Can Good People Be Against Same-Sex Marriage?

There was a time, not too long ago, where we had to present reasons to support same-sex marriage.

The tables are turning.  It seems to me that social conservatives and religious leaders no longer have the moral high-ground that they thought they did and are now having to present their side of the argument more and more.  And they’re doing a piss-poor job of it.

Dennis Prager, a writer and radio show host, put out an article on World Net Daily called “Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage: No moral thinker ever advocated for 2 men being able to marry.”

If anyone wants to play Logical Fallacy Bingo, you can mark off “Appeal to Authority”  without even reading a word of the article itself!

He begins:

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

He goes on to explain that, no, denying gay marriage isn’t fair to gays. And, no, same-sex marriage is not good for society. Can’t have both. False dichotomy! Check!

When added to Americans’ aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backward and the moral equivalent of racism.

Prager, shockingly, does not see this parallel.  (Should we give him False Analogy on this one?)

While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public rest rooms and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black rest rooms and white rest rooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral.

Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage.

I’m losing track of his logic, so you guys are on your own from here on out.

I think he is getting in a little over his head on why it is easy to draw the parallels between interracial marriage and same sex marriage.  It’s not the fact that the difference between black and white people vs. men and women is exactly the same.  It’s that marrying whomever you see fit is our right.  And those of us who think that the love between two men or two women is as worthy of state recognition as that of a man and a woman often draw the parallel between interracial marriage simply because it’s the same idiots with the same damn arguments who are keeping it from happening.

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

And now comes my favorite part of this whole article.  It’s the largest Appeal to Authority of all time:

Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one — not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Quran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment, ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.

I guess I could sum up my response in one word: So?

I could go on: So what?  So effing what?

Also “Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker”? Really? Then what Bible were they using to justify slavery?

And now for something even more idiotic.  Prager sees the real danger in all of this:

The war on gender.

No, seriously.

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.

That’s actually the first smart thing of this whole mess of an article.  Yes!  Love is more important than gender.

Oh, hold the phone.  He thinks that that’s a bad thing.  No, not just a bad thing.  THE WORST THING OF ALL THE THINGS!

Some examples of this war on gender:

  • This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.
  • In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country’s largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.
  •  When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other
  • The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government-issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only the gender-neutral term “parent” will be acceptable in France.

I am really struggling to find his point in all of this.  Maybe because I don’t attach my personal identity to my gender as strongly as he does.  Or maybe it’s because there isn’t a real point to be made.  He says that “long-term consequences” (scare-quotes intentional) are imminent.  He cites two “obvious consequences” of letting gay couples get married: “gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values.” Is it just me, or is that a phrase empty of all decipherable meaning to anyone else?

So, in conclusion, gay people shouldn’t marry the person they love for the following reasons (according to Prager):

  1. Gandhi did not fight for same-sex marriage.
  2. Gender is different than race.
  3. Adults will have to ask little girls what “person” they want to marry instead of  what “boy” do they want to marry. (Let’s not get into the question itself…)
  4. Boys might want to act feminine.
  5. The term “motherhood” might lose it’s current hard-and-fast definition.
  6. Catholic means “universal”.  So gay people can’t get married.
  7. Dennis Prager is obviously uncomfortable living in a society of shifting norms and thinks that keeping the definition of a word is more important than the rights of millions of LGBTQ Americans.  So there.


About Jessica Bluemke

Jessica Bluemke grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and graduated from Ball State University in 2008 with a BA in Literature. She currently works as a writer and resides on the North side of Chicago.

  • Whio

    love. well, your article, not the idiotic jerk that gave you a reason to write it. I quite like all those war on gender bullet points, and particularly love that places are giving ‘other’ as a gender option. love is love, my friends. try and get in the way of it and you will have a bad time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      what about a pedophile who “loves” a child no doubt you’re fine with that?Sick

  • Anonymous Atheist

    Expansions of rights we haven’t been forced to accept yet are different than expansions of rights we have been forced to accept already!

    • Andrew B.

       Yeah, no shit.  He’s basically arguing for the status quo because it’s the status quo.  “Things should only be different if they have already become different!”

  • jjramsey

    Dennis Prager:

    Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

    Heck, this bit isn’t even true. There have been proponents of same-sex marriage who have asked whether it is good for society. It’s just that they’ve answered that question in a way that is different from that of their opponents.

    • Yotey

      I believe that studies have shown that it is good for society, because it increases the stability and social benefits given to same sex families and their children. It also helps reduce stigma, and LGBTQ youth are considered to be at risk for suicide and self harm due to rejection from families and societies. 

