Confront the Courts, brother.

From the FOX story: "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," [Judge] Kramer wrote.

Interesting. It appears that we have a new test for the constitutionality of a state statute: The legislature must have a "rational purpose" for enacting it.

Well, that's not really new. When scrutinizing equal protection claims, there are different standards for review; the least restrictive standard is that the law in question must have a rational purpose. (There are higher levels of scrutinizing laws affecting racial minorities.)

But the "no rational purpose" standard is pretty lenient, and, um, it's hard to say there's "no rational purpose" here.

Unless, of course, you're an activist liberal judge who wishes to legislate but doesn't have the cojones to run for office.

Whaddya mean? This is great news! Jeff Gannon can finally get married!

Our judicial overlords strike again.

Ace, it's no news that Lawrence v. Texas gutted the whole idea of the rational purpose test.

If all else fails for a liberal, they at least have Jeff Gannon to make fun.

Decisions like this don't help the pro-gay lobbying groups, all this will do is help pass more anti-gay marriage initiatives throughout the US. We should thank our lucky stars every time one of these loony lib judges make a decision like this.

"Ace, it's no news that Lawrence v. Texas gutted the whole idea of the rational purpose test."

Well, that's certainly true to some extent, particularly with regard to the rather-expansive dicta.

Still... what the hell were anti-sodomy laws still doing on the books, anyway? And I did find it troubling that many states outlawed only homosexual sodomy. It would appear that whatever "health and morals" concerns you might have about a hummer, those should apply more or less equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couplings.

There are some laws that are simply no longer enforced. And indeed, people are suprised to even learn there are such laws. I'm not a huge fan of the "national consensus" argument, but it's hard to argue the nation didn't form a fairly robust national consensus that a b.j. between consenting adults was really none of the state's business.

what the hell were anti-sodomy laws still doing on the books, anyway?

Sodomy laws were on the books so people could express their hatred and disgust of gay people"

"Gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush on Friday promised he would veto any attempt by the Texas Legislature to remove from the state penal code a controversial statute outlawing homosexual sodomy. Bush, a Republican, was asked about the sodomy statute shortly after speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary.

" 'I think it's a symbolic gesture of traditional values,' he said." - George Bush - 1994

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54318-2003Jun30¬Found=true

Let's not forget that Lawrence V. Texas made it to the Supreme Court, because the laws were actually used. Two men in Texas spent the night in jail for having sex in the privacy of their own home.

It's the exact same reason people want to ban same sex marriage today. To express their hatred and disgust of gay people.

I'd be interested in hearing some valid reasons as to why the government is picking and choosing who, amongst non-related consenting adults, we can marry, and who we cannot.

Has anyone noticed that the judges who are deciding these decisions were appointed by Republicans?

It's an excellent decision. The more the government stays out of our lives, the better. Let's hope it is upheld.

Most "rational basis" tests mean that if there is any rational basis---even if the legislature didn't use that as a reason for the law---then the law is upheld against certain types of challenges (typically eq. protection by non-protected groups).

Saying there's no rational basis for marriage is absurd. As a regulator for procreation, marriage serves to channel the male sex drive into family relationships instead of unconnected procreation. While that's not the only or even the best reason for marriage, it certainly is rational.

For the lower court to rule this way, the judge must have left so much logical thinking behind as to have difficulty starting his car on the way home from work tonight.

horrible, horrible decision

That's not rational at all hobgoblin. How in the world is a ban on gay marriage going to channel a gay male's sex drive "into family relationships instead of unconnected procreation"???

That is absolutely the dumbest thing I ever heard - dare I say completely irrational.

Gay couples are living together now and are married in all but name. What interest does the state have in preventing them from getting married, except solely to discriminate against them?

Lad,

how did you get to Ace's of all sites?

And we've already spend 3 days dicussing this at MJT's. Don't think you can turn Ace's into a grandstand for your monomanical insistence on validation from the civil authorities.

The governemnt isn't mommy and daddy and you have no "right' to expect validation for your choice of sexual antics.

There's no reason to license personal relationships apart from how those relationships impact society. The only justification for government intruding into private lives is the possibility (not fact, but possibility) of procreation. Since gays cannot physically reproduce within their relationship, the government has no business regulating that relationship.

Aren't you a libertarian, or are you so far gone on the Sullivan cognative dissonance that you're willing to sacrifice all your beliefs for persoanl validation?

Political Narcissism, thy name is gay marriage.

Lot of hatred bottled up there hobgoblin, eh?

If ever there was a closet case it's you.

The courts have ruled on marriage many times in its history. There have been attempts by the legislature to ban marriage by people who were imprisoned. That was ruled unconstitutional. There were attempts by the legislature to ban marriage amongst retarded people. That was ruled unconsitutional as well. There were attempts to ban marriage amonst people of different races. That was ruled unconstitutional as well.

The Supreme Court has ruled loudly and clearly that there is a fundamental right to marriage. They said as much in 1967 in Loving V. Virginia. Read the decision. Had you been around then, I'm certain you would have had a problem with that decision as well. Most of the country opposed inter-racial marriages in 1967 and it would be hard to buy your argument that you would have been enlightened back then and wouldn't have had a problem with inter-racial marriage. Yeah right. It took an "acitivist" Supreme Court to stike down those laws.

It's quite obvious that you hate gay people. That's your prerogative. Don't worry. I'm pretty certain that no gay person would ever choose to have you as a friend.

But the government should stop interfering in the lives of consenting adults who are doing zero harm to society.

My message to you - Stop trying to micromanage my relationships.

Downtown Lad,

Perhaps the cause of tolerance for homosexuality would be advanced, however slightly, if angry gays such as yourself didn't call any political opponent they encounter a fag.

Just a thought.

It really is wearying to hear how much we should validate and celebrate gays and then hear gays forever accusing everyone else of being gay.

What is it, like a backhanded compliment or something?

Maybe hobgoblin should come back with, "Hey, you only want marriage because you secretly and subconsciously wish to be straight. You're an obvious closeted non-closet case."

And then we can all further speculate about the size of each other's genitals and the promiscuity of each other's mothers.

Lad, no one cares about "a gay man's sex drive"

It's about males' sex drive in general. And regulating that drive into family relationships (i.e where the toothless, mulleted asshole sticks around to support all his worthless chillins) is a worthwhile proposition.

You may not care b/c it doesn't effect you. Just like I don't gicve two shits and a holler about gay marriage b/c it doesn't effect me. But don't start this same pendantic crap here about how you just want to be loved by society who respects and admires your courageous lifestyle choice.

PS, why don't we have to get best friend licenses?

Except I speak from experience Ace.

I was in the closet for 34 years. Almost all straight people I encounter couldn't care less whether someone is gay or not.

The closet cases are obsessed with it. They think that if they denounce gay people enough, then nobody will think they are gay.

Of course there are exceptions. Perhaps they just have a gay relative that they are embarrassed about, i.e. Alan Keyes.

And you on another point Ace - I couldn't give a damn whether or not you tolerate gay people. Sorry to minimize your self-importance, but it really is just not that important to me.

I just want to live my life without outsiders constantly trying to interfere with it. If the religious right wants to hate me, because I'm gay, that's their prerogative. I don't care for them too much either. But I dont' interfere with their life. Why are they interfering in mine?

Lad,

yep, you hit it on the head. I'm secretly gay.

I won't even stick a thermometer up my bum, but underneath it all, I'm just a raging queen. Seriously. I'm not even closeted.

You're so right.

It's called ridicule, not "homophobia."

Stop trying to micromanage my relationships.

Oh, that's just too rich.

Why do you want the GOVERNMENT to tell you when you can officially "break up" with your bf?

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

The closet cases are obsessed with it. They think that if they denounce gay people enough, then nobody will think they are gay.

Baffling. Closet cases could not possibly account for more than 1% of the population, Downtown Lad.

Are you positing that all who "hate" you (defined, it seems, by opposing a measure you support) are closet cases?

That would make for a very gay America indeed. Jiminy, we'd be talking more than 50% gay.

You can't possibly believe such a thing.

And no, I don't care about your sex life, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that hobgoblin doesn't either. But marriage is about families and procreation; it's not about "love," though that is the way they gay lobby insists on defining it.

It cheapens it. I've been "in love" a lot. I didn't need federal recognition of my various "loves."

The government does not need to support or strengthen "love" as love is the most sought-after and wonderful feeling in the universe. People will do virutally anything to find love and remain in love.

Including, on occasion, kill.

Why you believe that the government needs to help promote "love" -- which always seemed to me to have a pretty fucking good word-of-mouth campaign in its favor -- is beyond me.

Hobgoblin - I don't need your love. Stop trying to speak for gay people when you don't even know any.

You still haven't explained how a toothless man with a mullet is going to be less likely to support the father of his children, simply because two lesbians in San Francisco choose to get married. And in case you're unaware of it, 25% of gay households currently have children, and the state is certainly HURTING those children by refusing to let their parents get married.

And if two best friends want to get licenses, guess what???? If they are male and female, two best friends CAN get a marriage license. And I'm sure in many instances, they do exactly that.

But two gay men who love each other and have been living together for 40 years - the state won't let them get a marriage license. In fact, in Virginia, those two men are not even allowed to make contracts with each other. They are not allowed to make wills out to each other. They are not allowed to give one partner power of attorney. They are not allowed to share a nursing home together. They can be forced to testify against their partner in court. They cannot make medical decisions for their partner. In fact, they are not allowed family visitation rights in hospitals. They can not only be prevented from making funeral arrangements for the other person, but they can be prevented from attending the funeral altogether.

You seem to agree with all of that. That's rather hateful if you ask me.

I'd be interested in hearing some valid reasons as to why the government is picking and choosing who, amongst non-related consenting adults, we can marry, and who we cannot.

That's an interesting qualification for same sex marriage. What are the arguments against same sex marriage between relatives? Would that not be hetero-normative thinking? Even more interesting, it is a concession that the government should regulate marriage, even same sex marriage.

Lad,

Now you're at Ace's and I don't have to be "polite," so allow me to let you in on something in my own tender, unique style.

It's not that I hate gays, I hate "agrrived political victims" suuch as yourself.

Look at what you write. "They think that if they denounce gay people enough and then you call me gay.

Who's denouncing and disparaging whom with the gay stuff?

I'm against gay marriage, for a voariety of reasons, and you're trying to turn this into something about YOU.

THAT's what I mean by political narcissism. Everything is about YOU.

News flash, bub, you're full of shit. I don't give a rat's ass if your gay. Go ahead, glory hole it up. No sweat off my back (literally and figuratively). But when in the guise of "equality" you attempt to redefine a societal institution, you should expect resistance completely unrelated to your personal life. And you should consider not calling people names unless you want those name to become an insult.

In fact, you still seem deeply conflicted, calling me gay as an insult. Is it an insult to be as you Lad are yourself? Wow, that's some messed up shit, d00d.

I'd call you a lawyer, but I don't think calling you what I am myself is an insult.

Obviously you do not agree. Plainly, you think being gay is the souce of shame and dishonor.

Let me know when you come to grips with yourself.

In fact, in Virginia, those two men are not even allowed to make contracts with each other. They are not allowed to make wills out to each other. They are not allowed to give one partner power of attorney. They are not allowed to share a nursing home together. They can be forced to testify against their partner in court. They cannot make medical decisions for their partner. In fact, they are not allowed family visitation rights in hospitals. They can not only be prevented from making funeral arrangements for the other person, but they can be prevented from attending the funeral altogether.

Absolute nonsense. You're peddling a myth.

Virginia outlawed contracts which ostensibly confer the rights and privileges of marriage, i.e., marriage through a contractual back door.

It did not outlaw the actual contracts you're talking about, for crying out loud.

You think the various gay business partnerships in Virginia are now effectively dissolved?

Gimme a break.

"It's the exact same reason people want to ban same sex marriage today. To express their hatred and disgust of gay people."

I think we have just found a second contender for Dumbest Person Who's Ever Posted at Ace's Site. Cedarford is going to feel threatened.

Hobgoblin, you are SO wasting your time trying to talk sense into this one. But it's your time to waste.

Later,
bbeck

Just my $.02.......

The state should get the hell out of the marriage buisness entirely. Let's be honest, the concept of marriage is entirely religious in nature. I know ALL of the arguments of how it is in 'society's' intrest to promote the nuclear family. Yeah, and that's why we have a 50% divorce rate. I personally find homosexuality repulsive but there is no logical manner under which you can prohibit two adults from entering in to a contract based on their sexuality. And isn't that what marriage as defined by the state is? It's nothing more than a legally enforceable contract. The answer is as it usually is, less government!

Ace - No idea where you get your 50% from. In polls on the issues, same sex marriage doesn't even come in the top 10. 80% of this country couldn't care much about the issue either way. But when pressed on it, about 60% will favor the traditional definition of marriage, because that is what they are used to. But of the people who feel "strongly" about this issue. The ones who talk about it incessantly. I'd say about 4% on either side. I'd bet a bunch of them are closet cases. Not all of course, but a bunch.

As for only 1% of the country being closet cases, you are so wrong. At least half of the gay community is still in the closet. Trust me - I've dated them. And believe it or not, a bunch of them are "married", and to a member of the opposite sex. Gay people shouldn't marry straight people. Gay people should marry gay people.

Marriage is about procreation and not love???? I don't think you'll get many Americans agreeing with that statement. But if that's the point that you want to make - go for it. It's a losing one.

no, rw, not the dreaded "heteronormative"

Yeah, why can't half-brothers, step-sisters, or even adult parent-child same sex relationships be countenanced, lad.

sounds like you're just a "hater"

ace, you're spot on. The government has never cared about who you oved, only who you could have children with.

and Lad And if two best friends want to get licenses, guess what???? If they are male and female, two best friends CAN get a marriage license.

Could you miss the point any more blatantly? What is the government's interest in licensing a friendship. Why? Why does the gov't care?

Only when that relationship is capable (even in theory, as fertility testing is rightly viewed as an invasion of privacy) of producing children ---as 100% of hetero relationships are but 0% of gay relationships are, in theory---please tell me why the gov't should care about your relationship.

Ace - A business contract is a business contract. But hospital visitation rights, wills, funerals, medical decisions, power of attorney, nursing home rooms, etc. - all of those rules are based on the definition of "family". Any gay couple that tried to make a contract to simulate one of those "rights" would be afould of the Virginia law.

So you are dead wrong here.

Luckily, the Virginia law is afould of the U.S. Constitution, which protects contract rights. An "activist" Supreme Court will strike down that law soon enough. I wouldn't be surprised to find that even Scalia sides with us on that one....

"I think we have just found a second contender for Dumbest Person Who's Ever Posted at Ace's Site. "

Nope. I've had dumber.

Downtown Lad,

Wrong. You're giving the statute a gloss it was never intended to have just so you decry how awful it is.

It doesn't mean that and I suspect you know it... or at least suspect it.

But it's a nice debating point so you like pretending that gay men really can't put each other into each other's wills, as if there's some "Homo/Not Homo" boxes to check off on a will.

bbeck,

just trying to nip Lad's peculiar contributions in the bud. I had to be "nice" at Michael Totten's, but I can be more "myself" here at ace's.

He's not necessarily a bad guy. Got a good set of non-gay marriage values. But like so many of his queer (not perjorative) brothers and sisters , he has this HUGE blind spot when it comes to gay marriage.

But it's better to let him think I'm a hater. He'll post more insane drivel that way.

Or maybe he'll just go away . . .

?

And Downtown Lad,

I could make my DOG the beneficiary of my will.

