or chained, and you are a member of an extreme minority of people who are demanding that the majority accede to your “oh, so reasonable demands” that the basis of an institution that has done more to civilize Mankind than anything since the Garden of Eden.

You’re a bigot. Plain and simple, end of discussion.

Well, hell, I’m convinced! You need a best man?

Go fuck yourself. Oh wait…

The difference between you calling me a bigot and me calling Drumwaster, and now you, a bigot is that you’re parading your bigotry around.

Because we don’t support your pet cause, the only possible explanation is that we’re bigots?

That would make you a bigot for not opposing gay marriage. And a hypocrite to boot.

This is fun!

Calling it purely political is disingenuous

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS rite, you yutz. Pretending that it isn’t is the only way that you can pretend that anyone who opposes you is a bigot, rather than someone who thinks you are violating their religious beliefs.

I don’t call anyone who eats fish on Friday a bigot, but you apparently have no other tool to use. Keep throwing it around at random, and you’ll eventually win the day, you moronic scat fetishist. (Do you agree with me yet? No? You paste-eating, baboon-faced, hunch-backed, half-witted asshat! How about now? If not, I’ll just keep calling you names until you agree with me.)

As a straight person, you have the right to get married to anyone you would want to.

No, we don’t. There are the most basic limitations on “marriage” that we also have to follow - minimum age, consanguinity, number of participants, and they have to be living humans. But hell, why not get rid of these, too? Gays should be allowed to marry, just like brother/sister, 9 year-olds, and that guy who wants to marry his cow.

Don’t say it’s ridiculous, either, because it has already happened. There are many cultures around the world where child brides are perfectly normal, 20% of marriages in ancient Egypt were between siblings, Mormons (and others) today still have secret polygamous or group marriages, a and that guy in Russia that asked President Putin for permission to marry his cow.

You don’t support them, because you believe that brothers and sisters are second-class citizens, don’t you, you fucking bigot? (C’mon, all these insults have to have persuaded you by NOW...)

Just get back from the Klan meeting, Drumwaster?

Obviously black people should still be slaves and women should still lack the right to vote.

Not at all. You know why?

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE CHOSE IT TO BE THAT WAY. Funny how those laws haven’t changed anyone’s minds on the issues, just the “official” position of the State.

You get the majority of the people to agree with you, I’ll happily go along. Until then, have a nice big cup of Shut The Fuck Up juice, and keep your private life private.

Sorry, asshole. You’re not going to shout me down and oppress me like you want to be able to do in real life. You may think you can excuse your bigotry by cloaking it in “It’s what the majority wants”, but you’re not going to be able to silence me.

And it would feel so good to silence me, doesn’t it? It pisses you off, that I’m here. Being different, not hiding it. You want me to shut up, keep my “private life” private. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with my deviancy, my difference, that nagging question that makes you wonder about yourself, about your own manliness.

I bet you’re thinking you’d like to hit me, hm? Hit me until the doubt and fear and pain goes away, and I’m quiet and you feel strong and manly again. Maybe get a few friends together, go beat up a few other fags, sound fun?

Just get back from the Klan meeting, Drumwaster?

Yeah. We chose to discriminate against Hittites this week. How about you? Where does YOUR bigotry derive?

I’m bigoted against bigots. So you can imagine how much I hate you.

You’re not going to shout me down and oppress me like you want to be able to do in real life.

Neither will you be able to shout ME down with your heterophobia. There are people out there who do not agree with you, and you hate them, so you are no better than they, all of your random insults notwithstanding.

I bet you’re thinking you’d like to hit me, hm?

God, project much? Or did you just finish listening to Bobcat Goldthwait?

It pisses you off, that I’m here. Being different, not hiding it. You want me to shut up, keep my “private life” private.

Just like I don’t parade my sex life in front of you, why should you get to force the rest of us to not just tolerate, but actively encourage? Is it that you think you deserve something that your mommy and daddy never gave you as a child? Is it that you think life should be fair?

Throw a few more insults. That’ll convince everyone that you deserve something you don’t have.

Maybe get a few friends together, go beat up a few other fags, sound fun?

Gee, sounds like you know what you’re talking about. How many “fags” have you beaten up? (Slap fights don’t count.)

I’m bigoted against bigots. So you can imagine how much I hate you.

Sounds like a true heterophobe to me. Scared of the vagina much?

There are people out there who do not agree with you, and you hate them,

I don’t hate you because you disagree with me. I hate you because you’re a bigot, and you hated me first.

Jim himself has said in previous posts on the subject that the only excuse for not allowing gay marriage is bigotry. So he knows you’re a bigot. I know you’re a bigot. Everyone here knows you’re a bigot. You’re the only one in a desperate spin cycle to try and prove that you’re not.

You can make all the excuses you like. But it comes from hate and it comes from fear. You’re no different than KKKramer, screaming “NIGGER! NIGGER! HANG HIM UP!” and then mewling “But I’m not a racist.” You can try and turn it around, try and scream “No YOU’RE the bigot because you’re not tolerant of my intolerance!”

But the thing is, we’ve already settled this. We know what’s what, we know what you are. You can deny, you can spin, you can try to excuse. But at the end of the day that stain is on your soul and not ours. That hatred and fear and bile is in you, and hopefully it will eat you alive and destroy you just like it eventually does to all such cruel, nasty people in one way or another.

Sorry Rann, I didn’t realize there was some time limit on my response.  Guess not answering immediately proves I’m homophobic.  I’ll answer your question, if you answer one thing honestly for me.  When you said this:

By the way, nice subtle thing there, decapitalizing my name. One more little way to make the half-a-fag not feel human, the same as you, right?)

Did you actually believe it?  Answer that and I’ll provide my answer.