      I will have to look them up shortly for citation.

      • Trailblazer

        Yes, it’s great for society. Heck, everyone should be matched up with another person of their own gender. It’s only natural right? If it’s so natural, then why are there different genders in the first place? Oh! For propagation of the species! So the species can continue to I don’t know, survive! If everyone was a homosexual then wouldn’t humanity die? 

        So someone please explain to me how relationships with the same gender are natural? Curiosity does exist. Of course. But to call it a natural relationship is b.s. If the first humans on earth were gay we wouldn’t be having this conversation right? 

        Also, as posted earlier, who sets up these rights that same-sex couples are trying to claim? Is it not the population? I saw have the states vote on it once and be done for a generation. Why do states need to vote on the same attempted amendment every election? If the people say no then it’s a no. Go somewhere else if you don’t like it. That’s how our government works. I would say the same to someone who is against it and lives in a state where same-sex marriage is passed. If you can’t stand the thought of it then go somewhere else. 

        • smrnda

          You seem to make an unfounded assumption that ‘good for society’ means ‘good if everybody does it.’ There’s pretty much nothing that would be good if everybody did it. It’s good for society that some people want to be teachers, or join the military, but yeah, if everybody chose one of those two options who would clean the toilets, fix the roads or farm? About any choice would be bad if everybody did it.

          I mean, is it illegal not to have kids? We aren’t seeing any shortage of people having kids even with birth control, legal abortion and acceptance of homosexuality.

          On natural or unnatural, who cares? The great thing about people is our ability to reflect on what we think is ‘natural’ and decide if ‘natural’ means good.

    • Matto the Hun

      Further, the opponents’ arguments that it is bad for society fail completely, which is why they are almost always reduced to “duh, duh, duh… because it’s icky”, or “duh, duh, duh, because God said so”

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

        How about because in holland 33% of people now think pedophila and sexual abuse of babies is morally acceptable… Slippery slope. And that argument is true and invokes nothing of the “god said so” clique. Also why cant people get that marriage is about 3x chromosomes and one y sex chromsomes joining in union. You cant give equality to that which is unequal thus gay couples whilst entitled morally and legaly to civil partenerships and the same finaical aid etc of the state are not entitled to call their union “marriage” because they simply do not posses 3 x sex chromosomes and one y, just the same way a man can not breastfeed their small child because they have an underabunace of x sex chromsomes and over abundance of y chromosomes. Some things are entirely down to mother nature and trying to have a one size fits all approach is lunacy because at the end of the day everything comes down to how many sex chromsomes a person or couples has. Thus heterosexual couples for example can never claim to be discremenated against because of their sexuality because no one discriminates against 3x and one y chromsome because its physically impossible. One benefit straight couples have is that they can call their union marriage ( as verified by mother nature who tells us 3x and one y is marriage) and one of the disadvantages is they can not claim discremenation in a court of law because of their sexuality because simply speaking nature makes it impossible for any one of any sexuality to discremenate against straight couples because their sex chromsome number acts as a type of protection. You don’t see straight couples moaning about this fact because they respect the sex chromsome laws of nature and not some ridiculous notion of false equality between peoples who have a fundamentally different sex chromosomal combination number.

    • ReadsInTrees

      “Good for society” is a lame argument anyway. Something may be good for society while still being wrong. Look at slavery and how prosperous areas with slavery were…doesn’t make it right. 

      Look at womens’ rights. Before women could vote, there were fewer divorces, fewer broken homes, dads went to work while moms stayed home and made the house pretty, people were able to buy a house and car on one income ….and look at society now: women are allowed to divorce their cheating or abusive husbands so there are more broken homes, women could have a career (even after getting married!) which meant that household incomes rose which meant inflation to the point where sometimes two working parents is still not enough, and many kids are being raised by single mothers. Society may have been better off if women hadn’t gotten the vote, but that doesn’t mean that not allowing women to vote would have been the right thing to do.

      • C Peterson

        I disagree. I think that what is good is primarily defined by what is good for society. The problem with your example is the assumption that a “broken” home is bad, or that the things you identify as good really were, or even that they were real.

        Divorce is good. Little has improved the health or our society like the recognition that marriage need not be permanent, and can be easily ended. Families are now more functional than they were before, abuse of women and of children is reduced, everybody is safer. Society was not better off before women got the vote… which is one of the most important reasons for recognizing that right as good.