The will won't be invalidated if the dog should turn out to be a homo, even in Virginia.

Ohhhh..hot man on dog action!

Ace's secret identity is Rick Santorum!

(Now put me in your blogroll dammit, or I shall be forced to come over here and taunt you some more!)

Insest? Why in the world are you bring up insest ? We're talking about gay marriage here.

I don't bring up Satanism when talking about Christianity.

They are two separate things - and for you to compare them is just typical hateful bile.

There are many rational reasons to ban insest, including the increased liklihood for deformed children, and the fact that family relations are inherently unequal - there are many cases where one family member exudes power and control over another.

Also - 25% of gay households are raising children. Are you really only concerned with who is the biological parent? Do you really not give a damn about those children being raised by gays? Are they irrelevant? Do you want the government to confiscate them? Many lesbians are having children via artifical insemination. Many gays and lesbians used to be married, when they were pressured into marrying someone of the opposite sex, and are now raising children. Many gays and lesbians have chosen to adopt.

What are you going to do in the future, when science enables two lesbians or gays to bear children. It's not that far off. You take the DNA of a man from his semen, implant it into an embryo, and then have the other gay man fertilize that egg. Science estimates this is not that far off. So then you will have two gay men who are the biological parents. Will you favor gay marriage then.

Your argument is specious. Many gay people are parents today. The fact that both of them are not the biological parents is irrelevant. Banning gay marriage is not going to lead to any of these gay people from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Society does have an interest in gays getting married. It will make their relationships more stable for the children that they are raising. It will also encourage committment and stability amongst the gay community, leading to less promiscuity, thus less diseases, etc.

Gay marriage is good for society. There is zero reason to ban it.

(By the way - I know how to spell insest, but I have to spell it wrong it order to get by the edit check)

"...just trying to nip Lad's peculiar contributions in the bud."

Yeouch, Hob, not quite the phrase I would have chosen there. :)

But yah, you did nip 'em, and good job.

Lad's problem isn't just about gay marriage as you've pointed out, and nothing short of intense therapy and/or a well-aimed lobotomy is going to help him catch a proverbial clue.

Later,
bbeck

bbeck and hobgobline are in major need of a makeover from some queer guys.

I dread to think about how horribly they dress....

and bbeck - I'm sorry, but I'm extremely certain that I'm way more of a success in life than you've been. You can talk about me getting a lobotomy all you want, and I'll just go back to my $3 million loft tonight and laugh my head off.

Downtown Lad,

Wow, if you're swimming in that kind of jack, you could spring to pay someone to write non-lame, non-gay-cliche put-downs for you.

I work cheap, by the way.

Ace - You can make your dog the beneficiary of your will.

But I can't do the same with my dead lover.

Well - I guess I could. But if my family chose to challenge the will amongst my death, in Virginia, they would win. They could say I was trying to mimick the benefits of marriage through a will. And they would be right.

That is why the wrote the law. You think they just wrote it for fun? They wrote the law in order to make gay people's lives a living hell.

And it's working. Gay people are already starting to leave Virginia.

You seem to be in denial about this. Please explain to me what contracts you think the law is supposed to affect?

Dateline 04/01/2017:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this country to human partners," [Chief-Justice] Kramer wrote in his majority opinion.

When contacted, President Rodham said he agreed with the decision.

"That is why the wrote the law. You think they just wrote it for fun? They wrote the law in order to make gay people's lives a living hell."

No, they wrote it so that gays could not draw up a contract purporting to be a marital contract and thereby claim to be married under the law.

No Ace. I prefer to spend my time trying to find a suitably wealthy gay partner. I am aspiring for that penthouse....

"Please explain to me what contracts you think the law is supposed to affect?"

Well, I'm no expert on statutory construction, but I believe it affects the sort of contracts it specifically names, "contracts puporting to confer the priviledges and benefits of marriage on homosexual couples" or however it's worded.

If a contract does not purport to do that, it is unaffected.

I can ban cars with blackened windows without banning cars, dude.

Lad, will you for the love of God, stop moving the damned goalposts.

This isn't about "banning" gay marriage, it is about supporting traditional marriage. Gay marriage is already banned in 49 of 50 states by operation of law.

And teh argument is not whether there is any rational basis for gay marriage, but rather whether there is any rational basis for traditional marriage.

If you're willing to admit that including the increased liklihood for deformed children is a rational reason to limit insestuos (good catch on the spelling) relationships, how can you POSSIBLY NOT admit that encouraging inherentlyprocreative relationships is rational?

And I like how you've stopped calling me a closet fag. Hate queers much, Garrison?

Lad, it must be really hard to live in a loft when your elevator doesn't go all the way up.

Later,
bbeck

"No Ace. I prefer to spend my time trying to find a suitably wealthy gay partner. I am aspiring for that penthouse...."

Well, you do seem to have the basic idea of marriage down pat, I'll give you that.

Ace - Obviously you didn't listen to the debate in the Virginia legislature.

The purpose and the law was very clear. Ban any contracts amongst gay people.

"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. ANY such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable."

Ummmm... the language is pretty much as I guessed at, and it means exactly what I said it means.

Do you know what the word "purport" means? It's not a made-up sillyhead word thrown in for shits and giggles, you know.

Oh, dear lord, no.

Oh no you di'int

Awww, shit.

A gay guy just made fun of my clothes.

I'm going to cry now.

*buh-huhhuhuhu*

Gosh! You're such a spaz, Gosh!

Lad, stop being a dork. I am finely attired, as any decent civil lawyer should be, in a Brooks Brothers shirt (button down broadcloth oxford) and twill slacks. Alfani shoes of a modern type (think bowling shoe) and bulky sole (I like sturdy shoes). No tie, as no clients today.

No gay man needs show me how to dress.

You aren't actually making a good case for yourself, Lad, when

"I was in the closet for 34 years."

is immediately followed by

"Almost all straight people I encounter couldn't care less whether someone is gay or not."

So, um, why exactly were you in the closet?

And by the way, saying "I've got more money than you, so ha ha ha I've got a better life than you" isn't much of an argument either. At one point Michael Jackson had more money than God, and he was crazy as a rat in a coffee can.

Ban any contracts amongst gay people.

Right. That's why I keep hearing of all of these overturned wills, all of these outlawed joint-survivorship bank accounts between gays, etc.

Oh wait-- no I haven't. I haven't heard of a single case of such a thing yet.

And neither, of course, have you.

Hobgoblin,

Encouraging traditional marriage IS rational. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But I fail to see how making gay marriage legal does ANYTHING to impact traditional marriage either way. If you want to hear about items that HURT traditional marriage, I'll give you one:

DIVORCE

Doesn't allowing someone to get married for a second, third, fourth, fifth time hurt traditional marriage? Do you think it would be constitutional for the government to prevent someone from getting married for a second time? I think it would be.

Legalizing Gay marriage hurts nobody. Banning gay marriage hurts one group of people in particular - gay people. For that reason, it falls afoul of the Constitution's equal protection clause.

I'm still waiting to hear a good reason as to why it should be banned? Traditional marriage will be unaffected.

Andrea - I was in the closet, because my family cared about gay people.

I was pretty much rejected by my family when I came out to them. Thank god I was old enough to take care of myself. I have friends that were thrown onto the street.

And Ace - You've got to be kidding right? Gay people are screwed all of the time with wills and funerals, etc. I can send you tons of articles on this stuff. One of the most interesting stories I read when they legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts was by one man who got married on the first day. He said it was bittersweet for him, since he had dated one man previously for 7 years. That man ended up getting in a car accident, and was in a coma. The partner's family prevented him from visiting his partner in the hospital, and he wasn't even able to say goodbye. The partner ended up passing away.

That was Massachusetts. You honestly don't think that happens in Virginia??????

Why the hell do gay people get so upset when people try to enact a gay marriage ban?

I wish some politician had had the balls to propose a straight marriage ban 20 years ago and saved me a lot of trouble.

Then Lad, you've answered your own argument.

The only reason to jettison traditional marriage is if there is no rational basis for limiting it so.

That's the LAW.

You are making what amount to policy arguments as to why marriage should be extended to gays. But gays don't have a "right" for it to be extended. In other words, gays have no legal "claim" to marriage rether they must argue that it would benefit society to allow it.

Two COMPLETELY different things.

More simply, you're making legislative arguemnts in a judicial context.

You want gay marriage? Go to your state legislature and get the hell out of the courts.

He said it was bittersweet for him, since he had dated one man previously for 7 years. That man ended up getting in a car accident, and was in a coma. The partner's family prevented him from visiting his partner in the hospital, and he wasn't even able to say goodbye.

Not a contractual issue per se. Standard that family members control those situations.

I would certainly support a law allowing contracts to name someone other than a family member a "next friend" or whatnot, to have all powers to decide one's fate in such situations.

And you're still talking rubbish. Wills are challenged all the time, whether gays are involved or not. No will has been overturned in Virginia on the basis of the law you speak of.

If one has-- cite it. I want to read about it.

Andrew Sullivan peddled this lie before the law passed and shortly thereafter. He's shut up about it now, because it was a lie all along, and the fact that none of of the horrible things he promised would happen did happen reveals him as a crank and a liar.

What I don't get is why conservatives are opposed to gay marriage.

1) Aren't conservatives supposed to favor marriage over shacking up.

2) If conservatives are so opposed to gay sex, the best way to stop gay sex is by letting them gays get married!!!

So it appears "downtown lad" has found a new place to troll.

I have had numerous debates with him on other blogs. He claims that ANY argument with gay marriage is due to deep "homophobia" and suffers from a HUGE persecution complex. Essentially, all his a pro gay marriage arguments will distill down to the fact that "it's just so hard being gay, we are so mistreated, anyone that disagrees is just a gay hater".

At some point he will resort to insults and profanity laced flaming. I still laugh at the time he called one poster on polipundit a c**t, because she refused to be swayed by his arguments.

The term in our community is "Drama Queen".

"and bbeck - I'm sorry, but I'm extremely certain that I'm way more of a success in life than you've been. You can talk about me getting a lobotomy all you want, and I'll just go back to my $3 million loft tonight and laugh my head off."----Downtown Bus Station Lad.

Damn, laddie. You must be one perceptive son of a heterosexual couple to be able to draw conclusions about people's wealth/social status based on a couple of pseudonymous posts on a popular website.

Is that an acquired skill or an innate skill? Is this like the internet golddigger version of "gaydar"?

For what it's worth, congrats on living in a loft! Lemme know when you graduate to a suite.

As you confess, it's not the same as life in the penthouse, but you keep on hustlin' those wealthy tricks on the cold hard downtown streets and with a little luck, and the power of compound interest, you too might make it to the top.

this new troll lost me at "Almost all straight people I encounter couldn't care less whether someone is gay or not". Glittering generalities do not an argument make.

Hobgoblin thinks its ok for states to ban inter-racial marraiges if they so choose. That's lame.

Ace - There is a prominent case of a Vermont couple who BOTH legally adopted a child. One was the biological mother.

The biological mother went to Virginia - and essentially said to the other mother - you have have zero right to see this child now, as the law no longer recognizes you as a parent.

That's a hell of lot more important than a will. And even that case received scant attention.

Lad, you're a retard. And your idiocy is irrespective of your sexuality.

Please go away now, as you refuse to confront seriously any arguments.

You, "sir" are a troll.

Log Cabin - You mean I called her the c* word, after she said "All gay people should get AIDS and die".

Damn right I called her that.

And Log Cabin proves the fact that even gay people can be morons. But I attribute that to his senility - as I know for a fact that he's approaching old age. He doesn't care about gay marriage because he's getting so old and he's approaching death.

Like I said (and as he completely fails to understand) - I really couldn't give a damn what anyone else thinks. I just want people to stay the hell out of my life and let me make my own decisions.

Of course there are lots of homophobes and haters out there. That is their right. But they don't have a right to micromanage my life.

"2) If conservatives are so opposed to gay sex, the best way to stop gay sex is by letting them gays get married!!!"---Downtown Lad.

If that's true, that sure would make for one shitty honeymoon...

Hobgoblin - Typical conservative who is completely afraid of free speech.

That's why you listen to Fox News. You're afraid to hear any argument that questions your fragile view of the universe.

How typical.

And completely unintellectual if you ask me.

Jack - It happens to be 4300 square feet. That's not shabby for Manhattan.

I believe in statistics. So I can be fairly confident that I'm better off that most of the other morons on this thread.

Ehhhh... I'm done. Log Cabin warned that this little idiot would begin with the uncivil stuff, and boy, he called that one.

I was willing to engage you previously, Downtown Lad. I'm done now.

Have fun.

Whatever you do, don't copy and paste this into your URL:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/stupiddk.wav

Downtown ASS,

I don't "listen" to Fox news or even read it online.

Since we're dealing with unsupported nonsequiturs, Downtown ASS just wants gay marriage so he can marry his male pug-dog.

See how stupid making unsupported accusations sounds?

Troll.

STOP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

Only thing that traditional marraige requires to remain a societal institution os a rational basis. You have admitted that it has a rational basis. You are arguing against your own admissions.

Either recognize this and move the discussion along, or you remain a troll.

And bringing up interracial marriage --- non-sequitur (that means it doesn't mean anything).

And don't you know that 4/3 of all statistics are made up on the spot?

And if you're looking for a sugar anus, you're not better off than me, bucko.

Ace, was that a BANNINATION?!?!?

Damn, your pimp hand is STRONG!

Why is it that CedarTARD and his secret lover Downtown Lad feel their best chance of winning the hearts and minds of the people who disagree with them is to alienate them? Dale Carnegie must be spinning in his grave.

Where the Fuck is Cedarford when you need him?!!

Im sure he would be willing to argue with Downtown Lady and save us the trouble.

well Brewfan said his name. And then i did.
One more mention of Cedargeuse and he should be here...

Well now...if we are comparing "moron" to "moron" on this thread, I'd have to agree with your self assessment. After all, since Cedarford isn't posting here, you apparently have that category all to yourself.

Statistical Probablity: 100%.

Ohh..and Manhattan? Is that the one in Kansas or New York? 'Cause for all we know (or care) you could be some hobo posting from a homeless shelter on a stolen laptop.

No, I don't ban people unless they really go over the line.

But I don't have any obligation to talk to retards.

Well, apart from my court-ordered community service at the adult care center, twice a month.

Wow. How the hell did I miss this thread. And the master of ceremonies dominates the discussion. Amazing stuff.

Here are a few minor observations regarding this topic. If they've already been covered, please forgive.

1) Gay people can gain nearly any benefit they want from a partnership that married folks can gain, simply by having a lawyer take care of things.
2) When one gets married, one GIVES UP RIGHTS, and does not gain rights. People get married for reasons of the heart and spirit, not because they must. You have more independence when you remain unwed.
3) And having children is not a right either, it is a responsibility. Kind of like having a dog, but amplified.
4) One of the reasons that gay people want their marriages recognized by the state is because it gives acceptance to their lifestyle. Powerful at that. I can understand why a gay person would want this. However, there are millions (and the majority) of people in this country that do not want this acceptance granted by the state. And their voices must be considered, whether gay people like it or not.
5) Now, one might aver that gay people should be accorded with the fundamental right of marriage, and just because the majority is against it, it doesn't mean that the right shouldn't be accorded. However, marriage, as stated above, is not a right, it is a responsibility.
6) Here's the problem: When a minority forces their beliefs and demands on the majority, against the majority's will, one flies towards either anarchy or despotism. There are no other outcomes.
7) We have over 2,000 years of laws in this country (our English law plus Roman law that preceded it) all designed around male/female marriages. Gay marriage isn't part of that body of law. If you allow gay marriage, you must confront this fact. The laws would have to be adapted and the ramifications of gay marriage on this body of law would have to be carefully considered before such a gigantic change is implemented. Gay marriage is a topic that must be considered very carefully and thoroughly, and slowly. Huge mistakes could result when one acts in haste. Nothing good can be diminished by taking time, but many bad things can result by doing things in hot haste, when emotions are high and judgment is poor.