It took you five minutes to write a several-paragraph expletive-laced response to one comment, I figured an hour was more than enough to type out four words. I guess you needed to have Drumwaster here to feel strong enough to face down the upstart fag, eh?

And yes, I actually believed that. It’s a tactic I’ve seen before from people in online discussions. When they’re going along normally, everyone’s name gets capitalized like regular. When someone does something they don’t like, suddenly the capital letter gets dropped from their name. So it’s not like you would have been the first.

Oh, by the way, Drumwaster, that bit you quoted about the Bible giving the right to hate, and then followed up with “Why don’t you go get married and leave the rest of the nation alone”? That was JimK’s comment. (Most of which you chose to skip over, especially the bit about never getting a straight answer out of you on the subject.) Who already is married to Donna, of course. Donna, one of whose heroes is Reinaldo Arenas, who she just recently finished eulogizing on Moorewatch. Now, I don’t want to speak for her, but I have a sneaking suspicion where her thoughts lie on the subject.

You actually seem to be in the minority here, Drumwaster, and not very popular for it. How’s it feel?

I hate you because you’re a bigot, and you hated me first.

Really? Show me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT. And I wish you would get your arguments straight. Either I’m supposed to be hating you, or I am supposed to be afraid of you. Which is it?

Or is it that I’m actually SECRETLY a closeted “fag” myself, and so scared to admit it that I would actively beat up any homosexual that I find, because I’m BOTH a hater, a homophobe and a secret “fag”. (Your word, not mine, dickhead.)

But the thing is, we’ve already settled this. We know what’s what, we know what you are. You can deny, you can spin, you can try to excuse. But at the end of the day that stain is on your soul and not ours. That hatred and fear and bile is in you, and hopefully it will eat you alive and destroy you just like it eventually does to all such cruel, nasty people in one way or another.

Guess you’re right, and you STILL can’t get married to your favorite sheep. Or you’re wrong, and you’re just angry and bitter that you can’t get married to your favorite sheep and pissed off at the overwhelming majority of people who aren’t amenable to having their opinions changed through insults.

Either way, the only argument you have are insults and projection of your fears and hatreds onto those who disagree with you. Not enough.

You lose.

Actually it took me all of 3 minutes to type it up.  Sorry but I don’t spend all my time all day writing messages.

ok so then how about you explain the *second*(corrected) comment I posted in this topic.  You know the one I addressed to Drumwaster, and didn’t capitalize his name.

And I’ll preface what I say with this.  I don’t think anyone would hate you because you are gay Rann.  I think people hate you because you are a sad vitriolic little troll with a chip on his shoulder the size of mount everest.  You’ve got a massive victim complex where you believe everyone is out to get you.

And here’s my answer.  I don’t give two shits about gay marriage.  I’m apathetic to it.  And honestly if you want to have a ceremony and afterwards say that the guy banging you is your husband then great go do it. I don’t give a shit.  So yes I support gay marriage.  You want to find some priest or minister willing to marry you knock yourself out.  It won’t affect me anyways.  If gay marriages were legal nothing changes in my life.

As others are saying though, this is a political issue and that issue is “gay marriage.” Now the gay lobbyists pushing it claim its about the right to marry, but as is pointed out you can already have that.  Then it becomes the issue of equal rights under the law.  But if a state were to institute those things that provide equal rights under the law to gay couples then that’s not enough either unless its referred to as marriage.

I do believe that marriage does require a husband and a wife.  I also believe marriages should be performed in a church.  That’s how I personally see marriage.  But that’s not how everyone does and so it gets defined differently by different people.

My solution is very simple.  Eliminate marriage from the government.  Switch all legal “marriages” to civil unions.  Have marriages as a religious institution.  And if a church wants to recognize a union as a marriage then fine.  If the people don’t like it, well then they don’t have to be a part of that church. 

You want equality under the law, this will provide that.  You want to have it called a marriage, then go to a church that will do it for you.  That solves your solution perfectly and you’ll of course hate it.  Probably would take out most people’s opposition to it too.

Equal recognition under the law, and having it called the same thing as hetero couples.  Its what you claim you want.

You actually seem to be in the minority here

And if it were you and Jim deciding popular opinion, that would be enough.

It isn’t, and you still lose.

Sucks for you, doesn’t it?

Either way, the only argument you have are insults and projection of your fears and hatreds onto those who disagree with you. Not enough.

You mentioned something about projection?

Maybe popular opinion is against me.

But I’m still a better person than bigots like you and Buzzion.

I win. Sucks to be you.

Drum, first of all you are quoting me in places, but replying as though Rann wrote everything.  Please don’t do that.  I said I understood why Rann was angry, but I don’t deserve to be spoken to as though I said everything he said.

Moving on.

The right to define a legal term in the manner they wish.

Even if it discriminates against someone based on age, race, sexuality or creed?  It’s not that simple and you know it isn’t.  We have loads of laws that protect a given “minority” against the tyranny of the majority.

I can’t believe that you’re really saying you think it’s fair and right and just that two wolves and a sheep should vote on what is for dinner.  That’s what it seems like you’re saying: simple majority rules.

No one is preventing gays from getting married.

That’s ridiculously untrue.  Some locales have passed laws expressly forbidding that exact thing.

They are just deciding not to recognize same sex marriage as valid, any more than they would have to recognize a marriage between Rann and his favorite ewe or Saint Andy and his cabana boy or even the Mormons who want polygamous marriages, just that they are not legally recognized by the State, any more than a medical practitioner’s license found in a Crackerjack box would be recognized by the state.

For fuck’s sake.  Why does every opponent of gay marriage always bring bestiality into it?  What the FUCK, Drum?  That’s a step too far and it lowers YOU, not the person you are targeting.  You’re better than that and smarter than that.

