The Hate Card is Hypocrisy

December 21st, 2010

From Dictionary.com:

hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

So when could you possibly make “a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess” more than when you reproach another for an attitude or behavior that you are actually exhibiting yourself?

How often have you been attacked by (or been the attacker, as the case may be) those all too familiar slurs?:

BIGOT! HATEMONGER! HOMOPHOBE!

The next time you are on the receiving end of such an assault, you might consider following the script that has become my standard response in that situation:

First point out to the attacker that he (or she) is doing what he is accusing you of being. (And the distinction between doing and being is indeed crucial – because you do not want to afford anyone so much as a pretext to say you are responding in kind.)

The next step is to make the point that using such words is engaging in ad hominem – good old fashioned name-calling.

ad ho·mi·nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-]
–adjective
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

Now ask your assailant if he thinks calling someone who you have a dispute with names is not a bigoted thing to do. Ask if he thinks hurling dehumanizing epithets at another person is not a hateful way to behave.

At this point (if you still have the opportunity – as well as the desire to do so) you are in a position to make the case that, since these derogatory labels that he is trying to slap on you actually describe the behavior that he is engaging in, his assertions are therefore also hypocritical.

(Throughout the conversation make sure you pointedly focus your criticisms only on his behavior and his expressed attitudes or beliefs – not on his person or character. Like I said before, you want to parse your words carefully to avoid even the appearance that you are just hurling insults back at the the person insulting you.)

On Friday the Washington Post published an excellent article by Matthew J. Franck titled “In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card”, and I was pleased that the article got some attention on a segment of Talk of the Nation at NPR today.

One of the most important points Matthew Franck makes is that:

Robust debate is necessarily passionate debate, especially on a question like marriage. But the charge of “hate” is not a contribution to argument; it’s the recourse of people who would rather not have an argument at all.

But rather than bothering to make their case, same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates would prefer a different approach:

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

a·nath·e·ma
[uh-nath-uh-muh]
–noun, plural -mas.
1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

Matthew J. Franck continues:

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage’s defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are “anti-gay thugs” or “theocrats” or “Taliban,” as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality – here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy – and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

A few years ago, shortly after a judge attempted to force same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ on the citizens of Hawaii, two members of Congress appeared together on NPR. One was a Democrat, the other a Republican; one for same-sex ‘marriage’, the other opposed. As men who understood the value and necessity of civil discourse in a democratic society, they had decided that the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate was already becoming far more acrimonious than was acceptable.

The purpose of their joint appearance was to announce that they had reached across the isle to one another and resolved to launch a renewed effort to foster the kind of thoughtful discussion of the issue that should occur between freedom loving people. Their goal was to find as much common ground between their positions as possible in the hope of finding a reasonable compromise between the two camps. They figured a process of respectful dialog would be the only feasible way to arrive at a solution we all could at least live with.

One of the first listeners to call into the show that night was a gay fellow who proceeded to praise the same-sex ‘marriage’ supporter for his position and thank the program’s host for offering that congressman air time to advocate for his position. But he then immediately turned around and very harshly lambasted not just the other congressman, but also the show’s host and NPR as well for daring to allow such a homophobe on the air at all! The way he put it was “…as a hatemonger, he was entitled to no forum whatsoever.”

There is your hypocrisy for you. They hold up as their banner (along with the rainbow, of course) words like ‘inclusiveness’, ‘tolerance’, and most of all ‘equality’. But where the rubber meets the road, their working definition of those words means that only they have any right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, or even freedom of thought. Those of us who dissent are simply guilty of hate speech, or hate mongering, or hate crimes and we are “entitled to no forum whatsoever.”

Early in the Proposition 8 campaign, when yard signs started disappearing en masse, and people’s cars, homes, and churches started getting vandalized, it became obvious that along with marriage we were also fighting for our right to participate on an equal basis in our own democratic process (without fear of recrimination, that is). Everything that has happened since then has only confirmed for me that we could even be on the verge of becoming one of those nations where people are incarcerated for expressing their beliefs too publicly. Those are the stakes of this conflict.

So the next time someone tries to play the hate card on you, call him on it. Expose his hypocritical (and hateful) behavior for all to see.

The hate card is hypocrisy.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. chrisse
    December 21st, 2010 at 22:37 | #1

    The hate card, the bigot card, the phobe are the arguments of those who have no argument and want the State to enforce with civil penalties and economic disadvantage those who disagree with them, and who have valid arguments that withstand critical analysis.

    It is more common that the name-callers are projecting their own failings onto others than the other is what they are being called.

  2. nerdygirl
    December 21st, 2010 at 23:26 | #2

    Fair enough, we could all do with more civility. That said, if someone does say something that is actually hateful, I will call them on that, regardless of what side they support (and I will make sure not to cross the hateful line, snark however is fair game) I should hope that you would do the same, regardless of what side they argue for.

  3. Richard Munro
    December 22nd, 2010 at 00:24 | #3

    Great comments; my conscience is clear. I am not afraid of cheap ad hominem attacks. I say what I mean. No one has a right to redifine marriage any more than I have the right to redefine what democracy is or what gender is or at what temperature water boils. You have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts.

  4. Martin Snigg
    December 22nd, 2010 at 01:55 | #4

    What a post! That is the first and last word when it comes to the putsch to dismantle marriage IMO. If reason is allowed air the same sex marriage cabal is poisoned and they know it.

  5. Sean
    December 22nd, 2010 at 05:18 | #5

    Obviously you don’t understand the meaning of hate, as used in the context of a social issue. There is an enormous difference between wishing to deny someone a right, or inclusion, based on conduct, and based on who they are.

    Clearly you homophobes have become very uncomfortable now that NOM and other groups have been designated hate groups. That label is not arbitrary, and was not assigned without applying a template of what comprises a hate group.

  6. Mark
    December 22nd, 2010 at 05:40 | #6

    Had me right up until “that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. “. If calling someone a hater monger is so bad, why resort to such inflammatory language as dismantling or even destruction? I think Mr. Franck is exposing his own hypocrisy.

