Political Punch

chuck - As far as I am concerned I do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, but in saying that I do not want it shoved down our childrens throats. No this is a state issue, the problem exists is because un-elected judges are trying to pass their own agendas down our throats. Civil unions yes - marriage NO it should be.

Now you ask in your third paragraph above what group is trying to do or saying that well look no further then the lib party. Those comments or action are being taken in one way or the other by the libs running for President. They are trying to ban free speech, they want to ban prayer in school, and the leader of the Lib DNC insulted all Christians.

Phillygirl64, I thank you for your kind, ecological good wishes. You'll be one of the first people I'll invite!

DKNY, there was so much wrong with meridian_poe's posting that I was just going to leave it alone, but I don't feel right in letting you be the polemic standard-bearer for the argument. Please allow me to add my two cents.

Meridian_poe is attempting to create a causal link between granting a civil right and abolishing free speech, which is patently ludicrous. I know of no organization fighting for gay and lesbian rights that wants to abolish free speech. I also know of no "same sex mafia" (and, if one does exist, I'd like a membership application!) that has "ripped prayer out of school," has "declared the Bible as hate speech," and considers believers in God as insane. Those remarks are nothing more than emotional ranting.

Moreover, meridian_poe is absolutely, unmistakably, and totally incorrect in claiming that most crimes against gays are performed by other gays. The crime statistics don't bear that assertion out at all. And the less said about the last sentence involving hunting, the better!

Oh Median Poe, you hopless romantic, you're all "The institution of marriage promotes solid family networks and continues the blood line of both parties should they wish to (breeed).

If the institution of marriage promotes solid family networks, there is no reason to think it would be more effective in doing so with different-sex partners than it would be with same-sex partners.

As to the "bloodlines of both parents" argument, that's a new one. Kudos on your creativity, but what of different-sex parents unwilling or unable to "breed?"

On some of your other points:

If there is a "same sex mafia," please let me know. Their meetings must be a blast.

I've never heard anyone suggest that anyone who believes in God is insane. That's silly.

While I wish the "same sex mafia" had the power you attribute to it, in fact it's the Constitution that keeps religion out of schools.

Finally, there's probably more to the story than 11 people almost being jailed for reading scripture. Reading scripture is not illegal. Come on Median Poe, there's more to this story, isn't there, you zany character, you?

there are a lot of straight people who shouldn't marry or procreate, but we don't see the government interfere there, do we?

chuck - I hope someday we will be able to throw rice (or better yet birdseed) at your wedding

While I agree with civil unions, I don't agree with the comment by DKNY that "There is no rational basis for allowing a man to marry a woman but not to allow a woman to mary a woman...." The institution of marriage promotes solid family networks and continues the blood line of both parties should they wish to (breeed). There are many who CLAIM they don't want government endorsement of their CHOICE - but at the same time they want Primary School curriculum to extol the virtues of a lifestyle that shortens the lives of our brothers, uncles and cousins. They say out of one side of their mouth they want TOLERANCE but toloerance is not enough, they want to abolish any free speech that promotes abstinance and heterosexuality, by closing churches.
The same sex mafia has already ripped prayer out of school, declared the Bible as hate speech, and thinks anyone who believs in God should be certified INSANE. How tolerant is the same sex mafia? they are about as tolerant as any Tyrannical goose stepping, brownshirted group. Just ask the 11 peaceful demonstrators at a Philadelphia Gay Pride March who almost got several years in prison for having the temerity to read scripture. I don't paint with a broad brush because I know what it's like to have gay members of the family treated badly - but not by non-gays MOST crime against Gay people is by other gay people, and the 0.02% that are "hate crimes" do not deserve a whole new law. Our Constitution says - "EQUAL protection under the law" (That doesnt mean everything is equal) it means a crime is a crime and the statutes on the books are more than adequate, other wize The same sex mafia will hunt down Christians with total impunity and make them do God knows what before torturing and killing them for some perceived slight.