There is a difference between the marriage and the license. You don’t need a license to get married, Rann, what you need is someone willing to marry you and someone willing to marry you. The rest is details.

Bullshit.  Those “details,” as you so trivially refer to them, are the entire crux of the matter.

No one really cares about private, non-recognized ceremonies. Those are already legal and always have been.  Gay people simply want the same ease of commitment that straight people get.  The same easy, simple access to rights of survivorship, the same rights to decision-making, hospital visitation, property sharing, etc.  Everything that straight people get with ONE cheap license and a visit to the courthouse.

You’re avoiding the basic issues here in favor of some legal and verbal dancing.  Your position ACTIVELY prevents a group from doing the exact thing that another group is legally allowed to do.  My position, on the other hand, does not actively impede ANYTHING you are allowed to do in any way.  It may offend your sensibilities, but guess what?

You do not have the right to not be offended.  If you think you do, then you should start backing the FCC and art censors and everyone else that hates freedom of expression.

I don’t believe that you would.  I think you value freedom and liberty.  I think you’re tossing those beliefs aside in this case, and I think if you examined the issue from a freedom/liberty - or hell a libertarian - perspective you might see more of my point.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS rite, you yutz.

Really?  My legally recognized MARRIAGE had absolutely no religious content at all.  We re-wrote the traditional vows and removed all references to God, and we had the ceremony - recognized in every state of this country - performed by a civil judge.  We held the ceremony in a private residence (albeit one rented for commercial purposes).

We’re also never having kids, so there goes the reproduction argument as well.  Yet Donna and I are legally recognized as a married couple.

Marriage WAS a religious ceremony.  It is not anywhere near that anymore.  Alien-themed weddings in a quickie Vegas wedding hall are not religious.  Elvis ceremonies are not religious.  Yet these are legally recognized by all.  The religious argument holds NO water in today’s world.

Answer this simple question, Drum: How would two men getting married, specifically, negatively affect YOUR marriage?  How would it prevent your children or grandchildren from marrying in the future?

I’d like a specific answer or a refusal.  If you refuse to answer, I’ll respect that and stop discussing this with you.

First, it’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Yes, I know that.  Don’t be a dick to me and treat me like you treat idiots at Lee’s site or anywhere else.  I’m not fucking stupid and I will not be spoken to like I am.  We may disagree, but you can at least respect my intelligence while you tell me I’m wrong. :)

You mentioned something about projection?

Twice, actually. Need a definition of what it is that you are doing, or did you just need to throw that out there in your patented “IknowyouarebutwhatamI, you hater?” debating style.

But I’m still a better person than bigots like you and Buzzion.

Why? Because you’re gay? Or is the deciding criterion that you support gay marriage?

Or maybe your definition of “better” is an invalid one, and you’re still not allowed to get married.

You still lose. Insult us some more and maybe you’ll get your way. Or not. I could use the laugh.

My solution is very simple.  Eliminate marriage from the government.  Switch all legal “marriages” to civil unions.  Have marriages as a religious institution.  And if a church wants to recognize a union as a marriage then fine.  If the people don’t like it, well then they don’t have to be a part of that church.

You want equality under the law, this will provide that.  You want to have it called a marriage, then go to a church that will do it for you.  That solves your solution perfectly and you’ll of course hate it.  Probably would take out most people’s opposition to it too.

Equal recognition under the law, and having it called the same thing as hetero couples.  Its what you claim you want.

I totally think this is the right, fair and just solution to the issue.  I wish that we could codify THIS into law.

It’s equal, it’s fair and yes, it feels like the right thing to do.  I think that gay people who advocate equal marriage rights would be satisfied with this.

Well, some wouldn’t, but the same could be said for the other side.  Some would hate the idea of legally removing “marriage” from state control.  To them I say it never should have been there in the first damn place.

Sorry, Drumwaster, you’re in the minority, that means you’re wrong and we get to gloat about it.

Am I nuts or has this issue gone the way of abortion?  For abortion, everything that can be said has been and no one is every going to change their minds.  All the argument every seems to do is instill bitter feelings and create strife between people.

I’m actually kind of sorry I wrote about it now.

I totally think this is the right, fair and just solution to the issue.  I wish that we could codify THIS into law.

It’s equal, it’s fair and yes, it feels like the right thing to do.  I think that gay people who advocate equal marriage rights would be satisfied with this.

Well, some wouldn’t, but the same could be said for the other side.  Some would hate the idea of legally removing “marriage” from state control.  To them I say it never should have been there in the first damn place.

That’s why I said “gay marriage” is a political issue jim.  (Oops I didn’t capitlize your name.  I didn’t correct it either, that’s exactly how I typed it out, guess I’m denigrating you.)

Its not just about equal rights, its the same in your face stuff the gay parades have become.  Its to slam push and attack at evangelicals.  It can’t be done incrementally and slowly, it has to be immediate sweeping and comprehensive.  And that’s causing a big part of the backlash, I think.  And this country just does not react well to that.  Introduction of the metric system?  Hell no.  Eliminate the penny?  Hell no.  Eliminate the dollar bill in favor of the coin.  Oh fuck no.

On the other hand, just like abortion, it’s one of those things that can really tell you a lot about where someone really stands on things besides the main subject, if ya let it run.

But yes, this discussion has been a bit of a blow to my opinion of the human race in general as well.

Even if it discriminates against someone based on age, race, sexuality or creed?

So are you arguing that 9 year-olds should be married? What about siblings? Group marriages?

No one is preventing Rann from marrying anyone he wants. He just can’t force the state to amend a legal term ("marriage") without the consent of the majority.

My legally recognized MARRIAGE had absolutely no religious content at all.

Nor did mine. I simply had to meet specific requirements set by the state before that marriage was recognized, just like you did.