  7. Paul H
    December 22nd, 2010 at 06:27 | #7

    Certainly the hate card is hypocrisy, and very obviously so to anyone who is thinking rationally. But in my experience, once someone starts flinging around accusations of hate, that is a pretty reliable indicator that they are not open to listening to rational arguments. Those who accuse their opponents of hate often seem to have zero interest in one of the most important rules of having a fruitful debate or discussion, which is trying to understand the other person’s argument or point of view.

  8. Norrie
    December 22nd, 2010 at 07:13 | #8

    Well said, leland. Thank you.

  9. December 22nd, 2010 at 09:23 | #9

    I wouldn’t bring up Matthew Franck’s article if I were you. It’s founded on an utter lie:

    ‘The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a “report” identifying a dozen or so “anti-gay hate groups,” some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.’

    This is completely untrue. Not one of these groups – not one! – appeared on the hate-group list merely for opposing marriage equality. The SPLC specifies why it added each one. You’ll find more details at the end of this post, but in short, the organizations were guilty of offenses like:

    – Distorting scientific research to demonize gays, even over the researchers’ objections.
    – Calling for the criminalization of homosexuality.
    – Advocating the death penalty for gays.
    – Accusing gay men of recruiting children and being more likely to molest them than straights.
    – Holding gays responsible for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

    Now, Franck may not think these items justify the “hate group” designation, but he’s committing outright deceit in saying that opposing marriage equality was the only “apparent reason.”

    And really, someone should tell Franck that spreading a lie is an odd way of convincing people you’re not hateful.

  10. December 22nd, 2010 at 09:25 | #10

    I promised this would appear at the end of my previous post, but here’s a sampling of the reasons these 13 groups were identified as hate groups:

    Abiding Truth Ministries

    Its founder, Scott Lively, blames gays for the Holocaust and claims the Nazi SS recruited gays because of our “innate brutality.”

    American Family Association

    Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s director of analysis for government and policy, has written, “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” Further, he wants to criminalize homosexuality.

    Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

    ATAH’s founder Peter Labarbera has helped perpetuate the myth of gays running the German Nazi Party. He’s called homosexuality a “lethal behavior addiction,” and has claimed “a disproportionate incidence of pedophilia” in the gay population.

    American Vision

    Leader Gary DeMar believes in the dealth penalty for practicing gays.

    Chalcedon Foundation

    The organization wants the US to adopt Old Testament law, including the execution of gays.

    Dove World Outreach Center

    The group’s pastor, Terry Jones, campaigned against a gay candidate by posting signs that read, “No Homo Mayor.” The group has endorsed Westboro Baptist Church’s condemnation of homosexuality (“God Hates Fags”), though not all of their methods.

    Faithful Word Baptist Church

    Its founder, Steven Anderson, has called for the execution of gays.

    Family Research Council

    The organization’s leadership accuse gays of being more likely than straights to molest kids, calling us a “danger to children.” Its senior research fellow Peter Sprigg opposed immigration equality for gay couples, saying he’d rather export gays from the country than import them. He apologized for the remark, but later called for the criminalization of homosexuality.

    Family Research Institute

    More crap about gays and pedophilia, this time from founder Paul Cameron, who believes gays should undergo “public shaming,” and when it comes to Uganda’s Kill-the-Gays bill, he says, “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with.” He’s also been kicked out a long list of professional psychology association after researchers complained he’s misused their data to lie about gays.

    Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment

    The group has said “legalizing homosexual deviations” will create a “confused and sick society.” It also asserts “[P]enalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination.”

    Illinois Family Institute

    The SPLC added this group to their hate list for their promotion of Paul Cameron’s discredited lies about gay men.

    Mass Resistance

    The group’s head, Brian Camenker, has claimed that gays want to legalize bestiality and push perversion on kids, and that no gays died in the Holocaust. The group has also perpetuated the image of gays as child predators.

    Traditional Values Coalition

    Yet more accusations that gays molest children. Also that we recruit them because, you know, we can’t reproduce.

  11. Paul H
    December 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 | #11

    Sean :
    There is an enormous difference between wishing to deny someone a right, or inclusion, based on conduct, and based on who they are.

    Exactly! But if you understand this, then where do we disagree?

  12. Sean
    December 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 | #12

    Maybe we don’t disagree! Gays and lesbians are people and therefore get the same rights are straight, including the right to marry. There is no constitutional exceptions for gays and lesbians.

  13. chrisse
    December 22nd, 2010 at 13:49 | #13

    @Mark
    why resort to such inflammatory language as dismantling or even destruction
    This is an example of your own inflammatory language. That the same-sex marriage demand is a dismantling of marriage, it absolutely changes the very basis of what marriage is. You just wont address the most basic purpose of marriage, without which marriage is irrelevant. Destruction is a valid description of what the agenda is amongst same-sex marriage proponents but same-sex marriage proponents are not the cause.

    A more valid argument from you would be, why is the same-sex marriage demand the tipping point for the groundswell of opposition. Now, for me, I will acknowledge that for too long we’ve limped along arguing against the general degradation of our society, amplified in the pornification of society (not something that is caused by homosexuals), but without this mobilisation of opposition.

    My defence is that this is the last straw in a long list when we finally say enough is enough. Here we are focusing on same-sex marriage, but I am also active in the argument against the general pornification of our society, and in particular, our children. Your demand for same-sex marriage is simply within the ideology of pornification and degradation that is prevalent and started with the sexual revolution of the 1960s (can’t blame homosexuals for that, either).

  14. December 22nd, 2010 at 16:15 | #14

    Okay, Chrisse, so marriage is equivalent to porn and degradation? No, of course you don’t believe that. But I don’t know from your comment what you do believe. How is me wanting to marry my partner related to porn and degradation?

  15. chrisse
    December 22nd, 2010 at 16:15 | #15

    @Sean
    There are no constitutional exceptions for anyone as it stands. You are demanding the State, or Caeser, to create for a specific, and a minority, group of people an exception to the current law for the said specific group of people to have their activity recognised for what it is not. You are demanding Caeser re-define marriage.

