Ruth Institute Blog

Feder’s “shock value” is more likely for the purpose of selling books. Who is against families, exactly? Not gay people; they want to create and protect their families, including their children. Getting marriage would help, in that regard!

Sean,

Your comment reminds me of a show I saw recently. It was a kids show. A child didn’t want to eat their vegetables, so the parents decided to re-define “Ice Cream” to mean vegetables. When the child objected to eating the newly categorized vegetables, the parents quipped, “So when did you start hating Ice Cream?”

If you don’t appreciate what people consider a family, where the mother and father show mutual love and tolerance in support of the children they have together, then be honest. If marriage cannot serve to support marriage equality — the equal recognition of each gender’s rights and responsibilities for the children they potentially create — because that is too heterocentric, then what can?

Just because you call something else by the same name, doesn’t mean that you aren’t removing the very value people see in the responsibility parents take for the children they create together.

So simply be honest. Is a family best served with marriage equality — where that equality is specifically defined as being between the two people who combine to potentially create a child — or is it best served by removing that equality for the sake of those that wish to segregate against a gender in their relationship. If you agree with the latter, you do so at the cost of the former.

On lawn: The nuclear family (one man and one woman with 2.5 children) is NOT the only kind of family out there. I deal with families made up of children and a single parent, two women or men with children, grandparents raising children and a whole variety of families.

Or, to quote directly from the American Academy of Family Physicians: “The family is a group of individuals with a continuing legal, genetic and/or emotional relationship. Society relies on the family group to provide for the economic and protective needs of individuals, especially children and the elderly”. Note that genetic relationship is only one type mentioned

I deal with families made up of children and a single parent, two women or men with children, grandparents raising children and a whole variety of families.

And let me guess, it is only a subset of those that you would consider marriages.

I, for one, moved in with my parents to help raise my children while my wife suffered from serious health issues. Is that a marriage? I know of two guy friends who banded together after divorces to raise their children together. Is that a marriage? I know of a mother and daughter who banded together to raise the daughter’s children. Is that a marriage? I know of a woman who moved in with an elderly couple, for the same reason. Is that a marriage?

Each of those relationships were committed, even moreso than many marriages I’ve seen.

I know of people who consider their pets to be part of the family…

So simply be honest. Is a family best served with marriage equality — where that equality is specifically defined as being between the two people who combine to potentially create a child — or is it best served by removing that equality for the sake of those that wish to segregate against a gender in their relationship. If you agree with the latter, you do so at the cost of the former.

OnLawn, you have a limited understanding of what a family is! Try to get out more! What would you call two lesbians in a committed relationship raising two boys in a house down the street from you? Aliens from outer space? Would you actually tell them to their face that they’re not a family?

And do explain that, with all the research that shows children do better with married parents, why you are comfortable letting the children of same-sex parents be raised by unwed parents? I thought it was a bad thing to raise children out of wedlock! For once, try to think of the needs of the children, ok?

Sean: OnLawn, you have a limited understanding of what a family is!

Oh, howso?

Sean: What would you call two lesbians in a committed relationship raising two boys in a house down the street from you?

Again, if you think from what I’ve written that they shouldn’t be called a family, it is your own reading comprehension that is at fault.

Hmmm, I seem to have won the debate, since now you can’t help but pretend to debate someone else other than myself

Sean: with all the research that shows children do better with married parents

I remember a story where the office of education was going to redefine ketchup as a fresh vegetable, so that children would be eating more healthy vegetables.

If you ask me, the aspects of marriage that would help children are already offered in DP’s. Is there anything that DP’s could not address to help those situations?

And why do you keep saying “same-sex” parents when you only mean those that are gay? If the benefits of marriage help a gay couple, wouldn’t they help the committed non-sexual couple as well?

Its time, in all your snarkyness, and in all your efforts to misunderstand my position, to be more honest with yours.

On Lawn Ah, the spin continues. You and so many of the other posters on this site, continue to mix and swirl from topic to topic when attempting to support your outdated view. My comments were directed at your narrow view of what a family is, not just at marriage. They are two separate, occasionally intersection, relationships.

You try so hard to try to make the point that marriage is better for children if you have one of each sex but have no proof that this is the case. Studies do show that same sex couples do quite well at raising children. Even as well as OSM.

And, the proper term is same-sex parents. It incorporates both gay and lesbian couples.

And why does it always come down to sex with you? Are all OSM couples sexually active? And a man and a woman can be committed to raising children together and, as you mentioned, it doesn’t make them married. The same arguments you use to discredit SSM can be used to discredit OSM.

The sad part of all this is: your definition is restricted to one man/one woman so all the rest (the studies and the truth) are meaningless to you. If an OSM couple beat their children, it would still be a superior relationship to a SSM family in your eyes. Fortunately, you ideas will go the way of the model T, just as ideas of miscegenation have gone.

Mark: Ah, the spin continues.

Howso?

My comments were directed at your narrow view of what a family is, not just at marriage.

And what is my narrow view of family.

You try so hard to try to make the point that marriage is better for children if you have one of each sex but have no proof that this is the case.

That is your poor reading comprehension again. I’ve argued that children do better when raised by their parents — the ones who combined to create their identity — within marriage. I even pointed out that is a subset of what you call “OSM”, which includes step-families and co-habiting families who are shown (OSM or not) to be less advantaged for children.

I know you’ve read me say that, now the question is when you’ll comprehend what that means.

Studies do show that same sex couples do quite well at raising children.

It shows they can, but then so can single parents for that matter.

And, the proper term is same-sex parents. It incorporates both gay and lesbian couples.

Yet your “proper term” includes more than homosexual couples. Two sisters may not be gay, but they can be the same-sex parents as much as any lesbian couple can. Why do you treat them like second class “same-sex” parents?

And why does it always come down to sex with you?

I think you are having reading comprehension problems again…

And a man and a woman can be committed to raising children together and, as you mentioned, it doesn’t make them married.

Now you are just slap-happy. Of course raising children together doesn’t make a couple married. I think you need a break.

your definition is restricted to one man/one woman so all the rest (the studies and the truth) are meaningless to you

I’d worry more about what your own opinion is saying. Trying to create strawmen out of my opinion just makes me question your reading comprehension.

If an OSM couple beat their children, it would still be a superior relationship to a SSM family in your eyes.

Again, that is just a misreading. If you want my opinion on it, why not ask?

My opinion is that nothing hurts a child quite like abuse from the person they share an identity with. Marriage isn’t about loving anyone you want to, but focusing your love, tolerance and support to the people who are most entitled to it … the person you combined to create the child with and the child themselves.