Why does every opponent of gay marriage always bring bestiality into it?

Why does every proponent of gay marriage always bring slavery into it?

How would two men getting married, specifically, negatively affect YOUR marriage?  How would it prevent your children or grandchildren from marrying in the future?

It doesn’t and it wouldn’t. That doesn’t change the fact that the States are permitted to define legal terms in whatever fashion and with whatever minimum requirements they see fit. When there is a state that allows gay marriage through a popular referendum rather than judicial fiat, then I will not argue with that choice.

Isn’t that what you were arguing in your earlier thread? ("If Massachusetts or New York or fucking South Carolina want to pass a law saying gay folks are welcome to a marriage license, that’s how the fucking system was designed to work!  That’s the way it is supposed to be!  If Arkansas or Montana want to pass a law saying that their state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, then don’t live there, be gay and try to get married.")

Until those states allow it, then don’t expect me to be persuaded by insults.

We may disagree, but you can at least respect my intelligence while you tell me I’m wrong. :)

I would recommend that you suggest that to Rann as well, since the insults seem to be entirely one-sided in this thread.

(Oops I didn’t capitlize your name.  I didn’t correct it either, that’s exactly how I typed it out, guess I’m denigrating you.)

I told you that I’ve seen it done in other places and wasn’t making up some special little rule for you. Do you really want to be more of an asshole than you’ve already been?

Hey Jim its not your fault Rann has more of a victim complex than Lee, and believes everyone hates him because he’s gay and not because he’s a complete ass.  I didn’t even know he was gay.

I would recommend that you suggest that to Rann as well, since the insults seem to be entirely one-sided in this thread.

Oh that’s the biggest load of bullshit you’ve dropped yet.

Where’s my apology?

Wow. Insults are one thing, but the “I’m not talking to you, I’m gonna talk to someone else and insult you” gambit? Are you actually in elementary school?

Sorry, Drumwaster, you’re in the minority, that means you’re wrong and we get to gloat about it.

Really? Which state allows gay marriage again? I live in California, home to San Francisco, Berkeley and West Hollywood, and the law here was passed with a strong majority.

Maybe your sample size isn’t large enough. (Or is it that you are used to things that are smaller than normal?)

Oh that’s the biggest load of bullshit you’ve dropped yet.

Bigot.

Alright, Buzzion, I’m sorry I called you a bigot.

You are instead a shit-eating, pathetic, deeply retarded fungus-brained asshole.

Feel better?

And Drumwaster, you’re in the minority HERE. California’s not here on this blog, is it?

#44 Posted by Rann Aridorn on 08/19 at 07:13 PM -

I told you that I’ve seen it done in other places and wasn’t making up some special little rule for you. Do you really want to be more of an asshole than you’ve already been?

Explain how I was denigrating drumwaster in my second comment then.

Its also done when people are just lazy online with proper grammar.  Dumbass.

At least you’re back to doing the only thing you’re good at.  At least as far as I know, you’re bedroom activities aren’t something I’m interested in.

Rann said:

Oh, by the way, Drumwaster, that bit you quoted about the Bible giving the right to hate, and then followed up with “Why don’t you go get married and leave the rest of the nation alone”? That was JimK’s comment. (Most of which you chose to skip over, especially the bit about never getting a straight answer out of you on the subject.) Who already is married to Donna, of course. Donna, one of whose heroes is Reinaldo Arenas, who she just recently finished eulogizing on Moorewatch. Now, I don’t want to speak for her, but I have a sneaking suspicion where her thoughts lie on the subject.

:)

Honey, your sneaking suspicions would be 100% correct. :)

I am 100% for nationally legalizing gay marriage. I see absolutely no legal or Constitutional grounds why gay marriages should not be allowed. To be quite frank, I can’t understand for the life of me how anyone could make a legal or Constitutional argument against it, nor do I agree with any religiously or morally based arguments against it. I fully, completely, and unabashedly support gay marriage, and, just to be clear on this upfront, no one is going to change my mind on the subject, so please don’t even try.

It’s like this.
Don’t like violent video games? Don’t play them.
Don’t like heavy metal music? Don’t listen to it.
Don’t like sexually themed art? Don’t look at it.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t deal with it.

Two gay people getting married has as much an effect on the day-to-day life of people as two people listening to heavy metal music. Which is to say… NONE. In my eyes and mind, all objections to either are based in either moral or religious grounds, neither of which have or should have a damn thing to do with government or law.

It’s about damn time homosexuals and bisexuals were allowed to get married legally and have that right respected in every state.

Period.

*hugs Rann*

Drum, I’m not playing your game anymore.  You didn’t actually answer anything, except to try to deflect with more questions or ridiculous misdirections.  I’m not your enemy, nor am I one of the truly dumb fucks you use these tricks on in other places.  I hoped you would treat me with at least some of the respect I gave you.  I’m sorry to say, you didn’t.  For my part, I’m done here.  I’ve said my piece and asked the questions I felt were important.  This is not just an exercise in online arguing for me.  I don’t need to win or have the last word.

As for what I tell Rann - I was talking to you, about the way you talked to me.  Rann, at that point, doesn’t enter into it.

That having been said - Rann, you really should reign in the hot rhetoric. and express yourself the way you did with your second post to Artmonkey.  It will make for a MUCH better dialogue...I thought that post made your points much better than the angry stuff.  Again, I get why you’re mad, but you aren’t doing yourself, or the cause, any favors by giving in to it.

Drumwaster wrote:

I would recommend that you suggest that to Rann as well, since the insults seem to be entirely one-sided in this thread.