    A homosexual man can marry a woman now, even a homosexual woman. A homosexual female can marry a man now, even a homosexual man. There are no laws preventing that.

    You are effectively demanding a human right to a human function that homosexual persons reject. And if that doesn’t make sense to you, it’s because the demand for same-sex marriage is itself irrational.

  16. chrisse
    December 22nd, 2010 at 16:32 | #16

    @Rob Tisinai
    You do yourself a disservice and render yourself irrelevant, Rob, with such an ignorant reading of my comment.

    I said WITHIN.

    Now, we do have previous examples of homosexual behaviour becoming more publicly exposed in previous civilisations. Two in particular come to mind – the ancient Greek and the ancient Roman empires; both decadent and immoral with high levels of feticide and infanticide, temple prostitution, women as incubators and decreasing population levels. Though both had areas of achievement in their own right.

    In fact, I see little difference with the ancient Roman empire and our current environment, except we have technology and scientific advances to achieve far worse.

  17. Sean
    December 22nd, 2010 at 16:35 | #17

    The demand for same-sex marriage is extremely rational: same-sex couples are raising children outside of wedlock and that’s not good for kids! They would be much better off if their parents could marry!

    Straight couples are allowed to marry; in many states, gay couples are not permitted to marry. That discrimination is constitutionally impermissible, as courts are recognizing.

  18. chrisse
    December 22nd, 2010 at 20:51 | #18

    @Sean
    How can two people of the same sex be the parents of a child?

    Sean, this is a case of creating a problem to get a desired solution.

  19. December 22nd, 2010 at 22:04 | #19

    @Rob Tisinai
    The National Organization for Marriage is conspicuous by its absence on your list, Rob. NOM does none of the things you and SPLC mentioned, yet I understand that NOM has been labeled a hate group too.

  20. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 05:03 | #20

    Sean :
    Maybe we don’t disagree! Gays and lesbians are people and therefore get the same rights are straight, including the right to marry. There is no constitutional exceptions for gays and lesbians.

    Hi Sean,

    OK, but I hope that you can respect my point of view on marriage, which is likewise based on conduct, not on who a person is (to paraphrase your earlier comment above).

    I (and many others) see a particular conduct as being an essential component of what marriage is, namely the type of sexual conduct (coitus) that can lead to the conception of new life. The view that this particular conduct is essential to marriage has a long basis in law and tradition, as civil law and religious tradition often have not considered a marriage to be permanent until it has been consumated, with consumation meaning that the husband and wife have engaged in coitus.

    This view is not discriminatory against those who prefer other sexual practices, or who are attracted to partners with whom coitus is impossible. I agree that no one chooses which sex they are attracted to. However, people (myself included) do choose how, when, and whether to act on their sexual attractions. A person’s attractions are a part of who that person is, but a person’s behavior or conduct is not part of who they are — rather it is what they choose to do. Attractions may guide our conduct, but they do not absolutely determine it. We do have free will; we are not mere animals.

    This view closes marriage to no one, though admittedly it does make it unlikely that most people with same-sex attraction would choose marriage. However, it does not exclude people with same-sex attraction based on who they are, but rather on the fact that they choose not to engage in the one conduct that is an essential component of marriage. And any perceived exclusion is not arbitrary, but is based on a time-tested definition of marriage, in which marriage is society’s way of attaching mothers and fathers to each other and to their children.

  21. Paul
    December 23rd, 2010 at 05:08 | #21

    Jennifer Roback Morse :
    @Rob Tisinai
    The National Organization for Marriage is conspicuous by its absence on your list, Rob. NOM does none of the things you and SPLC mentioned, yet I understand that NOM has been labeled a hate group too.

    Jennifer, you know this statement isn’t true, and yet you posted it anyway. This is the type of purposeful mis-information that causes people to doubt your sincerity. SPLC included NOM in it’s lists of anti-gay groups that were profiled because NOM spreads lies and propaganda about gays and lesbians in order to further your agenda.

    SPLC actually said (and I KNOW that you have read this):

    The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage in state legislatures, was organized in 2007 by conservative syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton University politics professor Robert George. George is an influential Christian thinker who co-authored the 2009 “Manhattan Declaration,” a manifesto developed after a New York meeting of conservative church leaders that “promises resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same sex marriage.”

    NOM’s first public campaign was in 2008, supporting California’s Proposition 8, which sought to invalidate same-sex marriage in that state. It was widely mocked, including in a parody by satirist Stephen Colbert, for the “Gathering Storm” video ad it produced at the time. Set to somber music and a dark and stormy background, the ad had actors expressing fears that gay activism would “take away” their rights, change their lifestyle, and force homosexuality on their kids.

    The group, whose president is now former executive director Brian Brown, has become considerably more sophisticated since then, emphasizing its respect for homosexuals. “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,” NOM says on its website, “[but] they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

    For a time, NOM’s name was used by a bus driver named Louis Marinelli, who drove a van for NOM’s “Summer for Marriage Tour” this year. Marinelli called himself a “NOM strategist” and sent out electronic messages under the NOM logo that repeated falsehoods about homosexuals being pedophiles and gay men having extremely short lifespans. In homemade videos posted on his own YouTube page, he said same-sex marriage would lead to “prostitution, pedophilia and polygamy.” But this July, NOM said it was not associated with Marinelli.

  22. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 05:16 | #22

    Sean :
    The demand for same-sex marriage is extremely rational: same-sex couples are raising children outside of wedlock and that’s not good for kids! They would be much better off if their parents could marry!

    Sean,

    This is actually the best argument I have heard for defining marriage to include same-sex couples. I think that it is indeed a strong argument.

    It still doesn’t convince me though, because I think that kids ideally need a mother and a father. Changing what we call same-sex relationships (by calling them “marriage”) will not change the fact that children raised by such couples are missing either a mother or a father.

    Also, it is a bit like the argument for legalizing illegal immigrants because they are already here anyway. This argument is not without merit, however people of good will can argue against it by saying that they chose to come here knowing that the

  23. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 05:35 | #23

    Sean :
    The demand for same-sex marriage is extremely rational: same-sex couples are raising children outside of wedlock and that’s not good for kids! They would be much better off if their parents could marry!