Marriage isn’t about beating your children after all.

On lawn:
“I’ve argued that children do better when raised by their parents — the ones who combined to create their identity — within marriage.”
Yet, sadly, have failed to show any proof of it. Just the the supporters of Prop8.

And the term “same-sex parents” (outside of this fantasy land of a blog) does not refer to “two sisters”. But keep misusing terms. It only makes you look more clueless.

“It shows they can, but then so can single parents for that matter.”
Hm, interesting that you now agree with something you have disagreed with in the past. Perhaps you need to read some of your own previous posts.

You know, when you don’t understand someones response, it doesn’t mean that THEY have “comprehension problems”. But, keep using that phrase. Its a safe out for you.

As far as the circular argument is concerned, it involves procreation. Procreation can’t be central to a definition of marriage, otherwise, if someone doesn’t procreate, they can’t be considered married. But that’s what you keep repeating except when there is an exception to that rule.

I think it’s great that same-sex couples are willing to take on the burden of unwanted children that straight people created. Same-sex parents can be just as good at parenting at opposite-sex parents.

Sean, all who adopt have adopted children born equal, of a man and a woman.

When you say, same-sex parents, do you mean parents who are the same sex as their children? Or do you mean to impart something else? Surely, you would not make same-sex parenting all about same sex sexual behavior.

Likewise what do you mean precisely by “same-sex couples”? Why “same-sex” and why “couples”?

I am serious. If you mean something more specific, why would you not use a more specific descriptor?

Mark: Yet, sadly, have failed to show any proof of it.

How do you know? When I show a review of many studies that show that fact, you ran away from it.

Mark: And the term “same-sex parents” (outside of this fantasy land of a blog) does not refer to “two sisters”.

Why not? Are you just bigoted against them?

Mark: Hm, interesting that you now agree with something you have disagreed with in the past. Perhaps you need to read some of your own previous posts.

I don’t think I have, I think you’re throwing more misunderstanding against a wall and seeing what sticks because you are out of options. So prove me wrong, show me the contradiction

Mark: Procreation can’t be central to a definition of marriage, otherwise, if someone doesn’t procreate [...]

Bad logic. Marriage, like car insurance, is about taking responsibility for something that could potentially happen when engaging is a behavior where it could be reasonably expected.

Accidents can’t be central to the definition of car insurance, otherwise, if someone doesn’t get into an accident they can’t be insured! But that’s what you keep repeating except when there is an exception to that rule.

Sean: Same-sex parents can be just as good at parenting at opposite-sex parents.

Do you agree with Mark that two sisters cannot be considered “same-sex parents”, and do you think they could not be just as good at parenting as a lesbian couple?

Chairm: Really, you don’t understand the term “same-sex couples” but you continue to use “responsible procreation” and “homosexualization” and “sexual integration”? You really must read more.

Sean, this is just a ploy to confuse and strawman the subject. And, when you use terms like gay and lesbian, Chairm will launch off into another diversion.

Same-sex couples are couples composed of two people of the same sex. Therefore, same-sex parenting is “parenting done by two people of the same sex.”

You’re serious? Really?

“Last night, federal district court Judge Virginia Phillips declared that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional. Following federal court rulings on Proposition 8 in August and the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in July, Judge Phillips’ decision is the third federal court ruling in as many months to find statutory limitations on the rights of LGBT Americans unconstitutional.”

Looks like gay folks are full citizens after all. And looks like marriage discrimination’s days are numbered!

Sean, so you would drop your gaycentric emphasis when referring to two people of the same sex engaged in parenting. And the notion of couple does not mean a sexualized context between the two people. Thank you for clarifying.

Sean said: “And looks like marriage discrimination’s days are numbered!”

Do you mean that society would not discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage? If so, then, on this we could agree — that is where the SSM idea would take society.

Mark,

It is funny to see you accuse Chairm of being confused, after the long line of misrepresentations and misunderstandings that have been documented in this forum.

No big deal, but does deserve a chuckle.

But beware of Chairm. He may lack the brain power and is confused at your terms, but if you clarify he’s got you in his deviously genious trap!

Now that deserved quite a bit more than a chuckle!

The question remains, are two people (hence a couple) who are the same sex (both males or both females) not a same-sex couple if they are not gay? If not, why do you exclude them?

That is directed to both Mark and Sean…

Chairm, I mean that the ongoing move toward marriage equality continues to gather steam. Soon enough, opposite-sex and same-sex couples will enjoy marital bliss identically and equally.

Society may very well continue to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage, but not between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

OnLawn, you don’t have to be gay to be a same-sex couple. You don’t have to be straight to be an opposite-sex couple. But knowing what we know of human sexuality and why people marry, it’s a safe bet that when a same-sex couple shows up for a marriage license, it’s a gay couple, or at least a couple having sexual relations. When an opposite-sex couple shows up for said marriage license, it’s a straight couple, or at least a couple having sexual relations.

Be careful about dwelling on “gayness,” Chairm doesn’t approve of that sort of thing.

I mean that the ongoing move toward marriage equality continues to gather steam.

You mean marriage equality, as in between the two people who combine to create a child as well as that child, or changing the definition of marriage to mean as little as possible so anyone can consider themselves married as possible?

Soon enough, opposite-sex and same-sex couples will enjoy marital bliss identically and equally.

Unfortunately, like most acts of fraud the people who are harmed the most are those that buy into the fraud.

For the same-sex couples, they will not enjoy the same bliss as the people who choose to love, honor and cherish someone from the other gender, so both genders are considered equally represented in the marriage. They will not share the joy of integration, or the joy of how a child litterally embodies that integration as a new human being. That is a tangible loss.

But the damage goes deeper. For the married couples who believe their relationship is identical to a same-sex couple, they will believe that the children who they might have are raised by any two people as well as they might. They might believe that marriage is about who you love, not who you should love, and divorce quicker and easier. The outcomes of people who treat their marriage as lightly as same-sex couples tell them they should by denying the root and anchor in responsible procreation in marriage, is going to be most tragic for women (who are more often left holding the responsibility for children) and the children themselves.

You can celebrate that as marriage equality, but we know it is the opposite. No divorced couple has ever found equality, both feel shafted in the deal. Only with integration can real equality be made between the man and the woman for the sake of the child who shares their identity. And that is what marriage is meant to protect and encourage.

Society may very well continue to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage, but not between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Which is the same thing as saying non-discrimination between marriage (which is based in equal gender representation) and non-marriage (which isn’t).

you don’t have to be gay to be a same-sex couple.