        • ReadsInTrees

          I should have clarified that my examples were a bit tongue-in-cheek. Those were the things that people against women voting were worried about happening: women divorcing their husbands, women going to work, the breakdown of the traditional family structure…..All “bad” things that were feared would happen with womens’ suffrage. Well, they were right. Those things DID come to pass, but it wasn’t necessarily bad.
          The opponents of same-sex marriage fear that it will be “bad” for society because children may grow up confused about gender roles, the “definition” of marriage will be marred forever, kids will be taught about same-sex marriage in schools, wedding businesses will have to cater to same-sex couples, employers will have to offer spousal healthcare coverage against their moral judgement…..These things cause them to fear that society will suffer. So I was trying to say that a perceived “better society” should not be used to deny people rights. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

          In your opinion society was worse of before women got the vote. Their may be some one out their who thinks otherwise and who are we to say they are wrong? Thats the problem with moral relativism everybodies view is equal important. But your at the other side of the argument where you think what you say is right and what others say is wrong. On the other hand the correct stance to say is their is an objective right and wrong and that does not come down to what society thinks is fashionable or any one individual with a high opinion of them selves. As for Divorce being good that is not the case as it can damage children far more than a marriage where their is a little bit of shouting, it can teach people if something is a little tricky not to work hard, it can make people lazy. Only someone who hates marriage would say “divorce is good” a more accurate statement would be “divorce is generally bad but can be good or neutral under certain circumstances”. ” Divorce is always good” as you said is clear ideological idiocy and hatred of marriage with a clear lack of rationalism and balance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

        So women are not cheating or abusive… Women have more rights than men when it comes to abortion, but that should NOT be the case when artificial wombs exist as that would be sexist against the MANS reproductive rights> I buy the “slave to pregnancy” argument only whilst artificial wombs dont exist. Likewise just because its fashionable for society to worship gays does not make it wise to reverse the age old tradition of marriage being a celebration of the union of 3x sex chromosomes and one y chromosome. Gay couples have a different number of sex chromosomes on aggregate than straight couples thus cant get married. If they could find a way to have 3x sex chromosomes and one y sex chromosomes much of the opposition to gay marriage would drift away, its not bigotry its adherence to the biological rule of marriage as being defined by science as between 3x sex chromosomes and one y.

  • EivindKjorstad

    The question depends entirely of your definition of “Good People”, furthermore it confuses two entirely distinct questions. There are no morally sound reasons to oppose any-sex-marriage. If the people who do so can still be said to be “Good” or not, depends on your definitions.

    • http://twitter.com/tauriqmoosa Tauriq Moosa

      Well said.

  • Pauleky

    Good? Maybe. Ignorant? Definitely.

  • Glasofruix

    That is why sports events, clothing, public rest rooms and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex.

    Yeah, separate restrooms or schools have nothing to do with biology/gender. And in sports it’s often the testosterone lacking part that has a (a real) disadvantage, so it’s only fair to have separate events.

    • EivindKjorstad

       It goes further than that though. There’s frequently separate public toilets for men and women -even- in small cases where there is just a single toilet with a basin for hand-washing behind a lockable door.

      There’s no rationale to it, it’s not as if using a toilet that was previously used by a person of the opposite gender is somehow different from using a toilet that was previously used by a person of your own gender..

      Furthermore, you get extra lines, as for example 3 women can be standing in line waiting their turn for the female toilet while the male toilet next to it is unoccupied.

      • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

        Fortunately for me, I’m a male-bodied individual, so my stepping into a men’s room has no actual effect. I think that I wouldn’t care so much as that anyway even if I weren’t male-bodied.

        Long line for women’s room? *knock-knock* “Hey men, woman coming in” – solves that problem.

        • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

          A lot of men don’t have an issue with this. I was at a performance once and during intermission the line into the women’s washroom snaked around the corner and down the stairs, suggesting a 20+ minute wait. The men’s washroom had no line at all. Some women in the line were eyeing the men’s washroom furtively, so I said “It’s just about empty in there. If you gotta go, you gotta go.” Another man standing nearby nodded and said “Go, I don’t think anyone would care.”

          And off they went. More women joined them, and the line into the women’s room cleared up in under ten minutes.

          • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

            It’s remarkable how society has caused so many people to get all antsy around such simple things as that. Seriously, the only difference between a men’s room and a women’s room is the urinals. Just… block them off with a wall and tada, you’ve made a unisex bathroom with a section for men to pee standing up.