    Sean,

    This is actually the best argument I have heard for defining marriage to include same-sex couples. I think that it is indeed a strong argument.

    However, it still doesn’t convince me, because I think that kids ideally need a mother and a father. Changing what we call same-sex relationships (by calling them “marriage”) will not change the fact that children raised by such couples are missing either a mother or a father.

    Also, it is a bit like the argument for legalizing illegal immigrants because they are already here anyway. This argument does have some merit, however people of good will can and do argue against it by saying that these immigrants chose to come here knowing that their status would not be legal, and we have no obligation to change the law in their favor. Likewise, people could argue against your argument by saying that same-sex couples who choose to raise children in a place where same-sex “marriage” is not legally recognized knew in advance that the government would not recognize their relationship as a marriage.

    Another thing to consider here is that government can recognize a marriage, but government does not have unilateral power to make a marriage real. My wife and I became truly married when we took vows to each other, as witnessed by a priest, by our family and friends, and by God — not when we applied for a marriage license. Even if the state somehow decided to revoke our marriage license, that would not make us any less married, and our children would not be deprived of having married parents. If two men or two women likewise believe that their union is truly a marriage, then in their view, their children would not be deprived of married parents either.

    You may say that it is not the couple’s view that is the problem, but rather the view of society that is the problem. Well then, work to change hearts and minds on this issue.

  24. Mark
    December 23rd, 2010 at 06:09 | #24

    chrisse: “This is an example of your own inflammatory language.”

    No, it’s actually just a comment. But you virulent response is interesting.

    “That the same-sex marriage demand is a dismantling of marriage, it absolutely changes the very basis of what marriage is.”

    Wrong again. It does nothing of the sort. But keeping believing this lie as it will give you comfort, I am sure, as you work to deny fellow citizens their free rights.

    “Your demand for same-sex marriage is simply within the ideology of pornification and degradation that is prevalent and started with the sexual revolution of the 1960s ”

    Sad, chrisse. Allowing two loving adults to form a permanent legal relationship is not “pornification” nor degrading, except perhaps in a closed, biased mind like yours. Please, especially in this season of love, give up this hate you feel for gays and try to put yourself in their shoes.

  25. Mark
    December 23rd, 2010 at 06:15 | #25

    Jennifer: “I understand that NOM has been labeled a hate group too.”

    Jennifer, I realize it requires some reading and research (OK, it took me 45 seconds on Google) to see that NOM is not labeled as a hate group nor is the SPLC planning to next year.

    From SPLC’s site: “Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

  26. Mark
    December 23rd, 2010 at 09:32 | #26

    Paul H: “Even if the state somehow decided to revoke our marriage license, that would not make us any less married, and our children would not be deprived of having married parents. ”

    That is very true and it’s true for same-sex couples as well. Unfortunately, on our society, marriage has been blurred with legal status so ability to get insurance, hospital visitation, adoption, etc. are all affected by the legal recognition of marriage. Even things that many don’t consider (social security, FMLA) which couples depend on to raise their families, are not available to same sex couples.

  27. Sean
    December 23rd, 2010 at 10:15 | #27

    “Another thing to consider here is that government can recognize a marriage, but government does not have unilateral power to make a marriage real. My wife and I became truly married when we took vows to each other, as witnessed by a priest, by our family and friends, and by God”

    I think same-sex couples are mostly interested in government marriage, not God marriage. I appreciate the uncommon honesty of your viewpoint: that your opposition to legal same-sex marriage stems from your religious beliefs. Most of the people arguing against same-sex marriage are careful not to make religious references, because they know we don’t make laws in this country based on religion. They realize they’ll get more traction appealing to fear-based and secular reasons for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

    In fact, Dr. Morse created a pamphlet of 77 “reasons” to prohibit same-sex marriage. Her work, however, is undermined when zillions of amicus briefs from religion-based groups show up at trials on marriage equality. Apart from judges around the country watching their colleagues lose their jobs at the prodding of religious organizations, these amicus briefs put a pretty strong imprimatur on why some folks oppose same-sex marriage. I suspect judges will rebel against religious organizations trying to call the shots in the nation’s legal system.

  28. Sean
    December 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 | #28

    “Also, it is a bit like the argument for legalizing illegal immigrants because they are already here anyway.”

    But being gay and in a relationship isn’t in any way, shape or form illegal. Being in the US illegally is, by definition, illegal. Letting perfectly legal couples have access to marriage isn’t rewarding illegal behavior. Your analogy isn’t very powerful, in other words.

    How do you feel about all the children in America forced to be raised outside of wedlock, because their parents are prohibited from marrying? Is this good for them? Should they be made to feel that somehow their parents aren’t good enough, and so society refuses to grant them the same rights as straight parents? I think this is despicable and cruel.

  29. Sean
    December 23rd, 2010 at 10:38 | #29

    I think NOM got tagged for its hate by the SPLC also because of the ads they sponsor during elections. Using fear-mongering that plays to prejudices helps define a group as hate-oriented. For instance, the notion that schools recognizing both opposite-sex and same-sex parents will somehow turn a child gay (as if being gay is a bad thing) is hateful. NOM relies too much on promoting ungrounded fears instead of rationally promoting its arguments.

  30. chrisse
    December 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 | #30

    @Mark
    What is sad Mark is that you are unable to recognise that the ideology that is your support base is the ideology that has pornified our society. What is said Mark is that you do not realise the meaning of the saying “when you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas”. In your mindset, this saying means you are being called a dog, but that would be incorrect just as your projecting your own mindset onto my words is wrong.

  31. December 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 | #31

    Jennifer you are wrong in stating that NOM has been placed on the hate group list. The SPLC has said that’s NOM’s activities are disturbing and worth watching, but they explicitly did NOT label them a hate group.

  32. December 23rd, 2010 at 11:35 | #32

    Chrisse, I’m afraid you still haven’t explained the link between me wanting to marry my partner and porn and degradation.