Aside from these, I see nothing wrong with gay people being allowed to do anything they want when it comes to living their lives as they wish and being left alone as such. But marriage doesn't fit into this picture. It's a very separate issue.

Doh!

I posted the "Cedar-word" in my comment before I saw it would invoke the rule of 3!

Please forgive me for the pandora's box I might have opened by my carelessness.

I would point out that it is not illegal for gay people to get married. Gay people have exactly the same number of options right now as straight people do regarding marriage, it's just that they aren't interested in marrying the opposite sex. That is the difference between the miscegenation laws struck down preventing mixed race marriages and a gay marriage ban. The issue is not that "gays aren't allowed to get married" it is that gays aren't allowed to marry members of the same sex. It isn't that they want the same rights as heterosexuals have, because they already do.

Good point Alex_fs!! Ive never thought of it that way.

I hear that if you say CedarTroll five times into a mirror he'll come into your dreams and turn you into a DowntownGuy who hates everybody.

But then I'm kinda superstitious that way...

No need to feel guilty Jack M., CedarTARD is a masochist and just can't stay away. If we want to have some fun though we need to plant the idea in this thread that Downtown Lad is a neocon Jewish banker.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For those who are claiming that homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals since they're allowed to marry heterosexually, how does that fit into the right of the pursuit of happiness? To enter into a union where you will undoubtedly be unhappy...that'd be like forcing me to have a gay marriage. But since nobody's forcing anybody to have a gay marriage, I don't really see what the big deal is.

Is Monday 'Trolls Drink Free' night at AoSHQ?

Not a troll, just trying to get some honest opinion out of the other side. I figure where better to go than to the source, right?

For real, though, I just don't understand what the legal argument is behind banning homosexual marriage. I see what the religious argument is, but that doesn't have any standing in our legal system, and religious people are under the same burden of proof that everyone else is under, when it comes to making a case for why a law is necessary.

All I really want is to see a logical argument, without invoking religion, for why gays don't deserve the right to marry.

Fargus,

You might be right in your conclusion but that argument doesn't hold water.

One's right to pursue happiness is limited in many ways that some won't like. And yet, less that half of all people think those people oughta get their way on things.

You know some of those things: ultimate fighting, cockfighting (of the bird variety), pimp slapping, etc. And I'm sure you can think of lots of others that are slightly more serious than those I've listed.

I'm all for government getting out of the marriage business on all fronts. The marriage penalty in the tax code is one example...

Fargus,

The "right of the pursuit of happiness" isnt what you would call a right in the strictly legal sense.

It's a rhetorical point contained in the Declaration of Independence, which in and of itself was a list of grevances addressed to King George III explaining the Colonial States decision to bail on the Crown.

"Rights", per se, are secured by the Constitution.

While the Declaration of Independence might serve as "persuasive authority", it is by no means binding, and courts are free to ignore it entirely in deciding Constitutional matters.

And there isn't such a "right" to "happiness" guaranteed by the Constitution.

I really think that the whole problem with the gay marriage thing is that religion and government inexplicably use the same word for their sanctioned unions. If they were called something different, and religion had its word which government had never co-opted, I don't think we'd even be having this argument.

And I'm all for religions being able to choose who they want to marry and who they don't want to marry. That's freedom of religion, and that oughtn't to be infringed. But I don't see why, in the eyes of the government, the two things would be any different.

Sorry for not being clear. I know that I was quoting the Declaration, and I know that the Declaration is not a legal document. I know that there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing, as such, a right to the pursuit of happiness.

But it is one of the fundamental precepts on which our country is founded, and the laws which restrict people's rights are supposed to do so only because those restricted rights would somehow harm another party. Murder is illegal because it harms someone else. You may not like masturbation and think that nobody should do it, or that it's a sin, but it's not against the law because there's no reason to restrict that right. It's not infringing on the rights of anybody else.

Marriage is not a right. Its a legal construct. The definition can be changed by law unless the definition of marriage becomes protected by Constitutional amendment. Given what we saw on November 2nd the will of the people is that this specific legal construct not be changed. The reason the definition will have to be protected by Constitutional amendment is that some judges deem their opinion supercedes the will of the people. The will of the people does not have to be acceptable to you or Downtown Lad. Sorry, thats just the f'n way it is! What can I say, I'm on an integrity kick.

There have been plenty of times in history when the judges have decided that there's a fundamental precept that supercedes the "will of the people." And when the will of the people is that the rights of a segment of the population be suppressed, then that's not right.

And I still have yet to hear an argument in favor of suppressing gay marriage that doesn't rely on either "God doesn't like homosexuals" or "It's the way the law's written, suck it up and deal."

"There have been plenty of times in history when the judges have decided that there's a fundamental precept that supercedes the "will of the people."

And in our legal system that should only occur when that something is unconstitutional. Lets narrow the argument then. What part of the constitution do you think is being violated by a state that defines legal marriage as only being between a man and a woman?

Fags smell like man poopies.

Well..it all goes back to points made earlier.

"The State", through it's democratic processes (it's legislature) decides that it wants to confer benefits upon a class of people in an attempt to promote behaviors that are, in turn, beneficial to the citizens of a state as a whole.

For example: When you file income taxes, you may be able to claim an exemption for children that someone filing singly (without children) or jointly (without children) can't claim.

Unfair? Maybe so. After all, why should married, fertile couples get a tax break that single or childless couples don't get?

Because the "State" has decided that what child rasing couples give back to the state in future benefits makes up for the current loss. For example: children grow up into tax paying adults; children who care for elderly parents save the state in health care costs down the road; and numerous other examples.

So the "State" in turn makes the following decision: Marriage between a man and a woman is to be favored (and encouraged by preferential tax treatment) because the addition of children is of benefit to the state.

This benefit to the state breaks down, however, if anyone can claim the "marriage" benefits as many of these arrangements will not in turn be beneficial to the state, (for example, if a married couple does not have children, they can't claim a child deduction) and so the State decides that their created preferred class of "married people" should be kept in check so that the benefits to the state of conferring privileges doesn't get outweighed by the costs associated with "free riders".

Now, whether the State Legislatures are acting correctly in making these value judgments is a valid point for argumentation. But there seems very little doubt (except in the most activist courts) that States have long held the ability (under the Federal Constitution anyway; counter-intuitively State Constitutions may actually provide GREATER protections to people than the Fed Const)to behave this way.

Well, Fargus, heterosexuals don't have a guarantee of "pursuing happiness" in marriage either. I imagine some of the posters have even had distinctly unhappy experiences with marriage. Some "straights" won't ever get married. That is an option that everyone has too. If a gay couple wishes to have power of attorney, etc. then they can arrange that. I am conservative in most senses of the word, including not fooling around with the oldest and most basic human institution without better reasons than I am seeing batted around by same-sex marriage advocates.

Fargus:

I think my post was bereft of anything religious, and I listed a few sound reasons for not allowing gay marriage. If you would be so kind as to read my post, please let me know your thoughts. You seem like a person who could provide thoughtful feedback.

Onward. Johnnie Coldcuts from here on has taken over my brain and fingers.

1) The Declaration of Independence IS PART OF OUR FUCKING LAWS, FUCKERS.

From Powerline:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009733

It is difficult to highlight the absurdity of the modern Supreme Court case law interpreting the establishment clause. Unlike every other country in the history of the world, the United States is founded on the basis of a creed rather than on tribal or blood lines. The creed is expressed with inspired concision in the words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happines. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can be truly deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States." The story behind the 1878 revision of the Code is told in the introduction to political scientist Richard Cox's valuable book Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States. (Cox credits the idea for the book to Professor Harry Jaffa, Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.)

The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are the country's foundational laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Following the Declaration among the organic laws are the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Why was the Northwest Ordinance included among the organic laws of the United State? That, gentle readers, is the subject for another day.

The Declaration is therefore the first of the founding laws of the United States and those immortal words quoted earlier indeed legally constitute our country's creed, the creed that recognizes the source (Nature and Nature's God) of our rights. The pledge concisely restates the American creed, whose avowal in school the courts now hold to be unconstitutional.

2) The word "happiness" had a very serious, concrete connotation during the time of the declaration, and it didn't mean a fucking thing even close to what we think of the word today.

Pursuit of happiness didn't mean the Garden of Earthly Delights. Our founding fathers didn't envision a great country being founded upon something like this:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightc.jpg

What they meant was that they were a nation of free men, destined to be unfettered by the shackles of the King of England, and to pursue their own dreams.

If you read any of the founding fathers' writings you'll find constant references to "a nation of happy people." They meant that we were to become a nation of unshackled people.

Now go look at the Bosch painting, then look at your one-dollar bill, and imagine which idea of "happy" Washington may have had in mind.

Ehhhh... I'm done. Log Cabin warned that this little idiot would begin with the uncivil stuff, and boy, he called that one. - Ace

Uncivil, eh? Hmm - let's look at some quotes that were made BEFORE Ace made that comment.

"fag" - Ace

Comparing gay marriage to insest - rw, hobgoblin

"I hate "agrrived political victims" suuch as yourself." - Hobgoblin

"Homo" - Ace

Comparing gays to dogs - Ace

"Lad's problem isn't just about gay marriage as you've pointed out, and nothing short of intense therapy and/or a well-aimed lobotomy is going to help him catch a proverbial clue." - bbeck

"Hate queers much, Garrison?" - hobgoblin

"Lad, it must be really hard to live in a loft when your elevator doesn't go all the way up." - bbeck

"Drama Queen" - Log Cabin

"Lad, you're a retard." - hoggoblin

"You, 'sir' are a troll" - hobgoblin

Now let's look at some quotes that were made AFTER Ace made that comment:

"And if you're looking for a sugar anus, you're not better off than me, bucko." - hobgoblin

" Downtown Lady" - Anonymous

"But I don't have any obligation to talk to retards." - Ace

"If we want to have some fun though we need to plant the idea in this thread that Downtown Lad is a neocon Jewish banker." - Brewfan (particularly distateful since I am a neocon Jewish banker and I consider this statement antisemetic to boot

"Fags smell like man poopies." - Stankleberry

I don't mind insults. But I think it just goes to prove that Ace is a complete hypocrite. Of course if I was straight, I doubt he would have said that. But he's fine with gay bashing. Heck - Gay Bashing is an official part of the Republican platform.

You're going to meet me at a blogger party one day soon Ace. Will you even have the nerve to look me in the eye? You might think that it's ok to attack gay people from behind a blank screen. But we're real people. And your propagation of hatred will be called out one day. And I'm happy to be the one to do it.

I told y'all that downtownlad would start with the insulting and name calling! He will revert to type with the dependability of an Atomic Clock. I'm usually just a lurker on this fine blog but felt compelled to post on just what kind of guy this fellow is. At least cedarford can be funny and provoke some discussion. Oops, I said his name. Nooooooo! He's materializing!

Re: the topic at hand...

As a gay man who happens to be in 17 year exclusive relationship, I find the idea of "gay marriage" rather silly. I don't think that most conservatives' first choice would be the Protection of Marriage Amendment, but many folks (myself included) feel pushed into supporting it by these idiots in black robes making up laws on the bench..

As one of the over one million openly gay Bush voters, give me tax cuts and dead terrorists, and I won't sweat the stupid crap like "gay marriage".

"Marriage is not a right. Its a legal construct." - Brewfan

Wrong Brewfan. Thankfully, you don't define what is a right and what is not.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival" - Loving V. Virginia (Supreme Court decision)

That Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go to law school. So Marriage is indeed a "right".

Try again.

I respect the thought there, KCT, but you go into the Supreme Court and argue a "civil rights" case based on the "organic law" contained in the Articles of Confederation and see how you do.

Me...I'd bet "not so good".

Fact of the matter is that, while I agree that the Supreme Court is all screwed up on their establishment clause jurisprudence, the problem doesn't lie so much with their ignoring "organic law" but with their ignoring the plain meaning of the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

Log Cabin - I gave ample proof that the insults at me started way before I fought back. Sorry - but I'm not going to be a sissy and just take it.

Like I said before - You're obviously quite old and it doesn't make sense for you to waste your time on gay marriage, because you'll be dead before it's legal. I however, have a "slight" chance of being alive when it's legal, so I care more about the issue than you do. I completely understand where are you are coming from though. If I don't get gay marriage in 10 years, I'll probably give up too and focus on my tax cuts.

However, I do care about the gay people who are just teenagers. They have a chance to live a life different than you or I. They have a chance to settle down with the person they love, without interference from their families.

Perhaps you are lucky and your family is supportive. Mine is not. I am quite confident that my family would try and prevent any partner of mine from attending my funeral or visiting me in the hospital, and I'm certain they would contest the will. If I could get married, I would not have to worry about those issues. Alas, I cannot and I do worry about them.

Again - that's nice that you don't care about gay marriage. Don't get married then. I, however, do care. So stop trying to micromanage my life.

Don't you know when a thing is finished?

Troll, be gone.

This is why I tire of the partisan blogs so much. They are afraid of having a real debate.

I must be the only blogger in the world who encourages people to have a real discussion....

You are like Jesus, only with a dong in your butt.

Yeah, Downtown Lad, but all your debates seem to revolve around "who's the cutest contestant left on American Idol" and "what do you think is the most important quality in a mate: money, access to a penthouse apartment, good dress sense, or a fancy car?"

I leave you with this....Rhode Island is neither a road or an island. Go over to Downtown's and discuss (in REAL DEBATE FASHION) amongst yourselves.

Downtown Lad:

I don't know you, and it does appear that some here have been uncivil towards you, but I must say that you have done your own bit of baiting and twisting of people's words.

First off, Ace did not compare gays to dogs. He said he could make his dog a beneficiary of his will. That, my dear sir, is not comparing gays to dogs. You owe Ace an apology on that one. Or, at the very least, admit that you misrepresented what he wrote. I can't see where in that sentence he's comparing gays to dogs.

Secondly, Supreme Court decisions are not the law of the land. I don't know why you think one needs to go to law school to believe this nonsense, but that's not a true statement; it's a partial-truth.

In general Supreme Court decisions serve the following purposes:

1) To settle the specific case at hand;
2) To serve as guidance for similar cases that may arise down the road;
3) Interpreting the constitutionality of laws created by Congress;
4) To settle disputes between state entities.

Of course, there are other things the Supreme Court does. Like impeachment in the Senate and other such things. I guess they manage their budget, too. And declare gifts on their tax returns.

Now, do you remember the famous case of President Jackson telling the Supreme Court to shove it up their fucking ass when they declared a national bank to be constitutional?

Well, Jackson disregarded this decision, and vetoed a bill for re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitutions "as he understands it." Here's Jackson's veto message:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that is constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. mere precedent is a dangerous source of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in `1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. there is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

Need I also remind you that Supreme Court decisions are constantly overturned? The voices of we the people will be heard on this issue, and we are not a nation run by oligarchs in black robes.

Jack M.

Thanks for your insights. I was quoting the boys at Powerline, whom I agree with. They were arguing that the Supreme Court has lost all of its bearings, and had forgotten the organic law. I'd think that they would agree with your argument, also. It seems pretty sound to me (the first amendment), and as you say, very clear. That opinion was written by Big Trunk, by the way.