            It’s a really stupid argument, but it calls to a level of comfort that really shouldn’t be such a big deal. Unisex bathrooms with full stalls and a lock that says “occupied” or not. Congrats, you’ve solved all sorts of problems.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

            A man tries that hes a perv. Thats typically of liberal “some are more equal than others” bias. Thatswhy Im a free thinking anti marxist socialist.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

            A man tries that hes a perv. Thats typically of liberal “some are more equal than others” bias. Thatswhy Im a free thinking anti marxist socialist.

      • Ashleywhittal

        Usually the reason toilets are segregated is due to urinals. I agree that the segregation of a single toilet is unnecessary. 

        I have seen a few places where the urinals are separate and the stalls are unisex, mostly in LGBT clubs. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/abb3w Arthur Byrne

         There’s a bad rationale for it; it reduces the number of discomfiting surprises when the occupant forgets to lock the door.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        I have no problem using the mens loo if the ladies loo is occupied. Like Katherine said, “Hey, men, woman coming in.”

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    It seems to me that the only even slightly coherent nonreligious argument to be made against same-sex marriage is that in this particular society, the word marriage has generally referred to heterosexual unions. But “it’s always been done that way” is not a morally sound argument, since it could be (and has been) used to support the oppression of women, slavery, opposition to contraception, and so forth and so on. Tradition is not a sufficient reason to continue doing things a certain way, which the “imagine how stupid” graphic illustrates quite clearly.

    • Coyotenose

       Seriously, almost every part of the U.S. Constitution is about fixing traditions that were detrimental to human dignity. Are they blind to that?

      • Golfie98

        No they are not blind to it. In order to stop the redefinition of marriage (as they label it) with the reasoning that traditional things should not be redefined they have to (and are in the process of) redefine the US constitution  to support their stance.  It’s such obvious hypocrisy even they can’t be blind to it. 

  • Quintin

    Same-sex marriage is not good for society, see the how Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Argentina, Canada, Mexico City, Quintana Roo, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, the Coquille and Squamish reservations and Washington DC have descended into anarchy following its legalisation!

    • http://twitter.com/tauriqmoosa Tauriq Moosa

      1. Please outline what you mean by “not good for society”. What does “not good for society” mean: that it leads to murders, rapes, etc.? 

      2. Please provide evidence for this extraordinary assertion. As a citizen of South Africa, I’m not sure what anarchy I’m missing (out on).

      3. Why is it that states in the US that have “traditional-marriages” also tend to have the higher crimes, divorce rates, etc.? (“traditional marriages” themselves are actually quite recent given that marriages often involved either a number of wives or were part of pecuniary or political move)

      • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

        Quintin is being humorously sarcastic. Iowa is not exactly a hotbed of anarchy, either:-).

        • http://twitter.com/tauriqmoosa Tauriq Moosa

          #Fail

      • Anne

        I think your sarcasm-meter might be broken.

      • JasmynMoon

        He was being sarcastic.

    • Will Chain

      You can also add my country, Brazil, to that list! =)

      • Quintin

        Wikipedia doesn’t, so neither do I. Also, we were the first to do it, so we get to judge how others do it, obviously. :-P

    • Doesky

       Typical Leftist stage 1 thinking with an event horizon of 10 years or so.  Oh  SSM hasn’t blown up the socity in 10 years so all is well. 

      Similar stage 1  thinking got us the feel good ponzi scheme of social security and government handouts that 30-40 years later our country and Europe is teetering on the edge of a financial cliff.

      Let me ask you something…. isn’t our society screwed up enough already for our kid’s growing up that we also don’t have  to pile it on further by subjecting them to answer the question “Are you going to marry a boy or girl when you grow up?”

      • Sven2547

        Explain in what way allowing same-sex marriage could harm or destroy a society. I’m genuinely curious.

      • Quintin

        We have had over a decade of same-sex marriages and currently eleven countries, seven states, two indigenous reservations and two federal districts, a total of twenty-two entities, have legalised it. Even if that can still be called the short term, nothing has actually happened on that short term.

        Social security isn’t exactly a problem in Europe. A few countries are going under, certainly, but why blame social security for all of it? What is the mechanism behind it? Why not some other factor, or many? I doubt that you’ve actually taken the time to think about it and just blamed whatever “problem” you liked most.

        Also, is it really such a problem to start asking kids who they want to marry? Wouldn’t it fit in with asking them who they love? Isn’t it just the same as asking them what color their spouse would be if they could choose? What’s the problem even? That they’ll be exposed to reality? That they’ll find out that homosexuals exist? That they’ll find out that marriage is the way it is? When has knowledge ever had an undesirable effect?