  33. December 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 | #33

    Chrisse, the ancient Greeks embraced homosexual love before they lost power to the Romans, so it’s hard to see the connection. And the Romans had an acceptance of homosexuality long before they fell, and before they adopted an even greater acceptance of Christianity. Why then do you attribute its decline to one thing and not the other (or to some other factor altogether)?

    Remember, just because A happened before B doesn’t mean that A caused B. That’s the fallacy known as the “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.

  34. December 23rd, 2010 at 11:42 | #34

    Actually, Jennifer, I’ll go a step further and say that by pointing out NOM has done nothing on my list AND given the fact that SPLC did NOT label NOM a hate group, you’ve helped establish that SPLC is careful and judicious in choosing what groups to call hate groups.

  35. chrisse
    December 23rd, 2010 at 12:07 | #35

    Rob, the ancient Greeks and Romans embraced homosexual activity to avoid pregnancy. They were cultures of death and decadence, and were in population decline – so much so that Caeser passed a law that all males, after military service, had to have started a family by age 28.

    We are also a culture of death and decadence, even elevating by man-made law the human right to feticide. We also salivate over human misery, but instead of having to go to the collesseum, we can bring this human degradation as entertainment into our own homes via movies and computer games.

    The rise in acceptance of homosexual activity amongst non-homosexuals can be linked to a civilisation’s tipping point into decline – a death wish.

  36. Mark
    December 23rd, 2010 at 12:13 | #36

    chrisse: “What is sad Mark is that you are unable to recognise (sic) that the ideology that is your support base is the ideology that has pornified our society. ”

    And, pray tell, exactly is my support base? You assume a great deal (and usually, incorrectly). It is your judgmental, biased, un Christian behavior that you want shoved down everyone’s throats that is leading to the ruin of this country.

  37. December 23rd, 2010 at 12:23 | #37

    Chrisse, I’m afraid you don’t understand homosexuality at all — be it Greek, Roman, or modern. And I’m afraid I still don’t understand how my wish to marry my partner is linked to porn or degradation.

  38. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 12:31 | #38

    Sean :
    “Another thing to consider here is that government can recognize a marriage, but government does not have unilateral power to make a marriage real. My wife and I became truly married when we took vows to each other, as witnessed by a priest, by our family and friends, and by God”
    I think same-sex couples are mostly interested in government marriage, not God marriage.

    Why do those have to be the only two options?? If you don’t believe in God, or if you don’t believe that God has anything to do with marriage, why does that mean that your marriage isn’t real unless the government says so? Why would anyone want to give the government that power over their life — to allow the government to be the arbiter of whether or not they are truly married? I am confident that my wife and I are married whether the government says so or not. Do same-sex couples have this same confidence, and if not then why not?

    I appreciate the uncommon honesty of your viewpoint: that your opposition to legal same-sex marriage stems from your religious beliefs.

    Funny, I don’t recall saying that or anything like that. However, since you brought it up, yes my beliefs on marriage are formed partially by my religion, but they are formed by other factor as well. And I certainly don’t think that religious arguments are the only good arguments in favor of the traditional definition of marriage.

  39. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 13:00 | #39

    Sean :
    How do you feel about all the children in America forced to be raised outside of wedlock, because their parents are prohibited from marrying? Is this good for them? Should they be made to feel that somehow their parents aren’t good enough, and so society refuses to grant them the same rights as straight parents? I think this is despicable and cruel.

    This is an appeal to sentimentalism, not a logical argument. The parents that you mention are not prohibited from marrying any more than anyone else is. They are prohibited from getting a marriage license to have a legally recognized marriage to each other in most states, because most people recognize that their relationship, while it may be wonderful in many ways, does not fit one of the most basic criteria for marriage.

    Look, I know a guy who has two children by two different women. Now, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of both children if their parents were married? But darn it all, our pesky, discriminatory marriage laws and societal norms keep that from happening, because he can’t marry both of their moms; he can only marry one of them. If only he could marry both women, then things would be great for the kids, right? But wait, I forgot that there is an additional complication in this story — one of those women recently got married to a different guy. So I guess in order to make things work, for the kids, they will have to have a group marriage including the father, both of the mothers, and the current husband of one of the mothers. And this is all for those two kids of course.

    Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but I’m also telling a real story about someone I really know. And I’m trying to illustrate that regardless of what sentimentalism may say, some types of relationships just can’t be a marriage. I honestly don’t think that the parents you are referring to can get married any more than I can become my kids’ mom instead of their dad. For me, it’s not a matter of denying rights; it’s a matter of staying true to what marriage truly means.

  40. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 13:03 | #40

    Mark :
    Paul H: “Even if the state somehow decided to revoke our marriage license, that would not make us any less married, and our children would not be deprived of having married parents. ”
    That is very true and it’s true for same-sex couples as well.

    I don’t agree, but I’m glad to hear you say that. Because I’m glad to see that not everyone looks to government as the magical genie who has the sole power to create a marriage bond.

  41. Sean
    December 23rd, 2010 at 15:26 | #41

    “if you don’t believe that God has anything to do with marriage, why does that mean that your marriage isn’t real unless the government says so?”

    Because the government issues marriage licenses, and determines who may marry, not God.

    “I am confident that my wife and I are married whether the government says so or not.”

    If you don’t possess a government-issued marriage license, you’re not married.

    “This is an appeal to sentimentalism, not a logical argument.”

    Not at all! Maggie Gallagher has written some marvelous articles, using research, that explain how marriage provides tangible benefits to children (as well as couples!). There’s nothing sentimental about it.

    “because most people recognize that their relationship, while it may be wonderful in many ways, does not fit one of the most basic criteria for marriage.”

    Why should strangers get to decide whom I, or you, get to marry?

    “Now, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of both children if their parents were married?”

    Absolutely! Children do better when they are raised by married parents. Children shouldn’t be forced to suffer because of the irresponsible sexual behavior of their parents, such as your friend.

    “Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but I’m also telling a real story about someone I really know.”

    I believe you! Straight people can be extremely irresponsible in their sexual habits, and this irresponsible behavior often leads to children born and raised out of wedlock. That’s no reason, of course, to punish same-sex couples, who wish to behave responsibly, and raise their children within wedlock. Remember, two wrongs don’t make a right!