I think we can both agree that the Supremes have really lost all sense of what their purpose was and is. Thanks for your sober input.

I'm no lawyer, just married to one. Did take my LSATs though, even got accepted to a few law schools. Just never made the jump.

I still want to know why the hell Cedarford hasn't put me on his fucking list.

KCTrio - I don't care about the insults. I can give as well as I can take. I just think it's ludicrous to complain about my very minor put-downs, while ignoring the others.

I hate when everyone has such a "victim" mentality. It's so pathetic.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land. If they are overturned (rare), that new decision then becomes the law of the land.

Right now, the law of the land says that marriage is a "right". Not whether or not gay people can be denied that right is another question altogether. But at least for all straight people, marriage is a right and not a priviledge. That is why straight prisoners, straight retarded people, and straight inter-racial couples can all get married. Because it's a "right", despite laws that have tried to prevent them from getting married.

KCT,

I think you have been too civil to him. Come up with a creative zinger (or better yet claim that you have done some research into his family history and you found that there were Joooooos, Chinese, and, worst of all, NEOCONS, among it's members) and that should do it for you.

But you are still empowered to serve as my "proxy" when it comes to keeping him in line.

With great power comes great responsibility. Use your proxy power well.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

May I deliver a little song I wrote to you all? It is very naughty, and is indeed larded with gay-bashing. I don't know why I am doing this, because I've posted some comments in this thread that were rather civil. But then, Johnnie Coldcuts did get a hold of my brain. So, with that, I'm going to unleash some loose shit, walking on thin ice.

Ace: if you want to remove this, go right ahead.

Song:
Cock and Peterville
Same melody as Margaritavile

Livin' on beefcake
God how my buns ache
All of those girly-boys covered with oil
Tuggin' my G-string
Watching my nuts swing
Testosterone levels beginnin' to boil

Chorus:

Wastin' away again in Cock and Peterville
Searchin' for some young man to assault
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame
But I know, it's nobody's fault

Don't know the reason
Stayed here all season
With nothin' to show but a face full of goo
But there's a real beauty
A Mexican cutie
I'm gonna give him an ass load of spew

Repeat chorus, but change last line as Buffet does

Sat on a jock's cock
Nursed on his hammocks
Pulled my groin, had to slurp on his bone
It's so young and tender
And soon it will render
That creamy concoction that helps me hang on

Repeat chorus, but change last line as Buffet does

Sorry folks. This one's pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel. But I couldn't resist. I wrote that five years ago.

I've written about 20 of these things, some heterosexual dirty, some gay dirty. I'm a PC dirty songwriter. If you want more, just ask.

Jack M.

So how'd I do? Did I live up to Spiderman's motto?

Let's tone down the expressly anti-gay stuff, hmm-kay?

You're going to meet me at a blogger party one day soon Ace.

How will you know it's me? I don't wear a superhero costume. Usually.

Will you even have the nerve to look me in the eye?

Right in the eye. I wouldn't want you to get any "funny" ideas.

You might think that it's ok to attack gay people from behind a blank screen.

Who's attacking "gay people"? I'm attacking a nitwit.

But we're real people.

I have my doubts. Quite frankly, I doubt any of you so called "homo-sexuals" even exist. I think it's all a big hoax, like Paul McCartney dying, the "black church burnings," and the female orgasm.

And your propagation of hatred will be called out one day. And I'm happy to be the one to do it.

Yes, I'm sure you will smite me, as you smite all who work Evil.

Dude, what the fuck is it going to take, exactly, to convince you that I don't "hate" you because you're gay?

My best friend is gay. Or at least Gay-ish. He owns three Bryan Adams albums.

No, seriously, he's a stone-cold homo.

I don't want to play armchair psychologist [Don't you?-- ed. Okay, I confess! It's fun!], but a lot of youse guys seem to have built up this fantasy world for yourselves. You are the persecuted, the brave, the, well, basically, the X-Men. But always, you're the center of the universe.

Do you really imagine I go to bed at night worrying at all who the hell you sleep with? I don't. If you're gay, that's fine with me.

But you just can't take that for an answer. No, it must be that I "hate" you-- I either must love you or hate you; either way, it is important to your ego to imagine yourself important to me.

Let me quote Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead to make clear to you my actual feelings about you, Downey:

"You don't think much of me, do you, Mr. Roarke?" he asked.

"I don't think of you," Roarke answered.

That's not really a huge put-down. It's just the truth.

Dude-- fucking GET OVER yourself.

KCT...that song was....Gob Smackingly Vile!

You took "great power" and turned it into "clobbering time!". (By the way....don't let Cedar know but Ben Grimm [aka the Thing] is Jewish).

But you forgot the most important thing: YOU DIDN'T REFERENCE CEDAR IN THE SONG!!!

How are you gonna make one of his lists with all this loose shit? You gotta put him in the lyrics to get his attention!

Or at the very least, dedicate it to him.

Still, for a first attempt, it was rather inspired. You have much to learn, padawan, but I sense great potential with you. :)

Dammit...why don't I ever get invited to these exciting blogger parties???

I get the sense that they are like a gathering at Andy Warhol's pad circa 1968. The Velvet Underground is playing live, everyone is convinced of their own brilliance/artistic genius, and in the morning you wake up convinced that Instapundit is the key to your 15 minutes of fame.

Hold on there, Mr DL. I did not compare gay marriage to insest. I merely asked why you would restrict gay relatives from same sex marriage. The reasons for the prohibition of marriage among related heterosexuals is due to the procreative nature of marriage, which is not relevant in homosexual unions. You confer upon the government the ability to regulate marriage as long as it fits your sensibilities, but complain when it regulates marriage in a manner incompatible with your beliefs.

After gay marriage will come plural marriage. Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons probably have a stronger claim to their vision of marriage under the argument that the government is prohibiting the practice of their religion. Then the "b's" in GLBT will demand their vision of marriage. At some point, marriage will become a joke where the only requirement be that the participants of any number, gender or sexual preference be of age.

The arguments used to support same sex marriage will destroy the government's ability to regulate marriage at all. Those arguments can be used to justify any group's vision of marriage. With that in mind, the gays need to step up and take one for the team to preserve the government's ability to regulate marriage. Take the civil unions, otherwise you will find that you have won something of no value.

Er, well, I was going to post about gay marriage, pro and con. But, seeing Downtown Lad in action . . . I kinda wish I were straight . . . and really wouldn't mind gay marriage being banned everywhere.

Out of pure spite, mind you.

Well said, Ace.

That's exactly what anyone, regardless of sexuality, should desire: to not be thought of at all!

The government should have NO OFFICIAL POSITION on "gayness" at all. It used to be called tolerance. Not acceptance, just tolerance. But thanks to the PC garbage that has insinuated itself into all sectors of public debate, every group is now required to be officially celebrated and embraced (except christians; they're stupid and evil).

The case that the gay left trots out about being persecuted is a red herring. It makes people defensive and causes them to question themselves. Iit's much easier to steer policy change and pass legislation when you're a victim. But I don't think that argument flies, no matter how hard the "gay marriage" folks push it.

No gay bashing? Sure.
No more vice squad raiding gay bars? Of course.
Civil unions? Probably. That's also reasonable.
Gay marriage? I don't think so.

I don't hate black people, I just don't think the government should allow that jungle love.

I don't hate Jewish people, I just don't think the government should allow people to marry outside their religions.

I don't hate gay people, but I'll just use the words "fag", "queer" and "homo" casually in a conversation as Ace does.

And your best friend is gay. Yeah right. You might think that. I doubt he does. He's just probably too civil to tell you that you're a jerk and he has zero respect for your. No friend would be willing to deny his friend a fundamental civil right such as marriage.

Of course it's out of spite Rob. You don't actually think there are logical reasons to ban gay marriage.

Glad you've outed yourself as a hater too.

Eh, I'll throw this out there.

Since I tend to believe the purpose of marriage is family stability and rearing of children, would those of you opposed to gay marriage in general support or oppose the option for gay marriage if there are children involved?

I'm against judicial imposition of gay marriage on an unwilling populace. The idea of reordering society by judicial fiat is wildly undemocratic. But, I think there is a very solid case to be made for gay marriage when children are a part of the equation. It would seem fair to offer children the protection marriage provides.

Any thoughts?

DL, please. I'm gay and have been out since I was 18 while you were a shiverin' and chatterin' in that there closet of yours. Now that you've deigned to grace us with your sexual presence, you think you're entitled to be outraged on my behalf? On any gay man's behalf? While you were playing pretend, other people were doing the hard work. So you can take your Sally Come Lately rhetoric and stick it.

Being gay does not mean automatic solidarity with the self-righteous, endlessly pompous, perpetually "victimized" children in the gay Left community who want rights less than they want mommy and daddy (i.e. society) to give them that great big hug they never got growing up.

There are forums for that sort of self-affirmation seeking. It's called therapy. Unfortunately, much of the over-emotional gay Left has decided to wrassle with their self-esteem in the political arena, and the rest of us grown up homosexuals get to look on in morbid fascination and disgust as we witness the self-destruction and eternal cauterwaling of a movement that is nothing more than a very tragic Springer episode.

Go back in the closet. You were of more use to us there. The less heterosexuals see of you, the better the rest of us homosexuals are. The crap you've spewed here merely serves to harden opposition to gay marriage. The topic deserves argument and debate, not the cross-shaped cudgel you use to beat others over the head with your so-called persecution.

Please. Spare me.

What Rob said.

But honestly, DL, this "If you don't love me you hate me" schtick a lot of the Victim Gays do is very cloying, and very 1984 Culture Club.

And, much like El Cancion Del Guerre ("The War Song"), it's a little bit creepy and destined to stiff on the charts.

You are a man, gay or not. Grow a pair and grow up.

"cross-shaped cudgel"???

Can you please point out where Rob?

Listen - if you have no self respect, that's your choice. I appreciate debating the subject of gay marriage in an intellectual manner, without resorting to name calling. But of course you have proved yourself incapable of even reading this thread to understand that the name calling started with the the other side.

I don't care who opposes gay marriage. Be they gay or straight, they have chosen to micromanage my life. And that makes it my business.

Please stay the hell out of it.

I don't hate gay people, but I'll just use the words "fag", "queer" and "homo" casually in a conversation as Ace does.

How dare you, sir. I never said "queer."

Alas, youse guys have "taken that word back" and absolutely ruined it for homophobes like me.

And your best friend is gay. Yeah right. You might think that. I doubt he does. He's just probably too civil to tell you that you're a jerk and he has zero respect for your.

Seems to be going to a lot of trouble to spare my feelings. You'd think sometime between college and advancing age he'd have taken the time to say, "Dude, I'm just not that into you."

No friend would be willing to deny his friend a fundamental civil right such as marriage.

I deny him a lot of things. Like he'll say, "Dude, can I borrow twenty bucks?" and I'll be all like, "No way, dude. And stop trying to suck my cock in public all the time. In private is one thing, but I ain't no homo."

Ace - Why are you always calling the gay man the "victim".

Can you please point out one scenario where I've acted as a "victim".

My point is clear. You have zero reasons for opposing gay marriage except to spite gay people. And I'm saying clearly, let me live my life as I choose to. You choose to interfere in it on a daily basis, and I'm going to point that out.

How would you feel if we passed a law saying that Ace couldn't get married?

Whatever - you've given me inspiration to write a blog entry. The hateful quotes here speak for themself. Again, I don't care about the quotes. But stop the crap that you care about gay people when you're actively trying to make their life more difficult.

The only comforting factor I have is realizing that every single one of you would have been devastated at the Loving V. Virginia decision that legalized interracial marriage, had you been around in 1967.

Ace would have been spouting off about his best friend was black, and just because he didn't think he could marry a white chick, didn't mean he was racist. And his black friend Rob would have been backing him up.

Times change. We'll win eventually.

Adios.

I have self-respect enough to know that life is not all about my immediate wants and needs. That there are structures and institutions and societies ordered for a purpose, and they should not be tinkered with on judicial whim or emotional impulse simply because things don't work the way I personally want them to.

I don't particularly care about your life. I certainly wouldn't want to micromanage it. Sounds exhausting. Want to visit your partner in the hospital or have control over their affairs? Draw up a power of attorney. Make him the beneficiary of your insurance policies. Draw up the proper contracts that protect your interests and give your partner a hand in your affairs (which is possible even in Virginia). We don't "need" marriage to get what we're looking for: namely protection. We can do that all by ourselves, without the government holding our hands.

I really don't care who started name-calling. What do you want me to do, get my mommy? "Awww, Timmy started it!"

As for arguing "intellectually," well, two things. One, anyone who actually does that doesn't use that word to describe what they're doing. People who do are simply draping a mantle of pretension over their own shoulders. And two, actual intellectuals know there is more than one side, sometimes the right thing isn't what we'd personally want, and sometimes a country ought to run vaguely according to its constitution, with the judicial, executive, and legislative branches functioning within their proper spheres.

How dare you, sir. I never said "queer."

Alas, youse guys have "taken that word back" and absolutely ruined it for homophobes like me.

Homer: And you've stolen all our best names, like Bruce and Lance and Julien! Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just . . . meh . .

John: Queer?

Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word! That's our word for making fun of you! We NEED it!

Can you please point out one scenario where I've acted as a "victim".

Um... the scenario entitled "Your Entire Fucking Life"?

Rob,

I forgot about that. I guess that came too easy. Should have known I was stealing.

DL,

Seriously. Just don't be so whiny.

It's a turn off.

It's one thing when a girlfriend suddenly turns to you and asks, "Are you mad at me?"

It's another thing when some stranger dude does it.

Just knock it off with the "You hate me" bullshit. It's so... Steven Glass.

"Are you mad at me Chuck? Chuck? Chuck? You must hate me right now, Chuck, but I swear I think some of my sources may have just misled me. You understand that don't you, Chuck? Chuck? You don't want to kill me do you, Chuck? Why are you looking at me like that Chuck?"

Oy vey.

I am not Chuck, and I don't need to hate you to think you're self-absorbed lefty identity-politics nitwit.

Great Rob. I'll get all of those contracts written up. I guess I should send the bill to you and Ace? As long as I don't live in Virginia, of course, where those contracts would be illegal.

Geez - You really are clueless about some of the difficulties that people face for not being married.

My friend is gay. He suffers from some serious physical problems. They worried about medical problems. So they went through all of the trouble of getting power of attorney, contracts written up, etc. This is in NY, which is friendly towards gays. They've been together for 10 years.

So guess what happened? My friend's partner is the one who got so ill he was close to dying. They hadn't gotten any of the medical stuff written up, because he was the healthy one. So there he was in the hospital, and my friend couldn't make any medical decisions for his partner. He was completely helpless for weeks.

You might laugh about that. You might say "they should have gone to a lawyer". Married people don't have to think about all of this stuff.

Guess what Rob? It wasn't funny. You didn't see my friend suffering for weeks.

This is real life Rob. Stop thinking everything is so simple. It's not.

Great Rob. I'll get all of those contracts written up. I guess I should send the bill to you and Ace?

They're all standard contracts and they're all available in books at B. Dalton or, get this, on-line for free on the Internet.

I am amused that in one breath you shrilly cry how important this all is to you but on the other hand you can't take the hour necessary to find the FREE standard contracts on-line and then sign them with your partner (and a witness, of course).

Yes, it's all very important to you, dear.

This is why I always suspect that this gay marriage argument is like an argument with a girl. It's not an argument about the thing being superficially debated. It's an argument standing in as a proxy for the real thing being complained about.