Drumwaster also wrote:

Rann and his favorite ewe

Go fuck yourself.

you yutz

have a nice big cup of Shut The Fuck Up juice,

(Slap fights don’t count.)

you STILL can’t get married to your favorite sheep

And that’s just a brief selection, and just from you.

Rann, you really should reign in the hot rhetoric.

Okay. I’ll try.

And Drumwaster, you’re in the minority HERE

Which means precisely NOTHING, since it isn’t the current commenters on this blog who decide public policy on a State or national level, is it?

Jim, I did answer your question, and I am glad you haven’t stooped to the “insult as argument” tactic so popular with most gay marriage proponents.

However, just because it bears no direct impact on me is not a reason I should be forced to support something. I would never be able to go through an abortion, but I’m still allowed to have an opinion on the subject, am I not?

still waiting on how I was denigrating Drum, Rann.  You know since not capitalizing names means its what you are doing.

To me what drum has done is a tactic I use as well.  Arguing the position of the current law.  I’ll commonly use it when it comes to the position of drug use.  If you’re caught doing illegal drugs then the law says what will happen to you and that’s how it goes.  My personal opinion doesn’t enter into it, which is again one of apathy, because I don’t use the drugs, and wouldn’t were they legalized.  But if someone is bitching about being arrested for possesion of pot, then that’s the way it is.

I’m going to have one last try at putting something forward. No insults, blatant or implied. You can answer this if you want, Drumwaster, and you can answer it forthrightly, or it will just be the end of it and that’s that, whatever the answer is.

Let us assume for a moment that the subject is black people. We will set aside all the questions of whether or not gays are an applicably equal minority to blacks, because this is just a hypothetical situation to illustrate what’s going on here. (We’ll also ignore, for the purposes of the hypothetical, that this is a new restriction.)

Suppose that certain states decided to make a law saying that black people could not legally marry white people. That white people can still marry Hispanics, Asians, and so on, but black/white marriages are illegal. Some states vote this in with a majority, others do not.

Would that be the states’ right and would you support it? And if you would not support it, what is the difference between blacks and gays, specifically, that would change the situation for you?

Buzzion, I made a mistake about it. I made it based on prior experience and because I did not notice you referring to Drumwaster that way earlier, and do not pay attention to your personal posting habits. And I’d appreciate it if you’d drop it.

And that’s just a brief selection, and just from you.

In the spirit of mutual trading to mutual benefit:

You know, I hate when you dance your bigotry out to show it off

(That was your very first sentence in this thread.)

You’re a bigot. Plain and simple, end of discussion.

The difference between you calling me a bigot and me calling Drumwaster, and now you, a bigot is that you’re parading your bigotry around.

How about you stick to dressing up in hoods and hanging people out on the old lynching tree, since that’s all you’re good at, apparently?

Drumwaster, who’s being quite the bigot.

not only are you a bigot, you’re the kind of mealy-mouthed bigot who can’t even stand up and say what he is

Just get back from the Klan meeting, Drumwaster?

Sorry, asshole. You’re not going to shout me down and oppress me like you want to be able to do in real life.

Lotsafun…

Sorry, Drumwaster, you’re in the minority, that means you’re wrong and we get to gloat about it.

Why doesn’t this argument work when dealing with the population as a whole?

Don’t like having your idiocy repeatedly pointed out I guess?  Aren’t you happy I’m posting so much faster now?  Maybe I’m doing that because I hate gay people?  That’s got to be the motivating factor.

Suppose that certain states decided to make a law saying that black people could not legally marry white people.

Is that still a law in Alabama or Arkansas?

I’ve been asked to tone down my own hot-blooded replies, Buzzion, and have done so. You could have the courtesy to do the same.

Suppose that certain states decided to make a law saying that black people could not legally marry white people.

Oh, so you don’t agree that States should be able to decide local laws for themselves? Or is it that you don’t mind Big Brother controlling everyone’s life, just as long as you get what YOU want, and to hell with the rest of us...?

Either States get to decide for themselves (and almost every State in the Union has decided against allowing same sex marriage) or the Feds get to decide for everyone (and they decided under Clinton that the Feds wouldn’t recognize it, either).

So which is it?

Never mind. Either way, you lose.

Very well, I see that you are unwilling to have any sort of actual discussion on the issue, Drumwaster. This comment thread is therefore at an end. (At least, as far as my participation in it.)

Some people really hate it when you don’t give them the answer they want to a loaded question so they can attack it and claim the hypocrisy is there that doesn’t exist.

OK, that’s enough, gentlemen.  My house.  I’m asking you all to stop now.

Some people really hate it when you don’t give them the answer they want to a loaded question so they can attack it and claim the hypocrisy is there that doesn’t exist.

Yeah.  They do.  Like, everyone in this comment thread.  Now I’ve asked it to end.  We’ve all had our say and no one is listening to anyone else anymore.  It’s all a lot of talking past each other and attempts at one-upsmanship.  Homey don’t play that here.

Respect my digital house, please.  Let’s agree to let this one go until the next time it flares up.

Sorry, I missed Jim’s request.

It’s all a lot of talking past each other and attempts at one-upsmanship.

My last few were sincere. I mean that. You asked me to tone it down, and I did. When I saw that it wasn’t going to be accepted, I stepped back and said no more.

I’m not trying to stir anything up again. I’m just saying, I was doing my best to respect your digital house from the time you asked me to tone it down and attempt a tone more like my second comment to Artmonkey.

sorry jim

I see absolutely no legal or Constitutional grounds why gay marriages should not be allowed. To be quite frank, I can’t understand for the life of me how anyone could make a legal or Constitutional argument against it, nor do I agree with any religiously or morally based arguments against it.

Donna wins.  (Although I do think some groups can make a religious argument against it, but religious arguments are irrelevant to making law in this country. Thank the God that doesn’t exist!).