But are expected to be sexually active? Why is that a requirement or even expectation for two sisters raising a niece together to be included with gays in avoiding the tangible loss of not being married?

Or are you saying that if two Aunts do file for DP’s or marriage, they shouldn’t be denied?

If you want to pull cultural expectation, I’ll remind you that marriage referendum after marriage referendum has shown that the cultural expectation of marriage is the representation of both genders in each marriage. Do you support that exercise of cultural expectation for the definition of marriage?

Just asking…

Sean, whether or not I or anyone else approves, you are on the record with that gaycentric emphasis, as per your latest comment. You are not alone, of course, since that is the overt emphasis of the SSM campaign and its political agenda.

You’d rely on “a safe bet” when it comes to your lenient view of your own vague SSM idea, but you do not rely on making “a safe bet” when it comes to procreation. No you’d go to extremes to paint a fanstasy in which society makes a bet against it.

In your Fertility Strawman argument you would have Government treat all unions of husband and wife as nonfertile — like the one-sexed arrangement — until proven fertile by having lots of coital relations, conceving, and carrying pregnacy to birth. If Government does not go to such extremes, you said, then, provsion for responsible procreation is not central to marriage. If Government does undertake intrusive measures to weed out the people who experience the disablity of infertlity, you said, then, the vast majority of marriages must be deemed bereft of the provision for responsible procreation. All of these unions must be treated exactly like the nonfertile, the always nonfertile, the no-exception nonfertile same-sex category.

Why? Because you’d make a soft safe bet on gayness for SSM.

It turns out, however, that according to you, the SSM idea when translated into a licensing scheme is not very gay at all, despite your gaycentric emphasis. So you are left without justification for any sort of special status based on same-sex sexual behavior. But your latest comment depends utterly on such behavior — based on appearances that you imagine to be of the utmost importance.

Meanwhile the man-woman sexual basis for marriage justifies the special status of marriage, the licensing scheme for entery to that status, and the eligiblity/ineligiblity boundaries around the core meaning of the social institution.

That has been a safe bet for millennia and a much grander bet made by civlizations across the anthropological and historical records. What you propose is retrograde: you’d reinstitute the supremacy of identity politics not only in the law of marriage but also in constitutional jurisprudence and in the cultural view of how society organizes itself.

Typooo correction: “If Government does not undertake intrusive measures to weed out the people who experience the disablity of infertlity, you said, then, the vast majority of marriages must be deemed bereft of the provision for responsible procreation.”

I’d add:

In other words, to defend what makes marriage a fundamental right, you’d expect Government to undertake a wide range of profoundly unconstitutional measures against those who’d exercise that fundamental right.

I thought this was a pretty funny response to an article about how same-sex marriage would destroy civilization:

“To all the people living and enjoying American Civilization. You have one week to deposit $10 billion dollars into my bank account our I will marry another man. To show you that I am serious I am now a resident of Connecticut where his is legal. The clock starts now!”

“For the same-sex couples, they will not enjoy the same bliss as the people who choose to love, honor and cherish someone from the other gender, so both genders are considered equally represented in the marriage. They will not share the joy of integration, or the joy of how a child literally embodies that integration as a new human being. That is a tangible loss.”

Gay people can love, honor and cherish someone from the same gender. It’s still a different person. I mean, we’re not talking about marrying yourself! The “diversity” schtick doesn’t jibe either. Gender diversity is nice but so is racial diversity. Should we limit marriage to mixed-race couples?

The ‘joy of integration’? Huh?

Still beating the dead procreation horse, eh? I think you should apologize to all the childless opposite-sex couples you persistently demean. And while you’re at it, why not apologize to all the children of same-sex couples who are being reared outside of wedlock, thanks to people like you.

“You can celebrate that as marriage equality, but we know it is the opposite.”

“We”? Who is “we”?

“I’ll remind you that marriage referendum after marriage referendum has shown that the cultural expectation of marriage is the representation of both genders in each marriage. Do you support that exercise of cultural expectation for the definition of marriage?”

I disagree. I think marriage referendums demonstrate animosity towards gays and lesbians, as well as archaic and legally inappropriate religious belief. Therefore, I do not support popular inputs into determining who may marry or not. Neither does the US Constitution.

Chairm, my view of same-sex marriage isn’t vague: same-sex couples should be granted marriage licenses just like opposite-sex couples, with all the same limitations on eligibility and all the same rights, privileges and obligations. Period. That’s it. Specific, not vague.

The reason the government makes no demands about procreation for married couples is because THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T CARE IF YOU HAVE KIDS OR NOT!!!! And if you have kids, they don’t care what you do with or to them. If you have kids, the government doesn’t care if you are or get married. Why? Because KIDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE! Look, even if the whole “responsible procreation” thing mattered, it doesn’t create any impediment to same-sex couples getting married. There’s no “exclusionary” principle at work here. If a couple is married and they start having sex that could lead to pregnancy, then the whole “responsible procreation” machinery can crank into action.

“Meanwhile the man-woman sexual basis for marriage justifies the special status of marriage.” Why? What is so special about a man-woman sexual relationship that requires that a man-man sexual relationship be denied a marriage license? It makes no sense. Why does a man-woman relationship need to have spousal privilege during a court proceeding but a man-man relationship doesn’t? Special privileges as a reward for being a straight couple is simply the majority honoring itself for….what?

I thought this was a pretty funny response to an article about how same-sex marriage would destroy civilization:

What I thought was funny was how well you missed the point

Its like watching the Simpsons where the Principal of Bart’s school is trying to do the “Who’s on First” routine. He missed the joke entirely…

Neutering marriage is done by a government, not an individual. If he gets married, who cares? In fact, he can get married to another guy in any state in the union. It just isn’t recognized by the government.

How about that for freedom?

Just, when you know that your joke just makes him look pretty lame.

Arguing with Sean is fun. I can’t wait to see what he’ll say next. Like a comedy sketch of a taffy pretzle trying to unwind itself, only to get more twisted as time goes on.

Gay people can love, honor and cherish someone from the same gender. It’s still a different person.

I see, so Governor Wallace just didn’t have your intelligence when he was arguing about school integration. He should have argued that the schools were already integrated, because even two white kids are different

Either he wasn’t as smart as you, or that argument is pretty dumb. You tell me …

The “diversity” schtick doesn’t jibe either.

Just when I thought your last argument couldn’t get any worse, you simply thumb your nose at diversity and integration as a means towards equality.