This is about your need for validation and daily affirmation from complete fucking strangers.

You want affirmation? I hereby affirm you, DL. Now go and do likewise, gentlemen.

Ace - I don't care if you hate me. I really don't. Stop flattering yourself.

Just stop micromanaging my life. Stop micromanging my friend's life. My friends want to get married, and they can't because of people like you.

You can't oppose gay marriage and then wash your hands of the consequences.

My friend couldn't make medical decisions for his partner. That's YOUR fault Ace.

Right. My fault. I feel so bad.

Because I broke into your apartment and stole your printer so you couldn't print out those FREE standard power-of-attorney contracts.

Will you ever forgive me, Chuck?

Chuck?

I don't think I should be alone right now, Chuck. I don't know what I might do, Chuck.

Still lying Ace? You think these contracts are free. You really are a moron.

Where do I get the contract to not testify against my partner in court? Where do I get the contract to file a joint tax return? Where do I get the contract to leave property to my partner without getting hit by taxes? What about bereavement leave? If my partner dies, I have to go to work or I get fired. You don't get a week off for a "friend's" funeral.

There are 1000 rightst that come with marriage. You think you can just fill out a free piece of paper to mimic those 1000 rights.

You are a really dumb Ace. Really dumb.

As long as I don't live in Virginia, of course, where those contracts would be illegal.

Still waiting for a single citation of a contract voided in Virginia based on the statute you're all Steven Glass about.

Here's a tip: go to www.findlaw.com. Do a search. Come back to me with court cases involving all these thousands of voided contracts.

Granted, without being married you are not, in fact, married, and some benefits of marriage do not obtain.

Still, you've been whining for six hours about the right to make medical decisions for your partner or put him in your will and stuff and I just thought I would be so kind -- gay-supporting me -- to mention to you that you can have those things now.

You just don't seem terribly eager to have them.

One would begin to suspect you're a bit disingenuous about your real reasons for whining about this.

Admit that you just don't like the symbolism and you feel exlcuded and you don't like all that "heteronormative" state law and stuff and let's call it at night.

Here ya go. Civil Union in Vermont. Vermont recognized her as the legal parent. Virginia doesn't recognize that contract.

http://ec.gayalliance.org/articles/000547.shtml

Power of attorney for medical decisions contract (Free):

http://www.hooverwebdesign.com/business/pages/special_power_of_attorney_for_me.php

There.

Now, admittedly, the LAST time you couldn't make medical decisions for your partner that was my fault. That was on me, baby, and I admit that.

I apologize profusely for "micromanaging" the life of someone I didn't know existed five hours ago.

But now you know where you can get a free standard form deeming ANYONE YOU LIKE your attorney in fact for the purpose of making medical decisions about you.

So the next one's on you, baby.

Ummm, no dude. That is the sort of thing the law is SPECIFICALLY written to outlaw.

You keep claiming it outlaws virtually all contracts between gays.

Cite for that, dude. That is the ludicrous proposition you keep championing. That's what we're arguing about.

NOT whether a law specifically invalidating civil unions does, in fact, invalidate civil unions. Which is conceded, and you know it.

It is at this point I am tempted to use the "L" word, because I cannot abide people who deliberately deceive in order to avoid conceding a point which they realize is very shaky.

I will avoid it for the moment.

LOL..Ace is dumb alright.

Let's measure you and Ace by relative "worth" Laddie. You seem to be big on that concept.

Ace: Mentioned on CNN "Inside Politics" as an"opinion setter"
Ace: Mentioned on Front Page of Wall St. Journal for much the same reason
Ace: 41000+ visits to his site last week.

DL: 747 visits to his site last week.
DL:

If Ace is dumb, then you are positively a drooling, imbicile DL. From a standard of relative"worth" anyway.

Dude - You are a moron. You don't listen.

My friend's partner almost died. He could NOT make a medical decision for his partner, because they didn't have the proper forms filled out. And they THOUGHT about this, making sure they had the forms filled out for the other partner.

He's 33 years old. How many 33 year old married straight people think about having all of the proper medical forms filled out in case one gets sick? How many even have a freaking will????

Marriage is a contract. And when you get married, you get 1000 rights automatically. I don't want to have to think about what those 1000 rights are. You think most gay people are thinking about the fact that almost all funeral homes will ban gay people from sharing a room? I don't want to have to deal with this shit. Just let me get married and get the same freaking rights that everybody else has.

You realize that gay people in Michigan are now having domestic partnership benefits removed from them? Is that meaningless? How do I get a contract for that?

This stuff is real. But you spread lies that these benefits are somehow irrelevant.

If you feel so strongly, then why don't you decide to never get married then? Let's see how easy it is.

BTW, you're going to have to spring $10 to have that contract notarized in most states.

I just thought I would tell you that, because had I not told you about the need for a public notary, it might have been my fault again.

Typical passing the buck Ace.

You favor laws outlawing gay marriage and then completely pass off any responsibility for the harm that this causes to people.

You know what that makes you Ace? It makes you pretty freaking evil.

It makes you pretty freaking evil.

I'm beginning to think you're a rightwing agent provocateur attempting to make gays look silly, soft-headed, and hyperemotional.

And I will simply not stand for that.

You favor laws outlawing gay marriage and then completely pass off any responsibility for the harm that this causes to people.

Maybe I'll take up a collection to get you the $10 for the public notary.

Oh, wait-- you could just take out at second $10 mortgage on your 3 million dollar loft. I'm pretty sure the bank would approve it.

I'm single, healthy, straight and 33, and I have a will.

I figure if you can cite your "friend", I can cite myself (even if we all know how painful that can be...)

After all, I figure in the event of sudden death, it's better to leave your stuff (investment accounts, personal and real property) to friends and family than to rely on some antiquated set of probate laws.

The will also specifies my desires should I be left in a vegetative state, and I have entrusted a family member with a power of attorney to carry out my wishes.

I didn't have to be married to achieve any of these things.

Of course when I do find a woman drunk enough to say "yes!", some revisions will have to be made.

But until then, it's your responsibility to keep your house (or loft, as the case may be) in order. Stop crying "marriage!" as the only solution for things you can do yourself.

After all..you've identified areas where you perceive problems. So stop whining and start (no pun intended) covering your ass.

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

There are over 1300 other rights.

Only a complete freaking moron would think that you could get these for free.

Dumbass.

Shhhh. You had me at "hello."

Downtown Lad:

I would be quite happy if you were to do two things. Of course, this is a request, and nothing more. In return, I'll reply in a civilized manner to your responses.

1) I would ask that you read my post wherein I enumerated reasons against gay marriage and refute them. I'd welcome that. The list did not have one mention of religion in it.

2) Read this column on the topic, and provide us with your thoughts:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041231.shtml

I don't see how a person that's against gay marriage is micromanaging your life. I think the problem I have with that term is that it doesn't seem the right word to convey how you feel.

If those against gay marriage were micromanaging your life, they'd be trying to take away a right you already had.

For instance: I'm a smoker (the horror). Now, I can't smoke at my favorite restaurants because of this law that bans smokers at bars and eating establishments. I have been relegated to the outside if I choose to smoke. That's micromanaging my life.

What you are asking for is to obtain the right of marriage. That's the goal you are shooting for. There can't be any micromanaging until you get this right.

Until then, you'll simply be living out your life the way you always have.

Before the DOMA laws and the gay rights ammendments passed in many states this past election, you didn't have the right of gay marriage. And after those laws and votes were passed, you still have no right to marriage.

KCTRrio - I applaud you for at least being willing to discuss the issue.

Sowell's argument has been thoroughly discredited.

http://gayorbit.net/index.php?p=313

Now for the smoker one. Yes, I'm micromanaging your life in that respect. And yes it inconveniences you big time. But you know what? I'm willing to admit that. All of you seem to be in any denial that gays are inconvenienced by not getting married.

And at least I have valid reasons for doing so. Second hand smoke kills. Enough said.

Until then, you'll simply be living out your life the way you always have.
Yeah - and I'm going to bitch about it. Blacks did not tolerate sitting in the back of the bus. I'm not going to tolerate my denial to marry the person I love.

Now for you points, many of which are refuted in Gay Orbit's post:

1) Gay people can gain nearly any benefit they want from a partnership that married folks can gain, simply by having a lawyer take care of things.

Wrong. Social Security benefits? The right to marry a foreign national? There are 1000 others.

2) When one gets married, one GIVES UP RIGHTS, and does not gain rights. People get married for reasons of the heart and spirit, not because they must. You have more independence when you remain unwed.

I'll quote kipesquire here: "Anyone even infinitesimally literate with the issue knows that is a blatant lie, and I doubt Sowell is illiterate about anything. Marriage is a legal status that conveys powerful positive rights regarding, inter alia, Social Security, immigration, estate law, medical care, child custody and adoption law...and on and on and on."

3) And having children is not a right either, it is a responsibility. Kind of like having a dog, but amplified.

And banning gay marriage helps this how? Many gays are already raising children responsibly. Gay marriage will only strengthen those families, just as marriage is good for straights.

4) One of the reasons that gay people want their marriages recognized by the state is because it gives acceptance to their lifestyle. Powerful at that. I can understand why a gay person would want this. However, there are millions (and the majority) of people in this country that do not want this acceptance granted by the state. And their voices must be considered, whether gay people like it or not.

Legalization does not mean acceptance. It often means neutrality. Divorce is legal. Marrying a 12 year-old girl is legal. Does society have to accept these? The Catholic Church still bans divorce. Legalizing gay marriage will not force society to accept anything.

5) Now, one might aver that gay people should be accorded with the fundamental right of marriage, and just because the majority is against it, it doesn't mean that the right shouldn't be accorded. However, marriage, as stated above, is not a right, it is a responsibility.

The Supreme Court says otherwise, declaring marriage a "fundamental right" in Loving V.Virginia..

6) Here's the problem: When a minority forces their beliefs and demands on the majority, against the majority's will, one flies towards either anarchy or despotism. There are no other outcomes.

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Our constitution has an equal protection clause which protects the rights of the minority. How is gay marriage forcing my beliefs on you at all? Will my being married affect your life one iota?

7) We have over 2,000 years of laws in this country (our English law plus Roman law that preceded it) all designed around male/female marriages. Gay marriage isn't part of that body of law. If you allow gay marriage, you must confront this fact. The laws would have to be adapted and the ramifications of gay marriage on this body of law would have to be carefully considered before such a gigantic change is implemented. Gay marriage is a topic that must be considered very carefully and thoroughly, and slowly. Huge mistakes could result when one acts in haste. Nothing good can be diminished by taking time, but many bad things can result by doing things in hot haste, when emotions are high and judgment is poor.

Marriage has changed considerably over the last 200 years.

- Divorce is legal.
- Marriages are not arranged.
- We are not marrying off girls at 12
- Slaves could not marry
- Inter-racial marriages are now allowed

Would you have opposed those changes as well?

Lad--You make some decentt points. It has been pointed out that Gay marriage is being forced down society's throat...by unelected judges, by fiat. That is the problem. If gays want marriage, fine...make your arguments...state by state...and let the people decide. Maybe you'll convince me, maybe you won't..but you are trying to change a societal norm....it should not be easy to do...it should not be forced upon society.

Loving v. Virgina says marriage between a man and a woman is a fundmental right. Amazing how you always leave that part out.

I will gladly support gay marriage under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution if, at the same time, it is accompanied by nationwide concealed carry of firearms with no exceptions for any municipality or mode of transportation. Period. End of sentence.

Good Lord, Lad,'s not a provacateur, he's a gayspambot. He doesn't even sleep!

Lad, if you could step outside your self-imposed persecution complex for one moment, you would realize that we're not insulting you b/c you're gay, but b/c you're a moron.

Except I don't even think you're a moron, as I've indicated above. I think you have this huge emotional blind spot in logic on gay marriage.

And if you don't know why "hate fags much, Garrison" is funny, then you have never watched South Park and you still can't see that you insult people by calling them what you are.

You seem to be a poor, conflicted soul. If calling me gay is the height of insult to you, and you yourself are gay, don't you realize that you're insulting yourself?

And who's to say I'm not gay. Or Ace isn't. This is an anonymous method of posting messages. And Ace's isn't the place for reasoned debate, Lad. (it's the place of the helpful harware man, but that's a different discussion). I can admit I'm not gay, but you have no way of knowing. Similarly, you might well not be gay, we can't tell.

As for the story of your "friend" who couldn't make med decisions, I say, as a lawyer, bullshit.

A power of attorney can be granted to ANYONE and it is binding. Yes, making med decisions isn't as EASY for gays, but it is POSSIBLE. So don't give me this bullshit about a Virginia law that doesn't even apply to you (you're in NYC, rihgt?). Again, a classic troll move.

Finally, I made an eminently reasonable defense of the traditional structure of marriage over at Totten's. One you said you'd think about. Now, coming over here and beginning from square one? That's the mark of a troll, a provacateur, or an idiot.

Which are you Lad?

DL wrote: ""If we want to have some fun though we need to plant the idea in this thread that Downtown Lad is a neocon Jewish banker." - Brewfan (particularly distateful since I am a neocon Jewish banker and I consider this statement antisemetic to boot"

Oh the irony! Must not conjure! Must not conjure!

Why do all of you keep encouraging DL?

You insist upon doing the same thing (arguing with him, trying to make him see the light, take your pick) over and over...while hoping for a different outcome.

It's not gonna happen.

Let this thread die...please!

And just for shits and giggles, Lad, here's some cuts from my comments on MJT:

Lad,
"My love for a gay man is no less real than straight love. "

Bully for you. It doesn't make it any of the government's damn business who you love. That make sense? The government doesn't care who you love.

Another News Flash: Marriage isn't about love.
The only reason marriage exists as a government institution is the ability to procreate. We don't need "best friends licenses" for a reason: it's none of the government's biddness. The only reason the governemnt regulates---let that sink in, regulates---heterosexual relationships is the potential for procreation. Not the actuality, b/c fertility testing in order to validate marraiges is draconian. You know what though? Consummation and fertility used to be requirements for a valid marriage. Again, let that sink in---infertile people could not validly marry.

Lad, it's really too bad you feel excluded because you can't marry. But you have no logical right to expect to be able to. You can't procreate with your partner, and thus government has no business regulating---regulating---your relationship. It's like me being offended that I am excluded from something that, by definition I have no expectation of going (the women's room).

It is in this way you are elevating a sex act to political scope. See, what you're saying is that a sex act defines you to the point that you must have legal validation for it. Guess what, you CAN get married. You just don't like your choices. OK, well no one is forcing you to marry the chick down the hall. But marriage is societally defined as a man and a woman for a reason. It's simply a reason you don't care about. But it's a valid and logical reason nonetheless.

Again, government's interest in marriage isn't about love.

So all your love sonnets to your beau just don't count in the legal and logical world of what we have marriage for. That's a harsh truth, but it's the truth.
Slow down and think what you're asking for. You are asking for society to start caring about people's emotional ties for their own sake. How intrusive is that?

How would we define "gay marriage"? Do you have to sign a declaration of intent to sodomize? Or more gently, a "love contract"? What's to prevent college roommates from marrying for tax breaks (though that can happen now with op-sex couples)---I'm thinking of what would be a principled limitation to only "gay" couples? What I'm proposing is just where the gay rights folks don;t want to go, but where Tosk has openly admitted it leads---polyamorous "marriages."