    “For me, it’s not a matter of denying rights; it’s a matter of staying true to what marriage truly means.”

    Since everyone agrees that same-sex couples have the right to raise children, it makes no sense not to insist that those children be raised in a married household, whenever possible. We must not harm children just because we may not disapprove of their parents!

  42. chrisse
    December 23rd, 2010 at 20:21 | #42

    Rob, I understand same-sex attraction. It is a disordered personality with both high and low functioning types.

  43. chrisse
    December 23rd, 2010 at 20:28 | #43

    Mark, I am biased towards the inherent human rights of the child and will oppose the reduction of the child to a commodity, reduction of women to incubators, because a minority, (and I include hetersexual women who elect to use IVF without any intention of involving the father or at least a father) see scientific advances as the opportunity to re-engineer what it is to be human.

    These demands are part of the manufactured human rights popping up everywhere. We also have white skinned, red haired, blue eyes Anglo Australians downunder claiming to be aboriginal under these “rights”. It’s beyond ridiculous.

  44. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 21:47 | #44

    Sean :
    Because the government issues marriage licenses, and determines who may marry, not God.

    Again, why does it have to be either God or the government? What magical power does government have to make a marriage real?

    If you don’t possess a government-issued marriage license, you’re not married.

    That’s a way of thinking that is very hard for me to get my head around. From my point of view, it’s a little bit like saying that a child does not exist until the government grants him or her a social security number. From your point of view, these two ideas are probably very different, but for me one makes as little sense as the other, and for much the same reasons.

    “This is an appeal to sentimentalism, not a logical argument.”
    Not at all! Maggie Gallagher has written some marvelous articles, using research, that explain how marriage provides tangible benefits to children (as well as couples!). There’s nothing sentimental about it.

    I’m not sure that you understood what I meant by sentimentalism. If you read up on sentimentalism as a philosophical position or as a debating tactic, you may see why I said that. (Or you may still disagree.)

    Why should strangers get to decide whom I, or you, get to marry?

    I don’t know. You’re the one who is advocating that only government-sanctioned marriage (i.e., marriage approved by a specific set of strangers) constitutes real marriage.

    Since everyone agrees that same-sex couples have the right to raise children, it makes no sense not to insist that those children be raised in a married household, whenever possible.

    I agree, to a point. The problem though is that I don’t believe that marriage is possible between two people of the same sex — any more than one marriage can be created which includes the man that I mentioned, the mothers of his two children, and the husband of one of the mothers.

    We must not harm children just because we may not disapprove of their parents!

    My stance is not based at all on approval or disapproval of the parents! It is based on what marriage is, and what it is not.

  45. Paul H
    December 23rd, 2010 at 21:51 | #45

    Sean, I may not have a chance to reply to you again until next week, if even then, with tomorrow being Christmas Eve. In case I don’t reply again, let me just say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

  46. Jamie
    December 23rd, 2010 at 22:02 | #46

    @chrisse
    Uh, haha, homosexuality isn’t a personality disorder. . . . You really don’t know much, sorry to say. I uh, I had actually never seen porn till me and a friend watched it together. It was really amusing. Actually, among most young kids, porn has gotten to a point where we just find it gross and stupid. Is objectifying, ugly, and just unrealistic. . . .

    As one who identified as homosexual male for a while, I can tell you men don’t try to imitate the vagina via anal sex. . . . They don’t want anything to do with the vagina, they want to have sex with men, and anal sex gives the most intimate form of that. Male male sexual relations are actually very intimate. So are female female.

  47. chrisse
    December 24th, 2010 at 00:56 | #47

    @Jamie
    Very few disordered people consider themselves disordered, Jamie. Nor have I said that homosexual males are actively aware of their mimicking. That’s why it is a disorder.

    Now having an intimate relationship using the anus which is designed for defecation may be your idea of intimacy. But that is disordered.

    Ari posted on a chimp study. Let me discuss with you bonobos, very interesting primates indeed. Extremely sexually active. So much so that non-reproductive sexual activity is their social bonding mechanism. Now, the females receive manual stimulation of the clitoris by other females and males. What is more interesting here, is that the males do not engage in anal sex. They do a sort of sword fight with their erect penis’s, and it has no orgasmic ending. Just saying…

  48. Sean
    December 24th, 2010 at 06:06 | #48

    “What magical power does government have to make a marriage real?”

    It issues the marriage licenses.

    “You’re the one who is advocating that only government-sanctioned marriage (i.e., marriage approved by a specific set of strangers) constitutes real marriage.”

    I’m saying that a government-issued marriage license is the minimal requirement of being married. And those licenses should be available to all citizens on an equal basis.

    “The problem though is that I don’t believe that marriage is possible between two people of the same sex”

    Then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Others strongly disagree with you, and a number of states and the nation’s capital have proven that marriage does in fact exist between two people of the same sex.

    “My stance is not based at all on approval or disapproval of the parents! It is based on what marriage is, and what it is not.”

    And also appears to be influenced by religious belief. Is it? People of faith are always free to practice their legally permissible religious beliefs, even as others practice different beliefs.

  49. Jamie
    December 24th, 2010 at 10:50 | #49

    @chrisse

    You are right, they usually aren’t aware. But I would say that psychologists generally are the experts on such things, wouldn’t you? The agreement among psychologists is that its not a disorder. Yes, they have done dozens of studies on it. In addition, they do not believe, and have evidence to support this lack of belief, that male homosexuals use the anus to mimic the vagina. Please, take your own beliefs out of the equation, and lets use facts love. And about the monkeys? Can both sides agree to stop using animal studies? We have gay penguins, but that doesn’t really help homosexual equal rights, does it?

  50. Paul H
    December 24th, 2010 at 12:52 | #50

    Hi Sean,

    You seem to be repeating talking points, and asking me questions that I have already answered.

    However, I will say I think it is sad that you willingly give the government such power over your life, so that you wouldn’t even consider yourself to be truly married unless the government says so. The state government in my state (Illinois) is corrupt and can’t even pay its bills; I certainly wouldn’t want to give it that kind of power over my life.