Gender diversity is nice but so is racial diversity. Should we limit marriage to mixed-race couples?

Why would we do that? Seems like you are on another vindictive tear, if gays can’t call their segregation of the other gender “equality” and marriage, then people of the same race can’t get married either.

So tell me, in this wonderfully vindictive plan of yours of getting back for not being allowed to exclude a gender, how would you arrange a marriage that doesn’t exclude any race? Your the one who brought up race and gender as equivalent here

Still beating the dead procreation horse, eh?

So tell us how do you really feel about procreation… Dead horse, and all.

Not that I didn’t already pick up on your animosity towards the subject already or anything

I think you should apologize to all the childless opposite-sex couples you persistently demean.

Okay,

Sorry everyone. I didn’t know Sean was going to get all vindictive towards y’all and say that if gays can’t get married then you can’t either. I apologize for his rudeness.

Don’t worry, the rest of us don’t feel that way. And we know many people who thought they were sterile that had children anyway. We wish you luck and good fortune in your marriage.

why not apologize to all the children of same-sex couples who are being reared outside of wedlock, thanks to people like you

Sorry ex-Gov. McGreevy. It wasn’t your extra-marital affair that caused you to lose your marriage and governorship. It was really me, and it is long time that I apologized.

Sorry Rosie. It wasn’t your prejudice against men that caused you to keep from marrying someone and give a father to your child that desperately wanted one. It was me that tore that man away from you.

Sorry, I can’t go on. That just sounds silly. Why am I apologizing for their own actions again?

I do support them with the benefits of marriage which should help them bandage their household together in commitment, and I even want to extend that to non-sexual couples. Lets call it Civil Union equality. And you are simply bigoted to be against it.

“We”? Who is “we”?

Say, millions of voters nationwide who have made their voices heard at the ballot box.

Marriage and marriage equality is about being loving and tolerant of both genders in each marriage.

I disagree. I think marriage referendums demonstrate animosity towards gays and lesbians, as well as archaic and legally inappropriate religious belief.

There you have it. That is how little you think of real marriage equality, and the need for responsible procreation. You called it a dead horse, now you call it archaic and “inappropriate”. Well, its not like your animus towards procreation was very well veiled to this point so I’m not surprised to see you speak out against it like this.

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T CARE IF YOU HAVE KIDS OR NOT!!!! [...] KIDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE!

My, and I thought the animus against it was pretty obvious in the last comment. Now you have to shout it out.

I feel sorry for you. But to be honest I think this shows all of us the animus that is motivating you to neuter marriage.

@Sean
“I thought this was a pretty funny response to an article about how same-sex marriage would destroy civilization:”

Got a link for the article?

BTW: Have you read Carle Zimmerman’s Family and Civilization? It’s not an easy read, but definitely worth the effort.

OnLawn, what kind of marriage matters that isn’t recognized by the government? Many couples marry, in part, to have state recognition of their relationship. Plus all those yummy benefits you get from the federal government.

“Arguing with Sean is fun. I can’t wait to see what he’ll say next. Like a comedy sketch of a taffy pretzle trying to unwind itself, only to get more twisted as time goes on.”

I feel the same way about you and Chairm! I love to see what pretzel logic shows up once I explain how the legal system works, why the children of same-sex couples matter, why opposite-sex marriages that are childless matter, etc. It’s like watching a blind man try to thread a needle. And you don’t seem to care who you hurt in trying to keep marriage away from the gays: children, childless couples, etc. Frightening.

I know if you keep trying you’ll find that magic bullet that distinguishes opposite-sex marriage from same-sex marriage but I think you have your work cut out for you trying to find the thing that requires that same-sex marriage be outlawed. That’s really what’s required, isn’t it? That appears to be the tack the legal system is taking, isn’t it?

“Marriage and marriage equality is about being loving and tolerant of both genders in each marriage.” In your humble opinion. I say marriage is about legalizing a committed loving relationship.

I heartily believe in responsible procreation. Unfortunately, society feels differently: marriage is optional for couples with children. When it becomes illegal to have children out of wedlock, and couples must have children in order to get or stay married, your “responsible procreation” argument might start to get some traction. Me? I’d rather see responsible parenting, something single- and dual-gender couples are capable of.

Leland, here’s the link. Obviously, the article is mocking people who proclaim that civilization as we know it will be destroyed if same-sex couples are permitted to marry.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/09/gay_marriage_destroys_civiliza_1.php

The comment I pasted looks to be about #13 in the list.

@Sean
“Obviously, the article is mocking people who proclaim that civilization as we know it will be destroyed if same-sex couples are permitted to marry.”

Oh, so it actually wasn’t “an article about how same-sex marriage would destroy civilization”.

Then you should definitely read Carle Zimmerman’s Family and Civilization.

No, it makes fun of the idea that same-sex marriage will cause the downfall of civilization.

No, it makes fun of the idea that same-sex marriage will cause the downfall of civilization.

No, it makes fun of one person getting married for himself.

And it isn’t even sarcasm, its just plain mockery. Mockery only appeals to people who have animus towards what is being mocked…

I have complete animosity toward the idea that same-sex marriage will bring about the end of civilization. In fact, respecting all person’s rights is likely to strengthen civilization, not end it.

Sean, I referred to your vague SSM idea. Your rejoinder? Something about your view of SSM.

You’ve repeated your demand ad nauseam without clarifying the SSM idea itself.

@Sean
Neither you nor anyone else has ever been denied the ‘right’ to indulge yourself in the delusion that two people of the same sex could ever qualify as ‘married’. You just don’t have the right to use the law to force everyone else to pretend that your fantasy has anything to do with reality…

Sean, society acts through the governing authorities. You speak of Government as something that towers above society.

As for specifics, Sean, you say that SSM would come with the “same limitations on eligibility” that exists with marriage. Yet I had asked for the justification for 1) the special status of marriage (under your SSM idea), 2) the justification for eligilbity limitations (under your SSM idea), and 3) how the type of relationship you have in mind is distinguishable from the rest of the nonmarriage category (under your SSM idea).

The 100% guarantee rule is waiting in the wings if you have not eschewed it. I see that you have returned to invoking it in a hurry because you have again misrepresented provision for responsible procreation and have repeated your dance with the Fertility Strawman. Well, unless dropped, that rule will be applied to whatever you might say about your SSM idea. And, thusfar, nothing you have said can withstand this, your own rule of argumentation.

Sean said:

“If a couple is married and they start having sex that could lead to pregnancy, then the whole “responsible procreation” machinery can crank into action.”