Like I said earlier, you want "rights"? Okey dokey, that's a valid discussion. But your love is none of my business and none of my concern. the governemnt's duty is not to validate your emotional committments. I have no right to license who you fuck, especially when children are a physical impossiblity. There is simply no logical reason that "marriage" MUST be provided to gays.
Please try to realize that you're not asking for equality, you're asking for something no one else gets or expects: ego gratification from the authorities.

* * * * * *

I think that's fair, and as the proponents of gay marriage are the ones advancing their case, the burden seems to be on them to show that gay marriage is a benefit for society.

I'll call that the burden of proof, for lack of a better term, and we should have a high bar, a strong presumption in favor of traditional structures of society, when we're talking about altering those structures.

We decided as a society (some part of which under the barrel of a gun) that race didn't matter, and that we were going to change society in the realm of race despite any problems that may arise. In the long run, that was the right decision.

Now, maybe we should alter society a bit more to embrace gay partnerships. Maybe not. Ultimately society (the members thereof through their representatives) will, or should, make that call. As of now, Americans have come down against it. To say, as you do, that we should someday have gay marriage is a lot different that Lad saying we should have them NOW.

My only point to you, Michael, was that you can't say that kids do just as well in gay and lesbian parenting environments. The data just aren't there. The g/l parenting studies used single parent (divorced mother) homes as the benchmark.

We could as a society stand to tread a little more lightly in this area, especially given the current social consensus against gay marriage. A little more reticence in implementing no-fault divorce would have helped a great deal.

WR95,

No! It cannot die!

What was the definition of insanity? Doing something over and over and hoping for a different result?

WR95 wrote: "Why do all of you keep encouraging DL?"

I think its because we care about him and want to help him. [giggle]

Here's another old post from a different site (smoe context missing):

(you want reasoned debate Lad, here you go):

The union of one man and one woman, as the sole self-sustaining procreative unit, is the basic building block of society. Religious people believe it ordained by God (which is enough reason for many), but leaving that aside, a society that fails to encourage (i.e. show exclusive favoritism—yes favoritism) to that basic unit is doomed.

Marriage and child rearing are hard. It's hard to keep marriages together, and having children in non-agrarian societies is far more a burden that a boon, economically. De-emphasizing the value and exclusivity of marriage---as has been done with quickie, no-fault divorces AND gay marriage---devalues the sacrifice individuals make in coming together as a procreative unit.

Will gay marriage result in men leaving their wives for a life of sausage-smoking? Not likely (unless you're an Episcopal priest who's sick of the wife & daughters). But it will, over time, make marriage less valued in society. When marriage is devalued, procreation suffers (as can be seen from the child-rearing difficulties in the age of divorces). When the procreative function is hampered, society itself is imperilled.

Yes, divorce and promiscuity are huge hits against marriage that are already in wide acceptance. But piling worse on top of bad doesn't make the situation any better.

And really, Athens as the "one of the most civilized societies . . . " Sure, it was advanced in culture, but at the time of S0crates it was also decadent and foppish, skittish and indecisive, and generally so torn by internal strife and apathy that it crumbled upon itself. So too Rome under the latter Caesars. While you may equate decadence with civilization, it is in fact the slow-motion destruction of all things civilized. Decadence invariably leads to the fall of societies, and the open flowering of homosexuality in a culture is one of the recurring hallmarks of decadence. That's not a value judgment on homosexuality, that's a historical truth.

The reason gay marriage is such a big deal is that it is a harbinger of societal collapse.

My theory on why this is so is, briefly, that a vast majority of any population is not gay. (at least 95% in the current USA). Many, if not a majority of that 95% find homosexuality distasteful. In a society where gayness is celebrated on the part of a "civilized" elite, you thus have a large segment of the population (perhaps even a large majority) alienated from their own culture. This erodes the civic spirit and displaces the natural feelings of (non-jingoistic) patriotism and love of country that most folks bear for their homeland.

Remove that love of country and people will simply refuse to wage the millions of small battles against chaos that face any culture (from random adults scolding misbehaving children walking down the street [that used to happen a lot, it's virtually non-existent now] to people refusing to help the victim of violent crime when they witness it happening). People simply disconnect from society. Apathy is a culture's deadliest disease.

You ask why. The best answer is that civilization might very well actually depend on it.

Then again, maybe not. But who wants to take that chance if you can see it coming?

The procreation argument is bullshit. The government does not do a fertility test before you're allowed to get married, and infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time.

Whoa, Ace has a dog?

The procreation argument is valid, as heterosexual couples are "presumed" to be capable of reproducing.

Or of adopting.

Neither of which is a presumption that same-sex couples can claim.

Again, "Fargus" it's not that the perfect need be the enemy of the good. We don't do fertility tests b/c that would be seen as intrusive. Yet fertility USED TO BE a prerequisite for marriage.

Imagine that. Infertile folks couldn't get married.

Why?

The question is more properly why does government license some relationships? And the answer is the potential for procreation.

Nice analysis, though.

The government in a free society assumes fertility where procreation is a possibility (i.e a male-female union). 100% of homosexual relationships are by fucking biology infertile. Period. Doesn't matter if they can adopt or get insenminated, the COUPLES---the relationship---is infertile. The GOVERNMENT has no concern with relationships that can't create the next generation of taxpayers, just like the government has no business worrying about single women getting inseminated. It's just too far an outlier.

We don't test for fertility b/c there's a reasonable basis for assuming hettero couples are fertile. In this respect it's as if the government is protecting its citizens from too much gov't interference in their lives. "What, can't have kids? Then you can break up without gov't approval."

Don't open your trap if all that comes out is ignorance.

Can one agree with DL about gay marriage whilst also laughing uproariously at the "Cock & Peterville" lyrics?

Allah says: yes!

All that's coming out of MY trap is ignorance? That's pretty awesome, dude. Spot-on analysis from you there.

It's not a safe assumption that marriage is simply an institution put in place by the government to encourage procreation. If it were, then there would be something more to that. But there's nothing about procreation in marriage laws, and like I said before, which you chose to ignore with some fancy handwaving, there's nothing stopping infertile couples from marrying.

Besides which, is the government really all that worried that unless it steps in with that procreation-encouraging institution of marriage, people are going to stop having kids?

The funny thing is that YOU were calling ME ignorant.

Shockingly, noted federalist Andrew Sullivan says he approves of yesterday's gay marriage decree from on high in California.

The reason gay marriage is such a big deal is that it is a harbinger of societal collapse.

In a society where gayness is celebrated on the part of a "civilized" elite, you thus have a large segment of the population (perhaps even a large majority) alienated from their own culture.

Your problem isn't that gay marriage will bring societal collapse, it's that homosexuality itself will. I believe the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights to blacks and women.

Dear Non-Gullible People,

I find it interesting that homosexual activists claim that 10% of the population is homosexual, but only a measly 2500 people out of 6 million of all Massachusettes residents applied for free benefits via HS marriages/unions since made available last year.

That is only 1% of the 600,000 homosexual population claimed by homosexual activists in Massachussettes. Meanwhile, the normal heterosexual population has over 3,000,000 married people registered in Massachussettes (or 50% of the general State population).

This clearly demonstrates that the Gay Revolution is the BIGGEST PUBLIC FRAUD OF THE PAST 50 YEARS. Think about it only 2,500 civil unions in Massachussettes verses 3,000,000 normal married people registered in that state.

What we also know is that there are over 250,000 dead male homosexuals from lethal sexually transmitted diseases and rectal sex (involving semen, fecal, blood, disease) and multiple partners. Over 60% of all HIV/AIDs cases in the US are caused and distributed by male homosexuals. Doesn't sound GAY to me, but rather sad, selfish, and callous.

Thanks to Lawrence vs Texas, non-elected judges have legislated new rights to kill people for sex (as long as the killing is done in ones privacy away from the public's eye). Out of the 250,000 killed, there has not been one arrest for manslaughter because of the special rights created for homosexuals. Not one arrest, as if not one of them knows there is a lethal disease out there and they are 250 times more likely to be contaminated than there so called equal heterosexual slave owners.

The state of Massachussettes has over 10,000 dead male gays from lethal STDs or four times the number of civil unions. Again very sad and unhappy, specially to those loved ones who are told homosexuality is normal and healthy (like they teach in the schools to unsuspecting children and parents).

Since when is killing somebody for sex a human right? Male homosexuals are 250 times more likely to get and spread leathal STDs like AIDS because it violates natural biological design rooted in heterosexual procreation. Over 70 years have of psychological studies have diagnosed it as a disorder stemming from various forms of arrested development.

Of course the APA/AMA comprised of liberal sympathizers and enablers says its normal. They even claim homosexual "bug chasers" are normal and healthy (talk about scientific fraud/joke).

I feel so strongly on the subject, because I have a friend who is "gay" that was sexually abused by his father. He was lied to by gay activists and told he was born that way, even though his father's abuse caused him trauma and years of personal suffering. He now is sick and dying from lethal STDs caused by gay activists and their enablers who could care less about him and the truth and just used him for sex and activism.

Homosexuality is a sexual disorder stemming from various forms of arrested development at an early age (i.e., there is no such thing as gay genes except to gullible people who want to believe in such...numerous monozygote twin studies have confirmed this), and highly treatable for those who are motivated (i.e., more than 10,000 ex-gays).

Enabling and supporting the HS fraud only constributes to the growing mountain of dead people created by the fraud (started by Alfred Kinsey the human sex with animals expert who refused to follow the scientific methodology).

Even San Francisco had only 3500 registered civil unions last year, as compared to the 35,000 male homosexuals who died in that city from lethal STDs like AIDs in the last 20 years. Thats 10 times more deaths than fraudulent couples trying to get public subsidies. (All the records from HS killing spree are available at the US Centers for Disease and Prevention for any non-gullible person to check out...of course you can always rely on the MSM and some gay activist to provide unbiased infor).

Killing for sex is not a human right. STOP THE KILLING NOW!!!!

HELP STOP THE HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO SUBSIDIZE THE CULTURE OF DEATH AND HAVE LOVED ONES WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE PUBLIC FRAUD PUT FORTH BY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS.

XXX

No mantis, not homosexuality, but perhaps, just perhaps, mainstreaming homosexual behavior will.

Maybe it won't. Maybe my concerns are unfounded. That's cool. I can dig debate on the subject. it's a hell of a lot better than being denounced as a bigot b/c I have the temerity to disagree with Lad.

The ancient Greeks, gay as they often were, still frowned on homosexual acts and approved of only homophilia (same sex romance, for lack of a proper English description). The reason could be (again, I'm purposefully hedging b/c I don't think anyone can know) that gay sex is a means of sexual pleasure that results in no net benefit to society (i.e. no new citizens). From a societal perpetuation standpoint, that could create long-term problems. After all, the genetic imperative is the crux of all civilization.

Your statement: I believe the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights to blacks and women is a non-sequitur. The same results may or may not have been predicted, but not b/c of the same underlying reasons. A truly representative demos (including all in the electoral franchise) cannot be said to disaffect the population, if it indeed represents the population. Now, maybe giving freed slaves a double vote as "reparations" would invoke those reasons, but destroying the electoral monopoly of a plurality is not the same thing at all. Apples and oranges, bub.

"Fargus" I'm convinced IS Lad, so I'm not going to bother wasting any more pixels on him. Having completely avoided the substance of my argument, he contnues on a tangential point. That's what Lad was doing that was so frustrating, and I'm not going to play that game with you, "Fargus."

Address the fact that marriage used to be limited to fertile couples, and how that bears on the state's interest in marriage itself, and maybe I'll care what you write "Fargus." (and leave out the miscegination bullshit, as the point is the state's interest in the relationship itself, not the constituent parts [unless those parts are by default incapable of providing children])

That is only 1% of the 600,000 homosexual population claimed by homosexual activists in Massachussettes. Meanwhile, the normal heterosexual population has over 3,000,000 married people registered in Massachussettes

Were all of those 3 mil couples married in the past year since gay marriage was made legal in MA? No? Oh, then I guess that argument is just plain silly. But then again you feel homosexuality is a mental disorder, and apparently that STDs are only transmitted by gays (and on purpose to boot!) . Back in your hole, Jesse, the light must be hurting your eyes.

hey mantis,

I think Jesse is a troll or an agent provocateur from teh other end of the spectrum.

"Jesse Dirkheiser " was a young boy sodomized and killed by a couple of gay guys a few years back. I think this "jesse is eihter Lad posting screeds that he cut and pasted from kooks elsewhere, or is simply someone who wants to make the opponents of gay marriage (again not opponents of gayness itself) look like kooks.

Downtown Lad:

Thanks for your thoughtful input. Now, as promised, my responses.

1) You mentioned nothing about my post on Jackson's veto message regarding the National Bank. Not that I really care, but I typed that fucker from a book. It took me a few minutes, and I'd at least appreciate your comments on it. (Note I'm being sarcastic, but I'd still like your thoughts.)

The main point being that the Supremes aren't our slave masters. You must purge your mind of this business of SP rulings are the law of the land. The SP might want that to be the case, but since they change their minds on many big issues, you must look at them as one of 3 branches of government. That's the point of the Jackson post. To reframe this, I'd say that Supreme Court decisions, if they are the law of the land, they may still be repugnant. And when so, one must use every legal means at his disposal to fight to get that overturned. And that's just the way it fucking is.

[Note: I'm going to refrain from using the words "I" and "you" regarding this topic, because I simply don't like the idea it conjures up. On a personal level, you never took any rights of mine away. And ace is not micromanaging your life.]

2) Regarding your comments about smoking. How convenient.

I find it ironic that you willfully admit rights that I have were taken away, but the government had the right to do so, and you justify it with the second-hand smoke argument. Do you not see the irony in this?

Let's take a look, shall we? You seem to have a rather interesting outlook on rights. One, that they are immutable, and two, you personalize them all. That's odd because rights are concepts, and they only become personalized once you employ them. I have a right to bear arms, but I don't have a gun, so I don't personalize that right. To each his own, I suppose. Moving on, if you hold rights to be sacred, and the erosion of rights to be repugnant, then you must only allow the diminishing of rights when to do so serves a greater good. The second-hand smoke argument works up to a point, and that point stops at public places. But what about the bar owner that wants to open a place of business and puts a big sign on the door that reads "Smoking Allowed in This Bar." Then you won't have to breathe the 2nd-hand smoke, and you are free to ignore that bar and go to the one that disallows smoking. Isn't that a better way to protect the right and not diminish it?

For the record, I do understand the non-smoking rules, because people don't like it. I've always gone out of my way to avoid smoking around anyone, inside or out of doors, that isn't also a smoker, out of respect for the fact that to non-smokers, cigarettes smell like shit.

But when the day comes where I can no longer smoke in my home, I'll be after all you fuckers that put that mob-rule law into effect.

So I would ask you to rethink your position on this. Enough said, as you stated, is not good enough to dismiss the loss of my rights as a smoker based solely on second-hand smoke. There's more to this issue. I would think that if you are a true lover of liberty, then you would fight fiercely for my rights as a smoker (or someone else's right to property) as you are fighting to obtain rights that you say you don't currently have.

To turn things around, how would you like it if someone argued "Marriage is between a man and a woman, not for gays. Nuff said"? Well, that's what you've been on about regarding your right to marriage that you so desire, but that's what you did with my right to smoke.

3) Now, regarding your comparisons between the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. The two are not equivalent and must be dealt with separately. They may share similarities, but there are gulfs that separate the two.

First of all, blacks were fighting laws that were on the books that took away their rights. Without those laws, they'd have their rights. And don't lug in the sodomy laws, because for those to be comparable, they would have to be enforced regularly, which they are not. And certainly not to the extent of the poll-tax laws, the IQ tests for voting, etc. that were on the books in the South and REGULARLY enforced by the police and governments throughout the region.