EDITED FOR JIM

Ack, sorry, I got into this late.  I blame time zones.

To get married involves a license from the state. Are you saying the state is discriminating when they say blind people can’t drive? In aviation you must, by federal law, speak read and write English. If you have high blood pressure of a history of mental illness you may not fly.

My point is that the state licenses certain activities and therefore sets the standards. They require blood samples and can refuse a marriage license to someone with a disease. Is that discrimination? Historically and traditionally marriage is between members of the opposite sex. Allowing two people of the same sex to marry is a NEW thing that a small group wants to add to the licensing process.

What does it harm if we allow gay people to marry? Nothing initially. What’s the harm in requiring every gun owner to be licensed? Nothing. But it’s what comes later that is an issue. If the state allows gay marriage then to avoid “discrimination” we must begin teaching children that it is OK. Like it or not many parents what to be the ones to decide what is morally right for their children. That may be in conflict with the minorities desires but the rights of parents to teach morals to their children can not ever be taken over by the state.. I can guarantee you that once gay marriage is legal the fight will be that there must be education of “acceptable alternative lifestyles” as early as possible to stop the funny looks and parents refusing to allow their children to visit the home of the gay couple who adopted. I guess we should just trust the militant gay rights groups to stop after gay marriage just as we would trust the state to stop after licensing gun owners.

Where does it stop after gay marriage? The state will lose the ability to regulate against sibling marriages (their “rights” are being denied too).

Lastly, why the big fight? Civil unions serve the same purpose and it seems to me if you are going to do something new having a term to differentiate it from the traditional thing isn’t such a crime. It’s not like most Church’s will agree to marry same sex couples.

If two men want to marry it’s no big deal until they have the political power to demand a restructuring of our society.

By the way, it’s only gay men marrying that everyone has an issue with. Lesbians can do whatever they want and no one will ever complain!

My usual 0.02

Step one: Stop issuing marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business in. Everyone gets a civil union license. If they want to then go and have a religious ceremony to proclaim it, more power to them.

Step two: No that religion is out of it, civil unions can include same sex without stepping on the toes of any fundies. If a state wishes to ban it, they should be required to prove that there is an overwhelming overriding public health and safety issue to ban it. No more “civil unions are different than marriage” (the gay argument), no more “separate but equal” (the Drumwaster argument), The whole “freedom” thing, ya know.

You’re welcome.

Worth noting that a Member of Parliament up here had his big fat gay wedding on the weekend, and it was a who’s who of Canadian politicians (including past prime ministers and the like). It is sad that the same event would never happen in the US right now… a stain on your country, frankly.

Yet all of these new definitions of what “marriage” is will somehow stop at just gay marriage, because we all want anyone to be allowed to marry anyone else that they want, but that will never descend into any of those alleged “slippery slope” arguments, such as siblings, groups, marrying the dead or marrying their pets.

I mean, gays are perfectly normal, but brother/sister? That’s just wrong!

The State is allowed to establish requirements for the issuance of public licenses. Once you take away the “gender” requirement, why should we keep the ones involving age, number of participants, consanguinity, or even species limits? It’s all about “freedom”, after all, right?

It is sad that the same event would never happen in the US right now… a stain on your country, frankly.

It is sad that the same event would happen in Canada right now… a stain on your country, frankly.

(Aren’t unilateral moral judgments fun?)

Ah yes, the last desperate bastion of the bigot… when they can’t make a case for their own position, try and change the topic to something completely different and irrelevant. You never fail to disappoint.

I’ll ask again, in your opinion Drumwaster, what is the overwhelming public health or safety concern that would be so sufficiently severe that it should prohibit two people of the same sex (who otherwise are of legally marriable stock) from getting civilly unioned?

Argument never makes headway against conviction,and conviction takes no part in argument, because it knows.

And yet I will make one last stab at it.

age

Irrelevant.  Everyone agrees that age limits are wise because emotional and sexual maturity is a factor.  Lowest age in the country is sixteen and the masses aren’t fighting about it.  Typical kitchen-sink tactic, an attempt to deflect and diffuse the debate.

number of participants,

Actually I have no objection on legal, ethical or moral grounds to someone KNOWINGLY entering into a multiple partner marriage.  It isn’t my fucking concern and has no effect on me or my marriage or the ability of others to marry traditionally.

consanguinity,

Irrelevant.  There are valid medical reasons why this is frowned upon and mostly illegal without proper genetic distance.  The masses are not fighting over marrying your own siblings or close relatives, as it creates genetic mutation that no one wants introduced into the gene pool.  Typical kitchen-sink tactic, an attempt to deflect and diffuse the debate.

or even species limits?

Bigoted, despicable and low, even for a gay marriage opponent.  All too typical, however.  A blatant attempt to equate bestiality with homosexuality.  The easiest way to utterly destroy this argument is simply to state that animals cannot consent, therefore the argument is irrelevant, on top of being low and driven by bigotry.

It’s all about “freedom”, after all, right?

Yes.  It is.  Also liberty, equality under the law, separation of church and state, rugged individualism, the right of a person to seek happiness - that doesn’t affect anyone else - without influence from the state, and a few other ideals that used to be important to people who claim to be influenced by libertarianism and conservatism.