    (The legal protections and benefits of marriage are another issue, and an important one, and that issue does involve the government. But I’m talking about whether a couple can know that they are truly married without having to wait for government approval.)

    Any reply that I would make to your other points would just be a re-hash of what I have already said, so I will let it go at that.

    Best wishes to you and everyone here for a great Christmas and New Year!

    Paul

  51. Betsy
    December 24th, 2010 at 13:20 | #51

    Thank you, Paul. Merry Christmas to you, too!

  52. Mark
    December 25th, 2010 at 06:58 | #52

    chrisse: “Rob, I understand same-sex attraction. It is a disordered personality with both high and low functioning types.”

    Then you are exposing your ignorance in the subject. Same-sex attraction is NOT a disorder. Please, read some books on the subject. It’s not good to hate.

  53. Don Hunter
    December 27th, 2010 at 00:29 | #53

    Homosexuality did not cause the decline of Rome. When Rome fell Christianity was the state religion. Christianity became the leading religion of the empire when Constantine became the emperor in 324; Christianity became the official state religion in 391. Prior to that time pagan worship had been outlawed under penalty of death; pagan shrines were plundered, destroyed, or forcibly converted to Christian churches. Rome fell in 476.

    The anus is used to defecate; so what? The fact has no moral significance; any more than does the fact that the penis is used to urinate.

    Gays and Lesbians are not disordered. They function well in all aspects of life and there is no rational basis to conclude they are disordered; claims that they are disordered rest on prejudice;

    Gays and lesbians become parents through adoption or technology; methods also used by straight couples. The couple who are the adoptive parents are the legal parents and have every right to be treated as equal under the law. If technology is used, the parents are ones who raise the child, not the donors. See People v. Sorensen -Calif. Supreme Court 1968. Sorensen was charged with responsibility of supporting the child, because the state regarding him as the father even though he had no genetic relationship to the child. He had consented to his wife’s artificial insemination and she gave birth. After the divorce, he tried to claim the father was the sperm donor. The California Supreme Court rejected his claim and held him to be the legal father of the child. Note that the opposing party in this case is the People-that means this is a criminal case. Sorensen is being charged with a crime for his failure to support the child. California was the one who initiated the case. Although the criminal provisions have changed, the underlying principle is still good law. Sperm donors are not parents unless they agree to be. The same principle applies to egg donors. The leading cases involve straight people, but the same principles can be and are applied to gay people.

    Note that coitus was not essential to, indeed was irrelevant to, the law’s attaching the father to the child.

  54. December 27th, 2010 at 10:00 | #54

    When you actively work to deny people access to the same civil rights you have, you are a hatemonger. It doesn’t matter how pretty you try to make your presentation, especially when it’s full of lies and gross distortions.

  55. Doug
    December 29th, 2010 at 00:59 | #55

    Franck says that gay people are an assault on moral reasoning.
    This is Hate Speech.
    NOM creates a Gathering Storm TV Commercials
    This is Hate Speech
    Maggie Gallagher considers all gay men possible child molestors.
    This is Hate Speech
    Franck prints lies on the front page of the Washington Post, claiming the SPLC puts groups on their Hate Group List based on nothing more thanb their opposition to Same Sex Marriage.
    OK, that’s not hate speech, but pretty desperate and ridiculous…certainly nefarious and malevolent…not honest…or maybe just very, very incompetent… like borderline illegal incompetent.

  56. Doug
    December 29th, 2010 at 01:07 | #56

    Oh, and as for your little logical fallacy about 3 Iowa Judges. I’m no expert on Iowa’s constitution, but the point of the Judicial Branch in Federal Government is that it DOESN’T rule along popular lines, it rules what is FAIR.
    If judges had to rule along popular lines, they would be elected into office.
    This is just facts, not an argument, not a debate or discussion, just the fact. That IS What Judicials Are Supposed To Do.
    Firing the 3 judges based on the fact that you don’t like what they said is equivalent to an 8 year old losing a board game so he has a tantrum and throws the board across the room, because if NOM can’t win, no one can play.

  57. Sean
    December 30th, 2010 at 06:37 | #57

    NOM has done enormous damage in convincing citizens that judges who issue rulings they don’t like should be fired. I suspect NOM’s short-term, and shameful, victory in Iowa on this issue will ultimately harm the anti-gay movement: judges nationwide will not take kindly to seeing their colleagues lose their jobs for doing what they were appointed to do. Plus, all the amicus briefs that inevitably get filed by religious and other hate-based groups will not go unnoticed by judges: religious opposition forms a core basis of the anti-gay movement. Of course, in a secular country, such opposition is irrelevant in making law.

  58. Chairm
    January 20th, 2011 at 05:31 | #58

    When SSMers point at adoption or third party procreation they point outside of marriage. Use of a third person’s sperm or ova is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of this practice. Adoption is not procreation. Besides, the SSM campaign does not propose to make the presence of children mandatory for eligiblity to SSM. So we can dispense with that nonsense right now.

    The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced and cannot apply to any one-sexed arrangement.

    To challenge the presumption, the challenger needs to meet certain criteria; but the challenge begins with the sexual basis for presuming that the husband and wife engaged in the procreative act and that this created the child born to the wife. The Sorenson case may not have been decided, ultimately, on that sexual basis alone, but it did begin with it and could not proceed without it.

    Where so-called sperm donation is used, in most places today, it is required by the industry’s ethics and by the law that the husband explicitly relinquish his right to challenge the marital presumption of paternity on the sexual basis of that presumption. Again, the law works by beginning with the sexual basis of marriage — two-sexed — rather than some abstract notion of gender neutral parental units.

    In other words, the husband and wife come into marriage with this vigorously enforced legal presumption. That is the starting place.

  59. Chairm
    January 20th, 2011 at 05:43 | #59

    Don Hunter said: “The leading cases involve straight people, but the same principles can be and are applied to gay people. Note that coitus was not essential to, indeed was irrelevant to, the law’s attaching the father to the child.”

    No, the same principles do not apply to one-sexed arrangements. But they do apply to husbands who later claim to be gay; if they have impregnated their wife, then, the child’s father is the husband, gay or otherwise.