To make this point clear, I suggest discovery. You could learn a lot by doing the following: I don't know where you live, but if it's in a big town, I bet there's at least one old AME church. Go there one day and speak with the minister. You might even drop a couple of C-Notes into the collection basket during the service. They usually can use the money. I am Catholic (not a cradle Catholic; I did it 4 years ago; 8 months of learning), and when my wife goes out of town (she and my kids are cradle Catholics) I sneak my kids to the oldest AME church in my town.

There, I am usually the only white man with kids at the service. I go because I sing, and I love spirituals and gospel music, and when I go, I am surrounded by love. The black folks at that church taught me a long time ago when I started doing this that when I enter that house of the Lord, I am a brother of theirs. Race is outside, but not inside.

Well, I've gotten to know the minister at this church, and he's a man that has a mighty weight on his shoulders. You see, not only does the majority of his parrish suffer from poverty, the church numbers have been dropping. So the building itself suffers from funds.

I've talked with this man about this exact issue: Gay rights and Black Civil Rights. He gets very angry at the comparison. And before you reject this, please understand that this man's feelings and life experiences are worth just as much as yours. His belief on this issue is very simple: He believes that his people suffered violence, government controlled anarchy and state-supported brutality to get those laws removed. And that's his people's struggle. The laws were actively enforced that kept his people in a state of oppression. This does not exist by a mile in the Gay community, statistically speaking. And the magnitude of the difference is a very real distinction and cannot be idly brushed aside. You could, of course, cite examples of violence against gays, but you cannot compare the preponderance of laws of forced discrimination and state-enforced suppression to Gay oppression. The one is a mighty oak and the other is a sappling.

4) I disagree, as have others, that rights attained in marriage by heterosexual couples are as numerous as you say. And rattling off a list of rights doesn't get at the heart of the matter. I acknowledge that there are many benefits, and some of them are quite special, but there aren't thousands.

Here's the root issue: You want to obtain a right that others have and are denied to you.

You are up against a mighty mountain, and you best be prepared to climb this mountain in order to obtain this right.

a) There are people, a large majority of people, that do not want to confer this right on you. You must deal with this.
b) Your statement of asserting that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, and also that marriage is a fundamental right to you does not logically nullify my statement that what you are asking for is minority thwarting the will of the majority; one does fly towards either anarchy or despotism when this happens. The only logical form of government is majority rule, kept in check with minority-protected rights. Gay marriage is not on that list.

5) Regarding the concept of giving up rights when one gets married, quoting this guy doesn't even come close to refuting Sowell. Basically, marriage in its fundamental form is a committment that requires effort. Yes, there are some benefits of marriage, but these are NOT RIGHTS. Benefits of marriage are certainly not rights. I'll point you back to the fundamental issue here, your wanting the right to marry, and keep that there as the right.

Let's consider the idea of social security. If my mother dies, my father doesn't get a dime of her social security, and vice versa. My mom cannot assign me or her other children as beneficiaries of her social security. But social security is not a right. You have to put into the fund to get money out of it. Furthermore, it's a welfare program as well as a pyramid scheme. It's not insurance. You can plan for you and your partner's retirement by doing just that: purchasing an insurance policy or some other investment vehicle, and you could even set up a trust fund of some kind. This gets us back to the concept of marriage being a responsibility. It is, just as a committed relationship is. And there are benefits and costs that flow from this committment. The right of marriage, once acted upon, does not yield new rights. They yield new benefits and costs.

To reconfigure your statement, you want the right of marriage, and the benefits obtained from that right. Now we have a better framing of the topic.

6) Your comments regarding my statement that having children is a responsibility and not a simple right, answering it with the rhetorical question: "And banning gay marriage helps this how?"

You've inverted the topic at hand. What you call banning gay marriage is not what the issue is. You want to gain the right of gay marriage. Very different thing there. But, as to your question, what does that have to do with the temperature of spit in China? We have two separate issues: a) having children is a responsibility, and b) gay marriage being attained.

This is the better statement: "Gay marriage will only strengthen those families, just as marriage is good for straights."

That is a good argument for gay marriage. But do not connect the words "banning gay marriage" with "children are a responsibility." You make better use of your logic when you say that getting the right to marry if you are gay strengthens families. That's a good argument.

7) I'm sorry to disagree, but gay marriage does yield societal acceptance, whether you want to admit that or not. Well, you actually did. You said that it it often confers neutrality. Well, right now, the American public mind has a negative attitude towards gay marriage, so going from negative to neutral is a huge leap.

But enough! If something is made legal, over time people will begin to tolerate the idea. How can you not see this? It's axiomatic. The quickest route to changing hearts is to make something legal. It sends people's bigotry into their private homes. Once something is legalized, overt bigotry does tend to melt away. As far as private bigotry, you'll never stomp that out; that's human nature. There'll always be people that hate others for no other reason than their race, color, lifestyle, etc.

8) A gay person getting married does upset people, regardless of you saying it doesn't. And this is a reality you must face if you are ever going to change people's minds. There are milllions of people in this country that view gay marriage as against their belief system. And you cannot dismiss the legitimacy of their beliefs just because you don't like what they believe.

9) Regardless of the changes you've outlined in our marriage laws, you'll note that all of them occured at an evolutionary pace, not a revolutionary pace. So, yes, our 2,000 years of marital laws have evolved, and they have evolved over a long period of time. I will simply say that if you want the right to get married, take your time, and understand that it may take many steps to accomplish. Just as it took a century from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Acts.

That's why I thought it might be helpful for you to go to an AME church. It might give you an idea of what others that have suffered have learned.

From what I am reading here of DL's responses it seems to me that his need for gay marriage to be made legal stems from fear of becoming subject to his hostile family should he become ill. That is why I suggest that, instead of lambasting a group of strangers in a blog comment section he and his significant other (I am assuming there is one) contact a lawyer and start drawing up whatever papers will insure that his belongings and person are protected from exploitation by his relations and other unfriendly parties. To any possible complaints about the onerousness of this burden of having to deal with dreary things like lawyers and papers (as if hetero marriage was all unicorns and candy) or that it's an unnecessary expense that he-and-she couples don't have to put out (because hets get everything for free when they hook up, right?) I suggest that it is hardly a difficult task to engage in or a financial burden for someone who claims to live in a "3 milion dollar loft."

Loving v. Virgina says marriage between a man and a woman is a fundmental right. Amazing how you always leave that part out. - Julie

Wow. Lawrence Summers was right. Women really do have smaller brains than men.

Since Julie is incapable of reading, I will quote Loving V. Virginia for her.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Nowhere does it say marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, it says "person". True, it does say "man", but "women" is not even mentioned.

Julie should take up something useful like knitting, rather than trying to debate Constitutional Law.

As for the story of your "friend" who couldn't make med decisions, I say, as a lawyer, bullshit.

Would you like to meet him Hobgoblin? Really, I'll introduce you.

You have proven yourself incapable of even debating the issues. The only thing you can do is attack.

Which proves how pathetic your argument is in the first place.

Lad you pedantic slut!

Marriage is INHERENTLY defined as man and woman, and the Loving court would have recognized it as such. Your proposed redefinition of marriage is so wholly alien to Western Cilivlization as to actually necessitate a new word.

Go twiddle your virtual thumbs elsewhere, if indeed you do have opposible digits.

And I suppose the pages of "reasoned debate" above are not showing up on your $5,000 computer in your $3 mil loft, right?

And my statement wasn't referring to the existence of your friend, but the viability of a power if attorney. Move the goalposts again, asshole.

I'll repost my "reasoned argument" for your perusal:

The reason gay marriage is such a big deal is that it is a harbinger of societal collapse.

My theory on why this is so is, briefly, that a vast majority of any population is not gay. (at least 95% in the current USA). Many, if not a majority of that 95% find homosexuality distasteful. In a society where gayness is celebrated on the part of a "civilized" elite, you thus have a large segment of the population (perhaps even a large majority) alienated from their own culture. This erodes the civic spirit and displaces the natural feelings of (non-jingoistic) patriotism and love of country that most folks bear for their homeland.

Remove that love of country and people will simply refuse to wage the millions of small battles against chaos that face any culture (from random adults scolding misbehaving children walking down the street [that used to happen a lot, it's virtually non-existent now] to people refusing to help the victim of violent crime when they witness it happening). People simply disconnect from society. Apathy is a culture's deadliest disease.

The procreation argument is bogus, as the California judge stated. You don't need to be married to procreate, and married people don't need to procreate.

And many gay people have children and many adopt.

The argument is not valid.

and FIE! on you Lad for making me defend julie.

bastard

Far be it from me to speak for Julie but I think she rightfully pointed out that your Loving v. Virgina argument is nothing but a strawman, DL, and you won't find anybody here stupid enough to fall for it. BTW, Seeing as you're an expert on constitutional law could you answer the question I posed to your familiar, Fargus: What part of the constitution do you think is being violated by a state that defines legal marriage as only being between a man and a woman?

the point is procreative relationships need to be protected and favored over non-procreative relationships.

you may disagree about the strength of the arguemt but to say the argument is invalid is a flat out lie.

Wow - Now you have Jesse Kirkehissing quoting Paul Cameron. You do know who Paul Cameron is right? He is a researcher who has been so discredited that he was thrown out of many professional organizations. His statsistics on gay people are flat out wrong.

He also publicly called for the extermination of gay people. That's right. He wants gay people to be slaughtered.

But I'm sure neo-Nazis like Jesse Kirkehissing are your new best friends.

And yes, divorce shold be made far more difficult from a societal perpetuation point of view

The reason could be (again, I'm purposefully hedging b/c I don't think anyone can know) that gay sex is a means of sexual pleasure that results in no net benefit to society (i.e. no new citizens). - hobgoblin

You might have a point there hobgoblin. The entire Catholic Church hierarchy, every nun, every priest and the Pope have produced ZERO offspring. That's right. ZERO.

So I guess they have "no net benefit to society".

hey - you said it. Not me.

Lad, why are you such an hysterical fucking asshole?

What the hell did I write under that comment? Huh?

I think Jesse is a troll or an agent provocateur from teh other end of the spectrum.

You fucking tool.

As log cabin put it, you're a drama queen. Get the fuck out of here, Bobby Trendy.

Wow, first I'm Fargus. Now I'm Jesse. Geez - I really don't get any sleep, do I?

But I guess if I'm a satanic anti-Christ (too bad I'm agnostic) I don't need sleep.

Hobgoblin needs to take his lithium tablet. He's obviously hallucinating again.

Lad a/k/a Senor Goalpost Mover

THAT'S why society doesn't LICENSE the priest-penitent relationship. The relationship doesn't P-E-R-P-E-T-U-A-T-E society.

There, does spelling it out help?

Tool

It wouldn't be out of character for someone so fond of, shall we say, shading the truth?

And FYI Drama Lad, I think if anyone was "Jesse" it was our own pet troll Cedarford. I never alleged you were "Jesse" in the least.

But that's OK, cuz I hate you cuz yur ghey, right?

Man, for $3 mil, that loft seems like an awful boring place.

Two quotes from Downtown Laddie:

1. "If we want to have some fun though we need to plant the idea in this thread that Downtown Lad is a neocon Jewish banker." - Brewfan (particularly distateful since I am a neocon Jewish banker and I consider this statement antisemetic to boot"

2."But I guess if I'm a satanic anti-Christ (too bad I'm agnostic) I don't need sleep."

So what are you, Drama Lad? You appear to be "Jewish" only when someone says something that would offend Jews.

Then again, you state you are agnostic, so why be offended by Brewfan's statement? (Which, technically, wasn't even directed at you, but at the well known anti-semetism of the other troll who frequents here..aka Cedarford).

Just looking to be victimized at every turn? Or is religion as disposible to you as your boy toy's when some wealthier "friend" comes along?

Or is this some sort of masochistic "the world is against me at every turn" fetish that you are indulging in?

KCTrio,

You are the only decent guy on this thread, but you sure do write some long fucking posts....

1) You mentioned nothing about my post on Jackson's

Jackson can do what he wants, but I disagree with it. Jackson's job as the head of the "executive" branch is to enforce the law. He should be free to not enforce laws if he so chooses. The Supreme Court job is to interpret the law. But conservatives seem to have a problem when other executives, um let's say Gavin Newsome, interpret the law the way they see fit, say by marrying people of the same sex. Remember how the conservatives went running to the court on that one. (Note - I don't agree with what Newsome did)

2) Regarding your comments about smoking. How convenient.

I find it ironic that you willfully admit rights that I have were taken away, but the government had the right to do so, and you justify it with the second-hand smoke argument. Do you not see the irony in this?

Let's take a look, shall we? You seem to have a rather interesting outlook on rights. One, that they are immutable, and two, you personalize them all. That's odd because rights are concepts, and they only become personalized once you employ them. I have a right to bear arms, but I don't have a gun, so I don't personalize that right. To each his own, I suppose. Moving on, if you hold rights to be sacred, and the erosion of rights to be repugnant, then you must only allow the diminishing of rights when to do so serves a greater good. The second-hand smoke argument works up to a point, and that point stops at public places. But what about the bar owner that wants to open a place of business and puts a big sign on the door that reads "Smoking Allowed in This Bar." Then you won't have to breathe the 2nd-hand smoke, and you are free to ignore that bar and go to the one that disallows smoking. Isn't that a better way to protect the right and not diminish it?

For the record, I do understand the non-smoking rules, because people don't like it. I've always gone out of my way to avoid smoking around anyone, inside or out of doors, that isn't also a smoker, out of respect for the fact that to non-smokers, cigarettes smell like shit.

But when the day comes where I can no longer smoke in my home, I'll be after all you fuckers that put that mob-rule law into effect.

So I would ask you to rethink your position on this. Enough said, as you stated, is not good enough to dismiss the loss of my rights as a smoker based solely on second-hand smoke. There's more to this issue. I would think that if you are a true lover of liberty, then you would fight fiercely for my rights as a smoker (or someone else's right to property) as you are fighting to obtain rights that you say you don't currently have.

To turn things around, how would you like it if someone argued "Marriage is between a man and a woman, not for gays. Nuff said"? Well, that's what you've been on about regarding your right to marriage that you so desire, but that's what you did with my right to smoke.

The government has the right to ban smoking just like they have the right to ban any drug. Smokers don't exist as a people. If the government were to ban smoking, it would affect ALL people. Nobody could smoke. It would be the equivalent of the government banning marriage for BOTH straights and gays.

Smoking, unlike being gay, IS a choice.

By the way, I opposed Bloomberg's smoking laws

3) I've talked with this man about this exact issue: Gay rights and Black Civil Rights. He gets very angry at the comparison. And before you reject this, please understand that this man's feelings and life experiences are worth just as much as yours. His belief on this issue is very simple: He believes that his people suffered violence, government controlled anarchy and state-supported brutality to get those laws removed. And that's his people's struggle. The laws were actively enforced that kept his people in a state of oppression. This does not exist by a mile in the Gay community, statistically speaking. And the magnitude of the difference is a very real distinction and cannot be idly brushed aside. You could, of course, cite examples of violence against gays, but you cannot compare the preponderance of laws of forced discrimination and state-enforced suppression to Gay oppression. The one is a mighty oak and the other is a sappling.

Go to church? Not in a million years.

I suggest you do some reading on the Holocaust. You know they targeted gay people for extinction, don't you? I think your black minister knows zero about the plight of gay people.

I have no problem stating that it is much easier to be black in today's American than it is to be gay. I can't speak for myself, but my black gay friends have vouched for this.