RE: "Socialism is on the march"

For the last time for all you fascists in convervative's clothing, social justice does not equal socialism. Equality for all does not equate to government controlled industry, the destruction of religion, or infringement on personal freedom. It's like saying Spam is the same thing as ham. They may sound the same, but in reality are two vastly different entities.

Unfortunately the pseudocons count on the fact that the American sheeple can't differentiate between socialism and social justice. They use scare words like socialist, liberal, and my new favorite, humanist to engender fear into the sheeple. They want you to believe that things like gay marriage will radically alter your quality of life. Those that have planted their flag with the pseudocons have been blinded to the fact that, in the almost seven years of the Bush administration, this country has the lowest economic growth rating in decades, the country is less secure than ever as a result of the intractable quagmire in Iraq, and now all those wonderful $7 an hour Wal-Mart jobs are going to be gobbled up by immigrants. The lone success of the Bush era is the continued oppression of the gay community, which is allegedly being done to save our country from ruin. I've got news for you pseudocons, the gays didn't put us in this position, you did.

Stoic Patriot: I appreciate your thoughtful response, and though I am on the record as being strongly pro-fornication, I think there's a lot we can still discuss.

I think you have complicated the matter in a way that is interesting, but unnecessary. To me the question really is, what rational basis can the government provide for denying the right to marry to some consenting adults while conferring that right to others. I just don't see one that anyone is willing to apply consistently

My personal belief is not yet established. That's why I point out that the anti gay-marriage movement is more diverse than one might think. Permit me to expand upon the license-contract-institution bit.

If we view marriage as a license, then marriage is simply a government permission to have children, but it does not carry with it an obligation to have children.

If we view marriage as a contract, it then really involves 3 parties: government, husband, and wife. The government gives its permission to have children once again and that both parties are bound by legal responsibilities if they have children, while the husband and wife promise that if they decide to have children they will in fact adhere to their responsibilities, and to ensure that they fulfill them, they promise sexual exclusivity.

If we view marriage as an institution for child-rearing, then it carries with it an obligation to have children as one must obey the mandates of the institution and not disregard those mandates if it is to maintain integrity.

Personally, I lean towards the institution view given that arranged marriages was the original form of marriage, but I could easily see myself accepting the contract view. I can't see myself accepting the license view because I have yet to see a "joint license" for anything (one doesn't get a single driver's license for both husband and wife if married - licenses are individual things).

Obviously the problem with any of these views though is that what about children born outside of wedlock? What are we to do about them? Or about women who get in-vitro fertilization and the sperm donors? The sperm donor gets to be an irresponsible father, and the woman impregnated gets to create a child irresponsibly when both parties are, by the fact that they are creating the child, made responsible for rearing the child. Consent between the anonymous donor and the woman, in my mind, does not excuse them for their neglect in considering the child's well-being, the child's welfare, and that by their role in the child's creation, they both owe the child an upbringing.

In-vitro can be solved for the most part by banning the procedure from medical clinics (which I would like to see done through the political process). As I said earlier though, fornication, adultery, etceteras are also social problems. I yearn for a solution to them (social stigmas used to be effective but have since dissipated), but any practicable solution would require in my mind constitute harassment and the violation of other rights (i.e. putting cameras in rooms and monitoring everyone is feasible, but I also think highly ridiculous). We need something which is practicable and yet doesn't overreach.

Stoicx Patriot: Then you also believe that men and women who do not wish to have children or cannot have children should not be permitted to marry as well, correct?

DKNY, once again you say it IS just irrational, but I would contest that it is rational (and note that you didn't provide an argument as to why not). I gave my reasons for it, and the conclusion follows from the premises. Ergo the argument is valid (and hence rational), but not necessarily SOUND (which means that you have to reject one of the premises, in this case rejecting functionalism).