Actually it kicks-in immediately. It does not await the birth of a child nor even that child’s conception. Nor even an explicit declaration of intent to attempt to ensure either of those events. It even reaches back prior to the day the man and woman became husband and wife. It reachers forward long past the birth of children during their marriage.

And, no, it is not coercive but rather instructive. And still, it is vigorously enforced in our legal system. Maybe that would cause your head to explode, I dunno, but you might want to step away from the computer screen just in case.

Besides, the same sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity exists in the sexual basis for consummation, provisions for annulment, grounds for adultery-divorce, and so forth. It is societal regard for this opposite-sexed sexual basis that justifies limitations on eligilbity in the first place.

Sean, why does the SSM idea (call it marriage if you must) justify special status (marital status is a special status)?

Hang on, back-up the truck. Do agree that marital status is a special status? Do you disagree that it should continue to be a special status? Can you justify that special status, if you answer yes and no to these two questions?

I expect you to runaway from your own SSM idea and to offer The Big Shrug either just before you flee or just after your return to talk about something other than your own query of me on this point.

Sean, while you are explaining how the legal system works, please give us your rendition of how the marital presumption of paternity works. Thanks.

Sean said: “When it becomes illegal to have children out of wedlock, and couples must have children in order to get or stay married, your “responsible procreation” argument might start to get some traction.”

Wow.

I will reiterate: you have misrepresented responsible procreation and you have been dancing with your Strawman again.

You know, the pro-SSM court opinions that you have cited in our exchanges have relied upon same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual behavior, and membership in the gay identity group. These are the criteria used to excuse the imposition of SSM via the judiciary.

When you propose that under SSM law it would become illegal for same-sex sexual attraction, romance, and behavior outside of SSM; and when couples must engage in these criteria to remain SSM’d, your SSM idea might adhere to your own rules of argumentation.

Chairm, I’ve explained what same-sex marriage is, and why it matters. I shall repeat my thoughts once more:

Same-sex marriage is when two people of the same, not opposite, sex get married. It is important because it lets same-sex committed couples not otherwise prohibited enjoy legal recognition and protection for their relationships just as opposite-sex committed couples not otherwise prohibited get to enjoy THEIR legal recognition and protection for their relationships. While I believe the benefits to the couple are enough, there is also the matter of children being raised by same-sex couples. Those children deserve the same security and stability that the children of opposite-sex couples deserve.

Why don’t you expound for us why you think the children of same-sex couples deserve less security and stability than the children of opposite-sex couples, and why. Thanks.

Yes, marital status is special status. It lets couples create a legal and social recognition for their relationship. It gives married couples specific legal rights, such as not having to testify against a spouse in court. Some couples don’t care about marital status and don’t marry. That’s their choice.

“You know, the pro-SSM court opinions that you have cited in our exchanges have relied upon same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual behavior, and membership in the gay identity group. These are the criteria used to excuse the imposition of SSM via the judiciary.”

I think these reasons reflect society’s understand of what marriage is, and why people marry. I have yet to hear a couple explain, when asked why they married, “because we wanted to procreate responsibly.” Of course, many couples do marry because they believe it is best to raise children while married. But that would hold true for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, right?

Sean, you still have not distinguished your SSM idea from the rest of nonmarriage.

Your saying, they get married, is hilariously missing the point of justifying the special status in the first place.

Your saying, they get the benefits of the special status, is likewise hilariously missing the point of justifying the special status in the first place.

People who have purposefully chosen a nonmarriage type of relationship (one-sexed or otherwise), are not entitled to blame marriage nor society for that choice. They cannot blame their children either.

You said that children are irrelevant to your SSM idea.

You have not proposed that Government force people in relationships (you still have not stated the essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind) to SSM; nor that Government force people raising children to SSM. You’ve asserted the contrary, in fact.

All children are born equal, of a man and a woman, and each child has a birthright to know and to be nurtured by the the mom-dad duo who created her. That is expressed in the core meaning of marriage.

Cue Sean’s invocation of his 100% guarantee rule.

Oh, wait, he pre-emtpively invoked it anyway.

Heh.

* * *

Your SSM idea — as per your last paragraph — still does not justify special status nor the boundaries around eligilibyt/ineligiblity.

None of that stuff is mandatory so it runs afoul of your own rules. Sean you are not gaining traction by spinning your tires. You are going to have to do something different. Like, Oh, I dunno, getting down to the essentials and arguing from there.

Nevermind, you are not showing yourself to be a serious commenter on the marriage idea, the SSM idea, or even the welfare of children. Finito.

Same-sex marriage, like opposite-sex marriage, is distinguished from non-marriage by possession of a marriage license. Imagine a street with two houses and a couple living in each one. In the first house, the couple is married. In the other house, the couple is not married. What’s the difference between them? One couple signed a piece of paper (for whatever reason) and now they have certain rights, obligations and privileges. That’s it! That distinguishes marriage from non-marriage. I don’t even have to specify the gender combination of either couple in this example!

“You said that children are irrelevant to your SSM idea.”

No I said they’re irrelevant to the marriage idea: OSM as well as SSM.

“All children are born equal, of a man and a woman, and each child has a birthright to know and to be nurtured by the mom-dad duo who created her.”

I agree. Now let’s go tell all the single parents out there. The fact is, it is perfectly legal to raise children outside of a man-woman relationship and certainly by adults who are not the biological parents. Me? I was raised by a biological parent and a step-parent. Somehow, neither the magical power of “responsible procreation” nor the force of law afforded me the joy of having my biological parents raise me together as a married couple.

“Nevermind, you are not showing yourself to be a serious commenter on the marriage idea, the SSM idea, or even the welfare of children. Finito.”

On the contrary, I’m anxiously awaiting a serious reason to support prohibiting same-sex marriage. Experts, like Maggie Gallagher of this website, have research that says children are better off with married parents. Knowing this, I cannot imagine anyone arguing against same-sex marriage, especially if there are children involved. Please take this opportunity to explain why the children of same-sex couples are not as valuable as the children of opposite-sex couples.

Under common law, which is still recognized in some jurisdictions, the piece of paper is not required. This is sometimes called de facto marriage and is not the same as mere cohabitation. Traditional requirements other than possession of the paper must be met.

Children cannot be generated from a union of the same sex. The children of a same sex couple are not naturally their own. A third party or fourth party must be involved or the state must be involved. In general, the law should try to keep children with their natural parents, and if that is not possible or if that presents a clear and present danger to the children, then the law should encourage (not necessarily mandate, but encourage) a situation as close to natural as possible, consistent with the traditional rights of the natural parents and the welfare of the child.