Even if you don't equate them, discrimination is wrong.

4) I disagree, as have others, that rights attained in marriage by heterosexual couples are as numerous as you say. And rattling off a list of rights doesn't get at the heart of the matter. I acknowledge that there are many benefits, and some of them are quite special, but there aren't thousands.

That's nice that you disagree, but you're wrong. Here's a website on it:

http://www.fripro.com/GLBT13.html

If you do a little research, you can actually get a pdf of the entire list, which I've seen before.

a) There are people, a large majority of people, that do not want to confer this right on you. You must deal with this.

I am dealing with it. And we're using the courts. No different than the Civil Rights Struggle, which relied extensively on the courts.

b) Your statement of asserting that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, and also that marriage is a fundamental right to you does not logically nullify my statement that what you are asking for is minority thwarting the will of the majority; one does fly towards either anarchy or despotism when this happens. The only logical form of government is majority rule, kept in check with minority-protected rights. Gay marriage is not on that list.

We shall see. Many courts do see gay marriage on that list.

5) Regarding the concept of giving up rights when one gets married, quoting this guy doesn't even come close to refuting Sowell. Basically, marriage in its fundamental form is a committment that requires effort. Yes, there are some benefits of marriage, but these are NOT RIGHTS. Benefits of marriage are certainly not rights. I'll point you back to the fundamental issue here, your wanting the right to marry, and keep that there as the right.

Let's consider the idea of social security. If my mother dies, my father doesn't get a dime of her social security, and vice versa. My mom cannot assign me or her other children as beneficiaries of her social security. But social security is not a right. You have to put into the fund to get money out of it. Furthermore, it's a welfare program as well as a pyramid scheme. It's not insurance. You can plan for you and your partner's retirement by doing just that: purchasing an insurance policy or some other investment vehicle, and you could even set up a trust fund of some kind. This gets us back to the concept of marriage being a responsibility. It is, just as a committed relationship is. And there are benefits and costs that flow from this committment. The right of marriage, once acted upon, does not yield new rights. They yield new benefits and costs.

To reconfigure your statement, you want the right of marriage, and the benefits obtained from that right. Now we have a better framing of the topic.

I'm pretty certain I'd be paying more in taxes if the government let me get married. Regardless, the benefits outweigh the costs.

I'm not a liberal. I don't favor Social Security. I'm happy to see poor people starve to death, the lazy mother fuckers. (that's a joke - kind of)

6) Your comments regarding my statement that having children is a responsibility and not a simple right, answering it with the rhetorical question: "And banning gay marriage helps this how?"

You've inverted the topic at hand. What you call banning gay marriage is not what the issue is. You want to gain the right of gay marriage. Very different thing there. But, as to your question, what does that have to do with the temperature of spit in China? We have two separate issues: a) having children is a responsibility, and b) gay marriage being attained.

This is the better statement: "Gay marriage will only strengthen those families, just as marriage is good for straights."

That is a good argument for gay marriage. But do not connect the words "banning gay marriage" with "children are a responsibility." You make better use of your logic when you say that getting the right to marry if you are gay strengthens families. That's a good argument.

Of course. Banning gay marriage enccourages gay promiscuity. And more gay sex!

7) I'm sorry to disagree, but gay marriage does yield societal acceptance, whether you want to admit that or not. Well, you actually did. You said that it it often confers neutrality. Well, right now, the American public mind has a negative attitude towards gay marriage, so going from negative to neutral is a huge leap.

But enough! If something is made legal, over time people will begin to tolerate the idea. How can you not see this? It's axiomatic. The quickest route to changing hearts is to make something legal. It sends people's bigotry into their private homes. Once something is legalized, overt bigotry does tend to melt away. As far as private bigotry, you'll never stomp that out; that's human nature. There'll always be people that hate others for no other reason than their race, color, lifestyle, etc.

I'm all for private bigotry. If the Catholic Church wants to be bigoted in public or private, that's their prerogative. I don't try to stop them.

8) A gay person getting married does upset people, regardless of you saying it doesn't. And this is a reality you must face if you are ever going to change people's minds. There are milllions of people in this country that view gay marriage as against their belief system. And you cannot dismiss the legitimacy of their beliefs just because you don't like what they believe.

And PETA gets upset when you have a Big Mac. I can actually understand PETA's point of view more than these other people who are getting upset that Jack and Steve got hitched. PETA is upset for the dead cow (mmmmm, cow) while these other people are upset, why? Why are they upset that Jack and Steve have committed to each other for life, rather than just going to say gay bar to pick up some random dude?

9) Regardless of the changes you've outlined in our marriage laws, you'll note that all of them occured at an evolutionary pace, not a revolutionary pace. So, yes, our 2,000 years of marital laws have evolved, and they have evolved over a long period of time. I will simply say that if you want the right to get married, take your time, and understand that it may take many steps to accomplish. Just as it took a century from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Acts.

That's why I thought it might be helpful for you to go to an AME church. It might give you an idea of what others that have suffered have learned.

Like that church would let an openly gay person in? cmon.

Jack M. proves himself to be a complete moron again.

Judaism is an ethnic group in addition to being a religion.

The Nazis didn't just kill practicing Jews. They killed ethnic Jews. They killed people who were 1/8th Jewish, who were practicing Christians.

So yes, I'm Jewish as well as agnostic. Just like 50% of the Jews in this country.

Downtown Lad:

I have given my response as promised, hopefully to your liking (thoughtful, meaningful, bereft of slander, not necessary that you have to agree), and would welcome your rebuttal.

Whenever you find the time, if you should so choose, fire away.

DT:

Deep-six the previous post, you beat me to the punch.

Downtown Lad,

Thanks for the clarification. It's bad enough you feel persecuted about your sexual status. I would hate for you to think that people were persecuting you based on your religious beliefs too. That's at least one cross we won't have to witness you bearing.

However, in the context of my post, I made it clear that I was referring to "Judaism" in it's strictly religious sense. Your public statements left that a reasonable interpretation. Thus, the seeming incongruity of your objection to Brewfan's remark (here's another clue for you..Cedartroll seems to hate the Joooos whether they are classified as an "ethnic group" or whether they are people who observe the religious tenets) and your later claim of the shield of agnosticism.

Now I'm gonna go talk to my girlfriend about getting married. Not that I have any intention of doing so, mind you, but just, you know, because I can.

Downtown Lad:

You seem to lack empathy for others that don't harbor your point of view. For instance, you slandered 20%-25% of the US population that is Catholic by calling them bigoted.

May I ask why you do this? By engaging in this language, you are doing the exact thing that you despise; lacking empathy for your fellow man, you look at the Church from the outside and throw bombs of criticism at it and its members.

If you were to simply try to empathize with those that do not want to allow society to confer the right of gay marriage, perhaps you would not be so bigoted towards them. You might actually say, "I disagree with the Catholic Church, but I respect their belief." You could even go further by being tolerant of Catholics. Is not tolerance what you are trying to achieve? If it is, then surely it must be bilateral tolerance.

Finaly, regarding Jackson. You missed the point entirely. What he was saying was that society, through their elected officials, was 4:1 against a National Bank. So was the Executive. He was conveying the fact that Supreme Court decisions do not reach the level of settled judgment on a given issue until it has been shown that the majority has accepted such judgment.

That applies directly to this issue. Again, we find that the vast majority of Americans do not want to allow gay marriage. We also find that it is a debate that is still in great flux. Time, sensitivity and patience will be the keys for you to achieve such a massive goal as yours. If you try and thrust this desire of yours on your fellow man through radical change, there are options that will follow, and you'll set your movement back years further than you had foreseen.

This will happen in either one of two ways:

1) There will be an amendment to the US Constitution regarding this issue, and then it will be a dead issue for years; or,
2) The Congress will pass a law that will state that the Supreme Court will not have jurisdiction over this issue. That option is swift, legal and deadly. Once that law is passed, your desire to attain this right will be over.

That's what people do when a minority tries to thwart the will of the majority through judicial activism. The majority gets mad and will demand the second option above.

If you are curious, guess where I stand on this issue?

Would anyone like another one of my dirty songs, free of gay-bashing, but filled with filth? If you'd like, simply say "yes," or "hell no."

Just let me know and I'll oblige or resist.

"Now I'm gonna go talk to my girlfriend about getting married. Not that I have any intention of doing so, mind you, but just, you know, because I can"

Sweet!! The best bitch slap in this thread you mean ol' homophobe you!

BrewFan:

Bitch slap? Homo(phobe)? Sweet? Mean? Two "!!" All your missing is a little heart, or "love and kisses."

I knew you were a closet girlyman. And you're into violent acts, no less, but tenerly done, I suppose.

That's what DL does. Words out of context.

You fuckin' homo-hater.

DL:
I guess you missed the references to man and wife. Wife, being female. Loving struck down the law because it denied EP to interracial married couples. The Ct. did not strike it down because the law in question defined marriage as that between a man and wife, which in your idiotic mind, is a denial of EP. If the Ct. wanted to define marriage as anything other than "man and wife", they would have done so.

Go right ahead seeing and reading only what you want to in the law. All you achieved last fall is making a number of states change their constitutions to not only prohibit gay marriage, but gay civil unions, too.

Hobgoblin: Go fuck yourself.

Jeee-sus!
You people are still at it over here?

Why don't you starve that thing.

Lauraw:

Can't you tell male bonding when you see it?

Can't you just feel the love? This is our mating ritual. We can't resist. We're hard wired that way. Jung was right all along. This is simply a cultural male archetype.

But I don't know quite where to file the "Go fuck yourself" post by Julie. Perhaps you've got some insight into that one. Not on a personal level, but on a gender level. You know, only sweeping generalizations of large masses of people is where the truth lies.

Help us here, my dear.

I’ve been neutrally observing this web-thread, and I have to interject that I agree with Mr. Jesse Kirkhissing.

1) Clearly the 2,500 homosexual marriages/unions in Massachusetts last year is approaching the steady state final number, since it comprises a long backlog of people who have had so called "committed relationships" for a long time and wanted to obtain recognition and free subsidies from the government. Even Vermont, with a general population of 600,000 only had a measly 1,000 civil unions of state residents after four years to register (as compared with the 300,000 normal heterosexuals registered as married).

Again, for a group that claims 10% of the general population, they can only muster a measly 1% of their population for civil unions compared to greater than 50% of normal heterosexual population that is married. Of course, the other explanation for the very few registered civil unions is that the gay population is dramatically over estimated. But why would delusional militant activists do such a thing (and why would the MSM parrot such info)?

Part of the homosexual fraud is buying into the gay propaganda myth and delusion that the homosexual population is much larger and therefore normal. This myth was generated by Alfred Kinsey who did not disclose to the public that he based his gay population studies on (non scientific method) prison samples. Yes, one supposes that 10% of the prison population engages in homosexual sex.

This delusion of 10% allows homosexuals to hide from the fact that they are really 2% of the population, and that there are only 3 million adult homosexual men in the US out of 115 million adult men. Using the US Centers of disease numbers of 250,000 dead male homosexuals in the US from lethal STDs and another 180,000 male homosexuals currently infected with HIV/AIDs (reported), and another 180,000 male homosexuals currently infected with HIV/AIDS (non-reported). That’s an infection rate of 26% among the male US homosexual population, as compared to less than 1% for the non-male US homosexual population. Most of these cases are concentrated in large cities where homosexual migration occurs for community and easy access to convenient sex.

By supporting the fraudulent numbers propagated by delusional activists, this has allowed the epidemic to spread dramatically and fast, with no end in sight. By not being truthful, activists and enablers are killing thousands of people which is selfish, cruel, callous (and definitely not an act of love).

2) One has to adamantly disagree with your whole entire range of arguments. You all argue as if we live in a world without cause and effect and there are no risks/probabilities surrounding the cause and effect.

Assigning rights, rules, morality without addressing cause and effect and natural law is classic failed liberal reasoning at its worst. The fact that male homosexuals in the US account for 60% of all HIV/AIDS cases (or 250,000 out of 460,000 deaths), and are 250 TIMES more likely to get lethal STDs than their so called equal heterosexual counterparts is not irrelevant to the general population which has an invested interest in the health, safety, and security of the community, including over life style choices and behaviors.

There is a large segment of society who does not want to be forced to support or subsidize dangerous and unnatural behavior that results in dramatically increased risks to health, safety, and security. 250,000 killed by gay delusions and lethal STDs is the real world, for the rest of us.

I find it interesting homosexual activists claim they do not others to impose their beliefs on them, but at the same time do not hesitate imposing their beliefs and higher risks onto others, specially those who do not buy into their fraud. But here we are having to support and subsidize behavior that has resulted in an epidemic of death and destruction.

Again, for those bad in math, what activists and liberals are saying is that a one story building is the same as a 250 story building. Clearly, even a child can understand that 250 TIMES more dangerous is a much greater risk compared to 1 or 2 times or even 5 times. Could you imagine insurance companies, or Las Vegas casinos ignoring such odds? But liberal delusionists and enablers do just that.

I also find it interesting that they conveniently pick and choose which causes and effects to assign rights, rules, and morality, as if nature and the real world discriminates as conveniently as the way that they do with their pretzel logic and delusions.

I agree with Jesse, the US Centers for Disease and Prevention is a very accurate and alarming wake up call to how in the real world homosexual behavior constitute a major health and safety risk, resulting in a crisis of killing hundreds of thousands through uncontrolled urges/impulses and misinformation by homosexual activists.

3) I beg to differ that homosexuality is not a sexual disorder. I find it interested, when the patients take over the insane asylum and start diagnosing the doctors. Technically, they suffer from various forms of GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER.

My favorite gay pretzel logic is the one where transvestites need “modern technology” (for sex change operations) to feel normal and natural. If it was so normal and natural, then why do they need modern technology to feel normal and natural?

One can ignore the mountains of medical and biological data showing that homosexuality clearly is a sexual disorder, but it does not change the facts or change the truth. Either does name calling opponents by labeling them kooks or homophobes, or projecting hate towards those who feel they must speak the truth, or trying to discredit those who do not say what homosexual activists want to hear (to satisfy their delusions).

I also laugh at the APA/AMA which is so corrupt and fearful of the homosexual lobby that not only have they normalized homosexual behavior, they’ve normalized all of if its subsets of deviancy including gay “bug chasers”…that is, homosexual men who seek lethal STDs for erotic satisfaction. Yes, very normal and healthy behavior, so says the best minds at the APA/AMA (and their enablers in society).

Also, FYI, the APA/AMA has even now downgraded pedophilia in their diagnostic manuals...because they are worried more about distressing child molestors than the victims of molesters created by not treating them or putting them away for life in prison. And people say that the gay agenda is harmless.

4) Regarding morality, lets compare the total death score in the real world (rather than the fantasy world of activists and enablers):

- 3,000 people killed from terrorist blowing up the World Trade Center
- 1500 US soldiers killed ridding the world of Saddam Insane and freeing the Iraqi People
- 55,000 dead Gis from fighting communism in Vietnam
- 250,000 dead gay males in the US from lethal gay STDs from engaging in gay sex for gay orgasm and gay liberation.

The death toll from killing appears to be very un-gay and very sad. That is, if one really cares about people and human suffering.

My favorite moral lapse ignored by homosexual activists and enablers is all the gay men with HIV/AIDS who give it to young male adults/teenagers (through mentoring). This happens so frequently, but yet not one arrest has been made ever or compensation for injury or death.

STOP THE KILLING NOW. KILLING FOR SEX IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT!

Sincerely,

Rock Hudson's Son