I understand and accept that there are people who reject functionalism, but there are plenty of people out there who support it. I also understand that there are plenty of people who think what I propose is draconian and exceedingly stringent, but I believe it to be a good means of promoting public virtue and responsibility for raising children. I also believe divorce, adultery, and fornication are other major social problems. Does this put me outside the mainstream? That depends on how you define mainstream. If we were to talk about America as a whole, I'm in the mainstream (whether the media wishes to acknowledge it or not, the right-wing does exist as a full-fledged political movement and is not merely a band of a few radicals).

I would note that the vast majority of people across time would agree with me, across cultures. If we were to only look at today though, and talk about mainstream Arab world, I'd be very much in the mainstream (if not perhaps even a raging leftist given that I'm open to the license, contract, or institution positions). If we were in India I'd be in the mainstream, if not once again a raging leftist (they still have arranged marriages). Europe, I'd admittedly be outside the mainstream. You can call the regions which favor my position backwards and yours progressive, but given the legalization of prostitution in Germany in 2003, as well as the Charity, Freedom, and Diversity program in the Netherlands which promotes pedophilia as a political position, I feel comfortable associating myself with these so-called "regressives."

Call my position draconian. Reject functionalism. But please, at least have the honesty to acknowledge that it is rational (and I do find ABCs censorship hypocritical - an insult is an insult, derogatory remarks are derogatory remarks, and they need a consistent policy)

Stoic Patriot, I "outwardly declared" your position to be "irrational," as opposed to "just different" because it is "irrational" and not "just different." I suppose that ABC did not censor this because it addresses the issue under discussion; by contrast, your request that Heather "get AIDS" was a personal attack. I'm just guessing here.

Bush is actually consistent in his comments, whether you agree with his position or not. His prior comment was that he would support the decision of states to control which unions should be recognized, which is a consistent Republican policy of allowing states to determine matters that don't fall within what the federal government should address. The District of Columbia doesn't fall within the states rights analysis. What's more important is that the position statement on D.C. shows the President's actual personal position on the civil union issue.

Well I would reply to you, DKNY, but apparently ABC thinks my posts are worth censoring: like pointing out that it's okay to wish to "whack" someone, mock sexual positions, and outwardly declare something to be irrational (whatever happened to being "just different"), yet wishing AIDS on someone is going "too far" (this is the second time I haven't even actually wished it in a post, merely noted that it was said, watch them censor it again!)

And for the last time, some one-man one-woman advocates want marriage treated as a license rather than a contract or an institution. A license gives permission, but not an obligation. A contract gives permission to incur mutual obligation. An institution is an obligation upfront, plain and simple.

And I try not to reveal myself DKNY. Believe it or not, I prefer restraint to stripping. =)

Well done, Stoic Patriot, revealing yourself for all to see. Getting your hat handed to you on the merits? Go personal. No surprise there at all.

As others have already pointed out, your "rational" argument against same-sex marriage would allow the government to deny the right to marry to all individuals who do not want to have or cannot have children. That would include denying the right to marry to any woman past menopause. Try again. Like I said, the next rational argument will be the first.

Bravo, Heather! The "marriage can only be between members of the opposite sex to procreate" argument went out of style the same time high-button shoes did.

As for your rejoinder spock, isn't that something you ultraconservatives always say when you can't offer any rational reasons otherwise?

Bush should be vetoing more bills. I would not mind seeing congress do nothing.

Definition of Marriage - Marriage is union whether legal or religious between a man and woman.

This is all brought up by libs to destroy the morals traditions of this country. Because if it was not then they would be happy with civil unions with the same rights.

Socialism is on the March!!! BEWARE !!

Anyone that argues functionalism as a secular and "rational" opposition to same sex unions needs to be whacked upside the head with a branch from the common sense tree. According to your argument we should strip all the protections of marriage from heterosexual couples that, either by choice or circumstance, are childless. Also, according to your functional model for human sexual interaction, we should outlaw all forms of birth control, because sex is merely a bodily function intended to bear offspring. I couldn't be happier to not be your wife, "Mr. Stoic Patriot", or maybe that should be "Mr. only missionary only on our anniversary until my wife hits menopause".