You haven’t spelled out the rights, obligations, and privileges you refer to, nor who gets to define them, or why government should grant them. The current rights, obligations, and privileges were established in the context of traditional marriage, and if the institution is changed (hijacked), then we should logically reconsider them. I believe that it is unwise for the state to assign children to same sex couples when there are reasonable alternatives available. I don’t have a serious problem with civil unions as long as children are not assigned to same sex couples.

Sean, “possession of a marriage license” signifies eligibility to enter the social institution of marriage. In our legal system the licensing scheme is merely an entryway.

You imagine it to be a door standing in a field. Just a door. Nothing to enter and nothing from which to enter. It is all the same to you.

But where your SSM idea is standing is on a little hill in the wide-open category of nonmarriage. That door without an institution signifies nothing much. But you do pull your hair out and stomp your feet because you keep opening that door, walking through, and still find yourself on a little hill in the wide-open category of nonmarriage.

Your SSM idea is not one and the same as the marriage idea. But you want the whole social institution to relocate to your little hill. And that means abandoning the core of marriage and abandoning the boundaries of marriage. In your thinking as per your comments, the social institution can keep its paperwork but not its core, not its justification for boundaries, and certainly not its special status.

And that is really dumb of you since you attack that special status but demand that your SSM idea become attached to that special status. Just paperwork, it turns out. That’s what you really think of your own SSM idea.

You think so little of it, in fact, you keep bringing up your 100% guarantee rule which pushes your SSM idea off its little hill. You keep showing how your own rules cannot permit the elevation of your SSM idea — not even allowing it to be lifted up onto that dusty hill in the middle of the wide-open nonmarriage catgegory.

And again you repeat your flagrant misrepresentation of the research the context of which is the unity of fatherhood and motherhood and the integration of the sexes.

Dikd I say that some children are less valuable than other children? Nope.

But given that is your form of argumentation here, and not mine, please explain why the millions of children in the families in the rest of the nonmarriage category are valued less by your SSM idea than those whose caregivers are members of the gay identity group.

Nevermind, you are not a serious commenter here. You offer nothing of substance. But thank you for your example. It serves an illustrative purpose for readers to learn just what the proponents of SSM really think about marriage, those who defend the marriage idea, and the sort of “reasoning” that would become entrenched should SSM ever replace the marriage idea in our society.

Leo, I appreciate your softening attitude toward same-sex couples. Still, it is fundamental human right to reproduce and that includes gay people. It is also a fundamental human right to associate (i.e., live, love, have sex) with whomever one wants, based on consent. Ergo, even gay people have the right to raise children in a house with a romantic partner. Wouldn’t it be better for children if these two adults raising them are married?

Chairm, I’m glad you’re finally acknowledging the importance of children and what’s best for them. Research shows that children do better when they’re raised by married adults. This is a great reason, along with others, for letting same-sex couples marry.

Children raised outside of marriage are indeed in unfortunate circumstances. We ought to encourage their parents to marry. But for same-sex couples, in some states still, marriage isn’t even an option. It’s bad enough when opposite-sex parents choose not to marry but for a state to outlaw marriage for same-sex parents?! That’s crazy and quite disdainful of their children.

It’s “Parents Day” at Baldwin Elementary School.
Here come Sandy’s parents: Alice and a female German Shepherd.
One child raised his hand, “Teacher, why did Sandy bring a dog instead of a person?”
The teacher kindly and patiently explained that Alice and the Shepherd are Sandy’s parents.
“Oh,” said the little boy.
He knew better than to question the teacher about adults and their choices.
When he got home, he asked his mother how Sandy could have a Mommy and a dog as parents.
The real story is that Sandy’s mother had an abusive boyfriend. He left and she later found a dog who was kind and nurturing, as well as protective. His mother called the dog “Daddy” and said, “Sandy, she is the best Daddy you ever had.”
Since children do better in married households, it just made sense for them to get married.
Also the benefits were in place in case Sandy’s mother lost her job.

The research has produced the wide socio-economic consensus that children do best when raised by the man-woman duo who created the children and who are in an intact, low-conflict marriage.

Union of husband and wife does what the SSM idea is set against: it unites motherhood and fatherhood.

SSMers, such as Sean, contradict themselves so flagrantly that they choose not to correct, to recalibrate, but rather to brazen it out. That is crazy enough.

Except that animals can’t get married. But otherwise, this was a really instructive comment!

The question is not whether the dog is currently eligible to marry; the question is on what basis might the line be drawn against the consenting adult.

The government issues licenses to sole individuals for all kinds of things. The woman would give her consent. She is a loving woman. She is a full citizen. She has her rights.

What would government force her to do, in order to qualify according to the SSM idea? There is no same-sex sexual requirement but maybe it would help if the dog was female. Or perhaps if the woman and her dog found another consenting woman. Two consenting adults would easily fit Sean’s repeated definition of his SSM idea. If the both consent to the addition of the dog, and since human beings are animals, too, who is Sean to declare that “animals can’t get married”?

Heh.

How sad to have to rely on the “next they’ll want to marry their dog!” arguments, as if gay citizens are somehow less than human. And to take the children of same-sex couples hostage while vilifying their parents. Shameful.

Doesn’t Sandy’s mental health require that some adults proclaim his “parents’” choice to be perverse?

Sean, you said animals can’t marry but human beings are animals and they do marry.

You also have insisted that consent is a trump card. Why deny the lone woman from consenting to what she wants? Elsewhere you said that wanting it is the only reasonable requirement.

Suddenly your sense of mockery has abandoned you because your comments have been lightly mocked. Heh.

* * *

You, Sean, repeatedly hold these children hostage with your absurd demands. And you remind us of this all the time. Like at September 15th, 2010 at 20:37. The shame!

Chairm, forgive me for declaring that animals can’t marry. How’s this: non-humans can’t marry. That better?

I don’t think I’ve declared consent a trump card. I have said that eligibility to marry appears to be little more than finding someone who wants to marry you, who isn’t closely related to you and is of a certain age. Most states still insist, for some reason, that the consenting someone be of the opposite sex. Despite protestations from some here, there is no requirement to be fertile, to have or promise to have children, nor is there a requirement to marry if children show up.

Marriage is a contract between two people so it would be hard for a single person to marry.

Research shows that children are better off when raised by married parents. It is surely some kind of sin to prevent the children of same-sex couples from having the benefits marriage provides to the children of opposite-sex couples.