    Coitus was essential to the case. It was and is highly relevant to challenges to the marital presumption of paternity. Other factors come into play after, not before, the sexual basis of this legal presumption.

    But if you want to propose a different default position, then, go ahead but whatever an all-male or an all-female scenario might do sexually would be irrelevant to attaching a child to a persons of the same sex.

    Whatever you propose must, according to SSM argumentation, be applied identically to the union of husband and wife. So no sexual basis for attaching children to their parents, right? That clearly would mean abolishing the marital presumption of paternity and replacing it with something else that is gaycentric.

    But when it comes to the marital presumption of paternity, its underlying basis is that the husband and wife are sexually faithful — for obvious reasons to do with childbearing — and to apply some other test, like men are sperm donors and husbands are not fathers unless they agree to be fathers. Or somesuch. If consent and agreement is the basis, it will be a moveable set of goalposts for sure.

    Meanwhile, the man and woman who marry actually say I do — the agree and give consent — to all that marriage entails including the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. Indeed, society also consents and agrees to vigorously enforced that presumption. This is also reflected in the ineligiblity of some related people, some underaged people, and some previously married people. And this is also how the core meaning of marriage is legally expressed; and thus the idea of same-sex “marriage” is oxymoronic.

  60. Chairm
    January 20th, 2011 at 05:46 | #60

    Tyypo korecshun:

    But when it comes to the marital presumption of paternity, its underlying basis is that the husband and wife are sexually faithful — for obvious reasons to do with childbearing. It would be unjust to apply some other sex-neutral test, like men are sperm donors and husbands are not fathers unless they agree to be fathers. Or somesuch. If consent and agreement is the basis, it will be a moveable set of goalposts for sure.

  61. Chairm
    January 20th, 2011 at 05:54 | #61

    Sexual faithfulness is irrelevant to presuming (if such a thing can be concocted) that a child has two fathers or two mothers. Indeed, there is no sexual basis for such a presumption.

    One could not even make it a presumption that SSM entails any sort of commitment to being a parent since SSM argumentation declares that procreation and SSM are seperate matters. Children are optional and not mandatory so there can be no legal presumption that parental status derives from SSM status.

    So — same-sex sexual behavior provides no basis for a presumption of paternity or maternity.

    The SSM idea severs childbearing from same-sex “marriage”.

    The lack of a legal requirement to procreate means that SSM cannot entail an agreement to parent the partner’s children. Sure, this or that particular pair of persons who’d SSM might concoct their own private contract that outlines an agreement of some kind, but SSM, as a relationship status, cannot entail a presumption that procreation makes the same-sex pair a same-sex pair of parents.

    Not according to SSMers and their SSM argumentation, anyway.

  62. Chairm
    January 20th, 2011 at 06:02 | #62

    The same problem exists with adultery provisions. First, there is no same-sex sexual basis for adultery.

    If one is to be proposed, then, SSMers need to be very clear what constitutes adultery in an SSM scenario. And is it identical for the all-male scenario, the all-female scenario, and the husband-wife union? Nope, can’t be; and that would mean “seperate but equal” treatment, surely.

    And not just the nuts and bolts, mind, but also the societal significance such that dissolution of a public type of relationship might be justified. Of course, SSMers acknowledge that the SSM idea is made plausible by no-fault divorce so the adulter provisions would likely be done away with – or only apply to the union of husband and wife where sexual faithfulness has societal significance in that most children, by far, are indeed born of the husband and wife. Again, seperate but equal treatment is foreseeable.

    Unless, of course, all unions of husband and wife will be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives and instead are one-sexed. That’s the gender-neutral way.

    This problem exists, too, when it comes to sexual consummation. SSM would do away with that since coital relations is two-sexed not one-sexed. Again, there is no legal requirement that would make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory — and no societal significance for it to be considered the initiation of a particular couple’s SSM.

    Meanwhile marriage — the union of husband and wife — has coherency that the SSM idea lacks: sexual consummation, sexual faithfulness, and the sexual basis for presuming the husband and wife are the father and mother of their own children born to their marriage.

    The SSM idea is at odds with the marriage idea on the very basis that the SSM campaign has declared its complaint against the marriage law: sexuality.

  63. Mark
    February 7th, 2011 at 13:36 | #63

    @Chairm
    “First, there is no same-sex sexual basis for adultery.”

    When SSM is LEGALLY recognized, then there will be.

  64. Chairm
    February 17th, 2011 at 03:46 | #64

    Wha twould that sexual basis be, Mark? Coital relations with the other sex, perhaps? If so, how can that also be the sexual basis for SSM?

  65. Mark
    March 1st, 2011 at 20:01 | #65

    @Chairm
    “Wha (sic) twould (sic) that sexual basis be, Mark? Coital relations with the other sex, perhaps? If so, how can that also be the sexual basis for SSM?”

    No, oh foolish one. The definition of Adultery is: “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. ” In other words, the definition depends on MARRIAGE not a sexual orientation. For those same sex couples who are LEGALLY married in these United States, they are committing adultery if they are having sex with anyone other than their wedded partner.

  66. Chairm
    March 5th, 2011 at 19:45 | #66

    You have argued that SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship. You have argued that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship in the law.

    Now you backtrack.

    The sexual basis for adultery is the same as the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That can not apply to the SSM idea.

    You demand that the union of husband and wife be treated identical to SSM. The sexual basis for adultery does not fit the one-sexed scenario — call it whatever you want — and, given your demand for identical treatment, would not apply to the husband-wife duo if SSM and marriage were merged, at law.

    The societal significance of sexual fidelity is obvious when it comes to the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, the two-sexed nature of humankind, and the both-sexed or complementarily-sexed nature of human community.

    What, if anything, is the societal significance of same-sex sexual monogamy such that it would merit as grounds for dissolution of what you have described as a type of relationshiop that is not sexual, at law?

    I’ve more patience than you have taunts, Mark, so you might as well target the substantive issues here rather than continue making ad hom attacks on a fellow commenter.

Comments are closed.