No rational basis to not permit it? Have you ever considered that marriage might serve the government-recognized and endorsed function of creating and rearing children in order to ensure that they have good upbringings and that their parents don't abandon them?

Domestic partnerships are another thing, and another institution though, and one which we might establish with a different purpose. But there's plenty of people who will oppose anything like this too. If you want to know why, I suggest you investigate a philosophy known as "functionalism," which is the secular basis behind why conservatives often view homosexuality as the result of a mental illness (sex-drive fulfills the function of getting people to have sex to produce children... homosexuality doesn't accomplish this end, QED)

No rational basis my ass. There's definitely a rational basis. You may not agree with its premises. You may think it's wrong, start to finish, but it is rational. Whatever happened to these self-appointed "open-minded" people who support gay marriage? Or has open-minded come to mean "conveniently ignoring other views"?

QUOTE "civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality." Oh really? Well I don't know about you, but I really don't want or need the government's or anybody else's "endorsement" of my own sexuality. (I am a straight female who has raised 5 kids and am very happily married to the love of my life.) And that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any of this. A legal "union" is a legal "union" and should be provided with the same LEGAL benefits whether male & female, male & male, or female & female. LEGAL RIGHTS shoud not be determined by PERSONAL CHOICES and the government should NOT have the right to choose those for us.

God, how long do we have to wait. The Supreme Court is now 5-4 conservative now(most of the time), Bush would veto, and Congress, I have no clue what they would do but they certainly don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto.

I thank you for your support, DKNY, and I do agree with you. But, I hear many people bristling at the words "gay marriage," as if one person must be the "male" and the other must be the "female," and they must live like Ward and June Cleaver. Being the pragmatist that I am, I don't particularly care what the institution is called as long as I have the same rights under it. But you do make a valid and cogent point that all of the arguments against gay marriage are, in and of themselves, irrational.

And, spock, it's quite obvious you're not in the legal profession, and you interpretations of law are, at best, unique. The federal government can indeed define what a marriage is, as well as the individual states can. Moreover, the federal government's definition will take precedence over an individual state's definition, if the federal law so stipulates. Your attempts to explain the President's actions by using the old warhorse of states' rights is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.

The next rational argument I hear against allowing people of the same gender to marry one another will be the first one. There is no logical reason to preclude it. For that reason, I disagree with you, Chuck. Of course you and your partner should be able to avail yourselves of the same benefits as intergender couples, but that arrangement should be called "marriage," and not something different.

This is a State Issue, since DC falls under Federal and is NOT a state. Bush believes in State rights, ok DC is a very limited authority and by allowing the law in a Federal controlled area makes it Federalized.

Bush is an idiot, always has been, always will be.

This clown just keeps giving me more reasons why I should vote for anyone except for a Republican.

Hate, is a value of the Bush Fascist Republican Mafia Party, all Americans must unit and rise up to the Enemy within.

This is not an issue of morality, but of civil rights. As a gay man myself, I don't care if you call it "marriage," "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or "the Queen of Sheba": I just want the same rights that heterosexual couples have in determining the course of their lives. My partner cannot share in my health plan; he will receive no benefit from my employee pension; he cannot determine what medical care I should receive if I become incapable; he has no rights to settle my personal affairs unless I grant those rights (which I have). What is wrong with this picture is that people such as Bob Knight are trying to use their morality to deny others' rights. It didn't work in the 20th century with the Civil Rights movement, but it seems to be working in the 21st with Tartuffian moralists who, in their zeal to save souls, are condemning them instead.

Consenting adults should be permitted to marry. There is no rational basis for allowing a man to marry a woman but not allow a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man. Fortunately, those of us who believe this to be the case will be on the right side of history, just like those who opposed anti-miscegination laws years ago.