It’s a sin against children to agree to the fantasy of the adults who are raising them, just as it is a sin against children to tell them an alcoholic parent is perfectly fine; the child is the one who needs to change.

Ruth, are you suggesting that we outlaw reproduction? I’m not sure I understand what adult fantasy you’re talking about.

Oh, Sean, but you have declared consent to be a trump card. You can keep it up your sleeve, if you must, but readers have already seen you play it several times.

Meanwhile you haven’t justified prohibiting related people of the same sex. Pointing to procreation won’t fit your pro-SSM argument that procreation is not a legitimate basis for ineligiblity. You have shrugged quite a bit and that’s okay. You aren’t obligated to fill the gaping holes in the SSM idea. But the shrugs amount to concessions that the holes exist and there is no reasonable basis upon which to draw eligiblity lines based on the SSM idea.

Again, that’s okay. I don’t expect you to fix that conceptual mess.

Two adults may want to call their relationship “marriage”, but children will, of course, notice that everything doesn’t add up.
Those children should be supported in their observation and feelings.

Ruth: I know of dozens of people who grew up in traditional families who “notice that everything doesn’t add up” in their parents marriage (i.e. that their parents should have divorced). What children will notice is the love and caring two parents have for each other. Unfortunately, the children will also be aware of the hate people such as you have for their families. That is why the younger generation does not believe in “one man / one woman” marriage but believe marriage is a right granted to all people.

“Meanwhile you haven’t justified prohibiting related people of the same sex.”

Sure I have. I said that whatever reasons society uses to justify prohibiting related people of the opposite-sex can apply to people of the same sex. If society doesn’t like the idea of closely related people getting married, then so be it. Apply that dislike equally to opposite sex and same sex persons. Done!

“Two adults may want to call their relationship “marriage”, but children will, of course, notice that everything doesn’t add up.”

I hear ya! When my father and stepmother got married, because she was pregnant, it didn’t take us long to realize that theirs was a sham union, possibly with good intentions, but disastrous results!

Children sometimes say, “You don’t love me; you hate me!” when their parents don’t give them something they want. Saying so doesn’t make it true.
But consider this, Mark.
I personally know a little girl who is being raised by two men. She said to her friend, “You are so lucky; you have a Mom!”
She craves a mothering influence and receives it to some extent from a loving neighbor who does not recognize a right to same-sex marriage, but is kind to all the parties involved.
To disagree is not necessarily to hate.
If I were the girl, I would want to know that someone agrees with my feelings of wanting a Mom (or Dad, as the case might be). I would tend to consider that person my friend.

@Sean
You’re right, Sean.
I think we agree that a lot of what parents foist onto their children in the name of “love” could just as well be called child abuse.

Me: >> “Meanwhile you haven’t justified prohibiting related people of the same sex.”

Sean: > Sure I have.

Contradiction in 3 … 2 … 1 …

Sean: > I said that whatever reasons society uses to justify prohibiting related people of the opposite-sex can apply to people of the same sex.

Sean lied when he said he justified prohibiting related people of the same gender being “second class citizens”, a couple unable to obtain the same legal stats as two gays. He pulled one of his hilarious slight of hand moves, and said whatever-they-said is why.

You know, the invisible man is blind because his retinas cannot capture any light (being invisible. Funny, I think Sean is the only one here who doesn’t see how transparent he is

Sean: > If society doesn’t like the idea of closely related people getting married, then so be it.

So Sean is pro ick-factor even though he admits that romance is not a requirement for marriage, so there is no reason to go ‘ick’.

But my favorite gaff is yet to come…

Sean: > Apply that dislike equally to opposite sex and same sex persons. Done!

I wonder where Sean has found an “opposite sex and same sex person[]“.

But either way, if he’s in support of the ick factor, then in equality that would apply to gay people as well as related opposite sex people.

I don’t agree with the ick-factor, personally. I agree that marriage is about responsible procreation and shouldn’t be neutered of its reference to “one man and one woman” for the sake of marriage equality — the equal recognition of rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and child they potentially have together.

Ruth: Anecdotal stories are sweet and touching. But this is not about emotions. This is about allowing fellow Americans to have the same rights as everyone else. Studies show that same sex couples raise kids as well as opposite sex couples.

“To disagree is not necessarily to hate.” no, but if I were that girls parents, I’d keep a close eye on the neighbor.

You are asking society to participate in and encourage a system that deprives children of either a mother or a father, while failing to acknowledge or support them in that loss.
The perversity of abortion, glib divorce, and adult-centric family systems is this:
as in Baal worship of old, a child is sacrificed for their parent.

Sean said: “I said that whatever reasons society uses to justify prohibiting related people of the opposite-sex can apply to people of the same sex. ”

You have not justified limiting eligiblity based on relatedness between persons of the same sex. You pointed at procreation but that does not apply to any same-sex scenario, unrelated or related.

So if your SSM idea demands that procreation not be considered a legitimate basis for lawmaking; and further, that your SSM idea demands that the opposite-sexed scenario be treated exactly the same as the same-sexed scenario, then, eligibility based on relatedness is unsustainable for the SSM idea.

Elsewhere you shrugged and said you really don’t care anyway.

The marriage idea and the SSM idea are very different.

“You are asking society to participate in and encourage a system that deprives children of either a mother or a father”

How does legal same-sex marriage deprive a child of a mother and a father in any way that voluntary marriage doesn’t? Society says that opposite-sex parenting and dual parenting in general is voluntary. And what about childless same-sex couples?

A society participates in and encourages a relationship by calling it a legal marriage. If that relationship necessarily excludes either a man or a woman, any child within that relationship is always deprived of either their mother or their father.

As for childless same-sex couples, if you are referring to two people who are overtly engaged in the practice of homosexual sex, it is not in the interest of a moral society to condone sinful behavior.

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’
John Adams

Ruth: “As for childless same-sex couples, if you are referring to two people who are overtly engaged in the practice of homosexual sex, it is not in the interest of a moral society to condone sinful behavior.”
Ruth, with all due respect, you don’t know the first thing about morality. People who engage in homosexual sex are not immoral. Get over you bigotry. It is not healthy. If you can’t, then keep it to yourself and quit using it to deny fellow Americans their rights.

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
Thomas Jefferson

Mark: > People who engage in homosexual sex are not immoral.

Such an absolutist statement wreaks of arrogance. Everyone is given the freedom to decide what is immoral and what isn’t. You two disagree, and you should accept that there are two ways of thinking on this in order to make a positive conversation out of it.