I’ll ask again, in your opinion Drumwaster, what is the overwhelming public health or safety concern that would be so sufficiently severe that it should prohibit two people of the same sex (who otherwise are of legally marriable stock) from getting civilly unioned?

whereas i can think of overwhelming public health/safety concerns with regard to sibling marriage and man + [animal], i have yet to hear any such legitimate concerns with regard to same sex marriages.

i’m 100% with sean on his position, and it is something i have advocated as well.  i am both civilly unioned (by a justice of the peace) and married (8 months later, by a rabbi).  (you can ask jim, he was there for both ;)

i have mentioned this before on this topic, but i had a hell of a time finding a rabbi to marry me and my goy husband, but the justice of the peace said “my fee is $__.  see you then.” i think it is wholly within a clergy member’s right to refuse to perform a religious ceremony because they disagree with my lifestyle choices.  (of course i think it’s crap, and i will never forgive my cousin for refusing to marry my husband and me).  but the government does not have that ability to judge me on my lifestyle or the PERSON i choose to spend my life with.

as for the “rights” of those people in the “marjority” who think gays should not be married, unless you can point to something other than “my rights are infringed upon because i’m forced to accept that people i am morally opposed to are treated equally to me,” i will never be convinced.

as for the “rights” of those people in the “majority” who think gays should not be married, unless you can point to something other than “my rights are infringed upon because i’m forced to accept that people i am morally opposed to are treated equally to me,” i will never be convinced.

**APPLAUSE!!!!**

I couldn’t agree with you more, nor could I have said it better. :)

Why is everyone talking about this topic again anyway? *confused*

I’ll ask again, in your opinion Drumwaster, what is the overwhelming public health or safety concern that would be so sufficiently severe that it should prohibit two people of the same sex (who otherwise are of legally marriable stock) from getting civilly unioned?

I’m not the one that is forced to justify whatever changes are being sought. Which justification, I might add, is usually nothing more “you’re all bigots if you don’t let us have our way!”

What overwhelming mental health or safety concern that would force the overwhelming “marjority” to accept something they find morally reprehensible?

Why should judges be allowed to force changes that the electorate and legislature clearly do not want to happen?

Why is everyone talking about this topic again anyway? *confused*

Ask the Canuck, who apparently doesn’t understand the phrase “let it drop” unless it is in both French and English.

Since you obviously can’t justify your position other than to say “what is should be what is because it is”, and you’re a bigot, I will indeed drop it.

Which justification, I might add, is usually nothing more “you’re all bigots if you don’t let us have our way!”

Followed by the response of…

and you’re a bigot,

Somehow I think that trying to explain “burden of proof” to a Canadian is a waste of time, since most of them don’t have the acumen to understand anything that doesn’t involve a puck.

Thanks for proving me right, Sean.

Somehow I think that trying to explain “burden of proof” to a Canadian is a waste of time, since most of them don’t have the acumen to understand anything that doesn’t involve a puck.

Drum, this type of response is so far beneath you I can’t believe you even wrote it. I have to say I am incredibly disappointed in how you’ve handled yourself throughout this discussion.

For the record, you wrote the following:

What overwhelming mental health or safety concern that would force the overwhelming “marjority” to accept something they find morally reprehensible?

This is a bigoted statement. It espouses bigoted values and, if you believe in the sentiments therein, you are indeed a bigot. Frankly, I cannot tell you how much this whole thing saddens me.

I don’t think there’s much else to say.

I think this will be my last statement in this comment thread. 

The idea that one should want to legislate morality...the fact that this fucking federal monster has made it acceptable to ANYONE...disgusts me.  It disgusts me to my core.  I would rather let dogs marry space aliens using taxpayer money then accept that we should stomp on a group of people solely because someone finds homosexuality “morally reprehensible.”

Bottom line is, if you find it “reprehensible” then don’t fucking attend a gay wedding.  That’s the only way it could EVER affect you - unless you get off sticking your nose in the business of others.  Unless you think it’s good and right and proper that Big Brother be in charge of your personal life.

Forget the fags.  To hell with them.  Screw the dykes, and not in the way so many gay-haters think they need to be screwed in order to be converted.  Forget homosexuality altogether.

You want to talk slippery slope?  In THIS country, with the climate we currently face in Congress and the White House, why in the fucking name of all that is earthly would you intentionally ask the government to control YET ANOTHER aspect of our lives?  And by amending the god-damnd Constitution no less?

First they came for the gays, and I did not speak out because I hate faggots, because a long time ago some men wrote down that God said to. 

Sorry.  That will not be me.  I damn sure don’t want it to be my country.  And so I will continue to write letters and vote for people who believe in equality under the law and the rights of the individual to pursue happiness that is not at the expense of *anyone* else.

Once more, for the cheap seats:

Argument never makes headway against conviction,and conviction takes no part in argument, because it knows.

And I’m done.

This is a bigoted statement.

And “you’re a bigot if you don’t support gay marriage, your personal values and upbringing be damned” isn’t?

It espouses bigoted values

Yeah - somehow, I’m the bigot for not thinking that a massive change in the very nature is a good idea without equally massive reasoning (other than “you’re a bigot for not giving in to our demands").

What benefit would be provided that would make it worth the changes? Are there ANY?

Look, it’s really simple.

I could not possibly care less what people do behind closed doors, no matter how many decimal places you care to count. Their personal lives are none of my business, just as mine is none of theirs.

I think homosexuality is wrong on a species-level ethical scale (as opposed to the purely localized social experimentation being suggested), but the only argument in favor appears to be “give it to us because you’re a bigot if you don’t”, and I, for one, am utterly unimpressed by such appeals to emotion.

Maybe that makes me an asshole, but I refuse to be suckered into the “you’re either in favor or you’re a bigot” argument - a favorite among those with nothing to offer.

Whether or not I think a thing involves public health and safety or not (and that is NOT the overriding concern about many of the laws on the books) is irrelevant to whether or not it deserves to be the law of any land.

Look, Jim wants the States to decide, and I am comfortable with that standard. But on this one issue, the will of the people clearly means exactly jack shit. Because all of those people are clearly bigots.

And probably racist, to boot. Just plain EVIL down to the cores of the tiny little cinder where their hearts used to be, all because they do not agree that there is no longer any such thing as an objective right and wrong.