Meanwhile, I think you could also use the advice of Steve Yuhas…

On Lawn: “Such an absolutist statement wreaks of arrogance. Everyone is given the freedom to decide what is immoral and what isn’t.”
Really? I thought it was God who decided, not man. But, the fact that you only responded to me and not also to Ruth shows your own bigotry.

But, frankly, if Ruth (and you) think homosexual activity is immoral, I could care less. UNLESS, you then try to outlaw it. THEN your “freedom to decide what is immoral and what isn’t” impinges on someone else’s rights, and that I cannot allow. It would be like someone in the south saying “I don’t think blacks have the same rights as whites”. They can think that if they like, but when they work to pass laws to make blacks second class citizens, that’s when they cross the line and ignore the very principles that this country was founded on.

On Lawn: And I hear echoes of Steve Yuhas’s words from the past” if the blacks would just keep quiet, if they would just be like everyone else, if they wouldn’t make us look at how bigoted we treat people, then they would be accepted into the greater society.”

But, if you and people like you, wish to accept what you see at a gay pride as an example of what all gays are like, then I would love to hear what you have to say after a St. Patrick’s Day Parade, or an Italian festival (where they try to climb greased phone poles), or German festivals. Minorities and other ethnic groups will often bring out stereotypes but that is not an example of the average person. Attend a gay pride parade. Yes, you will see dykes on bikes, drag queens and people in leather. You will also see church groups, bands, professional societies, square dancers, families with children and a HOST of just regular people who are also gay or lesbian. Please try to look beyond stereotypes and get to know the real people.

On Lawn: >> “Such an absolutist statement wreaks of arrogance. Everyone is given the freedom to decide what is immoral and what isn’t.”

Mark: > Really? I thought it was God who decided, not man.

Well, then why bother with Ruth’s take? Go directly to the higher authority.

Mark: > Please try to look beyond stereotypes and get to know the real people.

I have, in fact. I quoted Yuhas, who is someone who seems to understand morality and is gay — and his efforts to try to bring his fellow gays to the same understanding. I agree with Yuhas and respect his efforts.

On Lawn:
“Well, then why bother with Ruth’s take? Go directly to the higher authority”
I usually do, thank you. You should try it sometime.

“I quoted Yuhas, who is someone who seems to understand morality and is gay — and his efforts to try to bring his fellow gays to the same understanding”
Hm, so you go to an out gay conservative to tell you what is moral? And you believe morality is acting like everyone else, not expressing yourself? Interesting (and boring) observation.
So, do you view a Mardi Gras parade as clearly representing what heterosexuality is all about?

“I agree with Yuhas and respect his efforts.”
I am sure you do because they are safe. Yuhas basically advocates for people to go back and hide in the closet (he, of course, is making a fortune on being an out gay conservative). But, my guess is, at the first sight of something more liberal, you’d drop him like day old fish.

Me: > “Well, then why bother with Ruth’s take? Go directly to the higher authority”

Mark: > I usually do, thank you. You should try it sometime.

If you approve of the method, then why didn’t you do it this time?

Mark: >>> Please try to look beyond stereotypes and get to know the real people.

Me: >> I have, in fact. I quoted Yuhas, who is someone who seems to understand morality and is gay — and his efforts to try to bring his fellow gays to the same understanding. I agree with Yuhas and respect his efforts.

By saying that I pointed out how the example provided contradicted the judgement Mark made of myself. Note his reply…

Mark :> Hm, so you go to an out gay conservative to tell you what is moral?

Technically, I said that I agree with him.

Mark:> And you believe morality is acting like everyone else, not expressing yourself?

Is it morality that is important or expressing ones-self, I believe that is the question your response illicits.

Hmm, so is the following an act that contradicts morality or of expressing oneself?

SAN FRANCISCO — Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall. Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through the Folsom Street Fair surrounded by strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

The girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store. Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show them off. [...]

It’s an educational experience for children, said John Kruse, father of Zola and Veronica Kruschel. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
Kruse said, “Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with.”

How about this from Yuhas’s essay?

After the countless men in dresses, shirtless women, politicians and adoptive parents who use their children as political statements march down Sixth Avenue to Balboa Park (the same park where Boy Scouts have been booted) the festivities begin with booths selling everything from sex toys to X-rated videos. When all of that is over, the parties start and the open use of drugs and alcohol cause ambulances to be paid overtime in order to care for the men and women who fall in the streets or collapse in the clubs.

I’ve been to that park. It is a family park. I’ve been there during Gay Pride with my children, and had the exact same reaction that Yuhas did. That the Boy Scouts were kicked out of the same place just a few years ago, really holds the foil to their actions.

I don’t mean to be flippant, in fact I am very sober and serious when I ask do you really believe in a higher power which condones that kind of profanity as a family activity?

@Mark
“Get over you bigotry. It is not healthy. If you can’t, then keep it to yourself and quit using it to deny fellow Americans their rights.

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
Thomas Jefferson”

There is one God. I oppose homosexual sex as a sin against Him.

Ruth: “There is one God. I oppose homosexual sex as a sin against Him.”
And you are free to believe that. However, you do NOT have the right to force that belief on anyone else, let along remove basic human rights from others because of it. There is one God, and he is not offended by the love two men, two women, nor a man and a woman share with each other. It is LOVE and that is what is important. If you think it is dirty, it says more about your mind than the people participating in the act.

On Lawn: “I don’t mean to be flippant, in fact I am very sober and serious when I ask do you really believe in a higher power which condones that kind of profanity as a family activity?”
I will take you at your word that you are asking a serious question. My response is in the form of another question: Would you base your sense of heterosexual morality based on a bacchanalia, such as Mardi Gras? I doubt that you would because you have other examples that temper that one view. Gay pride is more than the guys in dresses or leather, more than sex toys and X-rated videos, it is a celebration of who people are. Yes, it might get out of control, but I believe a higher power would find it a wonderful expression of the human spirit.

Mark: > I will take you at your word that you are asking a serious question.

One that apparently I need to ask again, since my question wasn’t about a gay stereotype at all..

I don’t mean to be flippant, in fact I am very sober and serious when I ask do you really believe in a higher power which condones that kind of profanity as a family activity?

This time, do answer the question, please.

On Lawn: You are so quick to judge, sad, I had really hoped you were trying to be more sincere. My error.

As I answered:
I believe a higher power would find it a wonderful expression of the human spirit.

YOU may call a gay pride event profanity, but that is your bias.

Given his (its?) values, I think you are talking about a lower power.

Ruth: “Given his (its?) values, I think you are talking about a lower power.”
How dare you call God a lower power? Oh, you must be pagan.