In THIS country, with the climate we currently face in Congress and the White House, why in the fucking name of all that is earthly would you intentionally ask the government to control YET ANOTHER aspect of our lives?

I DON’T want the government controlling this. I do not want the laws in one state to become the default position of all states under the inaccurate interpretation of an obscure clause in the Constitution.

I want the States to be able to decide for themselves. Put the issue to a vote, and I will happily stand by the result.

Will you?

Look, if you want to convince me, you’re going to have to bring up something more than emotion.

First they came for the gays

Yeah, I expect the pogroms to begin sometime next week.

When we start imprisoning people for being gay, then come talk to me. Until then, hyperbole won’t work, either.

I believe you’ve missed the point of my quoting what you said, Drum. You said this:

What overwhelming mental health or safety concern that would force the overwhelming “marjority” to accept something they find morally reprehensible?

If you believe that homosexuality or bisexuality are morally reprehensible traits, you’ve just called me a morally reprehensible person. You have just insulted me to an incredibly high degree. This is something that I will not soon forget.

And now, like Jim, I’m done as well.

If you believe that homosexuality or bisexuality are morally reprehensible traits

I could understand that, if that is what I thought. Or even what I said.

It isn’t, but we’re not talking about ME. We are talking about whether it should be allowed in society. And there has yet to be a single poll out there that does not show that largish chunks of society believe exactly that.

I used to be married to a bisexual woman, too (she cheated on me, which is why we aren’t married now). I do not judge anything on moral values, because morals are very subjective.

I am against it as an ethical issue involving survival at the local, national and species level. (This is one of the most compelling arguments that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined, since it would have been bred out of the species long since.)

But we live in this society, and live by the rules that are set by this society.

If gay people want to be married, then let them move to Canada. It is perfectly legitimate, as Sean points out.

If they need a religion, then let them be Episcopalian. (Gay marriages AND gay priests! Win-win!)

If they are not religious, then let them celebrate a handfasting at the Solstice. (My first wife was a Wiccan.)

If all they want is to stand up in front of someone to swear their lasting fidelity to each other, then let them come to me. I’m ordained and everything.

But I WILL NOT file the paperwork with the State, because the State has said that they will not acknowledge that marriage as legitimate.

And THAT is what it is all about.

Gay marriage proponents are not looking for equal rights, they are not looking for “fair”, they are not looking for the right to have a ceremony - they are looking for official sanction of their lifestyle choice. (Funny how they want the government out of their bedrooms when it comes to what goes where, but they are all for forcing the government to acknowledge what they are doing by giving them that piece of paper.)

If you wish the law changed, then dig up evidence that it is worth the change, and I will gladly change my mind. But cries of “bigot” are just as emotionally driven as those of “racist” because I don’t want illegal immigration going on.

And just as inaccurate.

I apologize if you think that I set out to offend you, and I regret any offense that you felt from misunderstanding my position, but I do not agree that such a major change to society is justified. Look at how many changes have occurred since they changed the divorce laws. No one is arguing that society has been made better by those particular changes, and a good case can be made that it was one of the most destructive things to happen to our nation since the description of slaves as three-fifths of a person.

What benefit would be provided that would make it worth the changes? Are there ANY?

Yes.  There are.

The plural of anecdote is still not “data”.

Would you start opposing gay marriage if I point out the thousands of cases around the nation where the families of same-sex couples are welcoming and loving to the non-related life partner?

Or is it time to compare gays to slaves again?

Jesus fucking Christ, you said are there “ANY”.  Your words, not mine.  You specifically asked for an anecdote.

But hey, let that stroke victim live in a hostile environment that loathes his existence and hinders his recovery.  And let his partner mourn him until he actually dies.  Because a majority wants it that way, that’s the way it’s got to be.

And compare gays to slaves?  You think that’s low, after you compared them to animals?

Y’know what? I could designate the little old lady down the street as my medical power of attorney, and the hospital AND the State would have to accept it, no matter what my family said or did. No marital ties required.

I could leave my estate to a home for stray cats and there are LOTS of legal precedents to keep it intact, and - again - my family would have nothing to say about it.

You pull out one instance, full of emotion, and imply that there are many more cases like that.

You still have not shown that the one cherry-picked example is the norm, nor that allowing the two of them to stand up in front of some sort of civil official and swear lasting fidelity would have changed anyone’s feelings on the issue.

You have one anecdote, and I have many.

Does that mean you are now wrong?

And my point was, if the situations were reversed, would you change your views? If not, then it is an ideological belief, ignoring the data.

I did not ask for an anecdote, either. I asked for what kind of benefits would be added to society as a whole to make the potential negatives worth the cost.

And compare gays to slaves?  You think that’s low, after you compared them to animals?

No, I’m pointing out the absurdities of the argument. Maybe you’ve heard of it? If you want to change the definition of marriage to eliminate the “gender” requirements, you’re going to have to explain why society should stop there, and not go on to further eliminate the requirements regarding age, consanguinity, number of participants and even species.

I mean, there are groups advocating for most of those further changes already. Why should gays get their way, but not the polygamists? Why not the NAMBLA freaks? There was a man in Sudan that was forced by his religion to marry his goat. Are you saying that we shouldn’t recognize his “marriage” as legitimate? It falls clearly within the standards of his religion and cultural beliefs, but you think I’m being absurd.

Isn’t it about time for you to call me a bigot? C’mon, you know you want to…

But hey, let that stroke victim live in a hostile environment that loathes his existence and hinders his recovery.

Try this: MOVE HIM TO ANOTHER FACILITY.

(Isn’t it amazing how often the simple solutions will elude us when we are concentrating on emotional arguments instead of factual or logical ones?)