      • Thumper1990

        Why would you even ask that question? Why not just let them grow up and make their own choice, and then just accept it. You know, like a decent human being.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Yeah great, Now Holland has a pedophile party and it attracted 33% of the votes, it also has an ever rising rape problem and more people their are saying “rape so what” clear evidence of the oft ridiculed but non the less practically sound “slippery slope” argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/waterbarry Barton Keyes

    I

    • Coyotenose

       This makes me smile so much.

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

        You smile because you are simple.Because he is saying a marriage results from a specific difference in chromosomes, hes saying that the specific combinations of chromosomes is not different between 2 people of different races (man and women) and he is spot on but that the specific chromosome combination is NOT present in same sex marriage and he is spot on, for 5000 years marriage has been defined in all most all cultures as being a combination of 3x chromosomes and one y chromosome it was immoral to ban interracial marriage because they had that specific combination of sex chromosomes however its not immoral to ban gay marriage because you end up with 2x and 2y or 4x’s and as marriage is between 3x and one y chromosomes gays simply can’t get married.

        Clearly you’re too thick to notice that marriage has always been a specific sex chromosome mixture that promotes difference, it is not meant to promote the same chromosomes hence gay marriage as it does not preserve the “difference” element of marriage and thus unlike interracial marriage can not be allowed, because interacial marriage does promote the specific sex chromosome numbers required and gay marriage does not.

        • Ann Onymous

          Actually, loads of ancient cultures were quite fond of polygamy. The Bible, in fact, is quite big on polygamy provided it’s a man with many wives/concubines, not vice versa. And the combinations allowed for by different sets of chromosomes have little bearing on whether to grant basic human rights.
          Note how I make my point without calling the opposition “thick” and “simple”, and without run-on sentences. But you didn’t type in all caps; thank goodness for small mercies.

  • http://gadlaw.com gadlaw

    You know, somebody should create a nice little java applet or a apple app called ‘Logical Fallacy Bingo’ so we can just open it up and play when we’re reading these sorts of things. It’ll help folks get their logic in order and make reading the anti gay/anti atheist rants endurable. Good article Jessica! 

  • http://twitter.com/tauriqmoosa Tauriq Moosa

    We must first understand what you mean by “good person”: does a good person have to have consistently sound moral views or ones that align closely with yours/ours? Don’t think anyone here would hesitate to talk most religious people good; I have little problem saying (1) most Muslims are good people and (2) saying the texts and beliefs are largely immoral. 

    A good person can hold a bad belief, just as a bad person can hold a good one. Which is why we should always try encourage an interrogation of someone’s beliefs, not their character (at least, at first).

  • Sailor

    Of course good people can be against same sex marriage. Good people, like all people, can be mistaken. Take Vermont. First in the nation to pass a civil union law. The state was divided down the middle with hundreds of “take back Vermont” sign displayed. It was a major electi0n issue, however it went through. Four years later, the sky had not fallen and it was not even an issue. A little later gay marriage was passed without a whimper.
    Do I think all those who initially opposed gay marriage and then decided it was a non-issue were bad people? Not at all.

    • Jessica

      Sailor, I want to be completely honest with you.  I was skimming the comments and for some reason read “Vermont” as “Voldemort” and was really really excited.
      I mean, you made a great point, but couldn’t you have tied more Harry Potter lore into your argument? ;)

    • Russian Alex

      But what about the hurricane hitting New York! It’s all because teh gheyz! Te derp, te derp!

      • Sailor

         Ah yes, but the hurricane stepped neatly around Vermont doing almost no damage, which shows that God clearly loves those who treat gays well, and also he likes atheists, because Vt has less religious people than any other state.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

          The hurricaine wasnt “god” it wasnt even mother nature. It was man manipulating mother nature using harp…

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      why do you think that your a “good” person for supporting it. Who made you god? Why cant you respect mother nature whom has told us that 3x and one y sex chromosome is marriage….

  • keddaw

    In answer to your question – yes.

    Marriage, as long as the state is involved, involves granting benefits of some kind to a legal agreement between two people that is not accessible to single people, couples who don’t want the whole legal smorgasbord of marriage, and people who wish to be in groups of more than two.

    Rather than expand the availability of these state-sanctioned benefits to another group, thus increasing both the financial burden and social stigma on those who are not in the ‘acceptable’ category, the state should ignore marriage and leave it as a religious or social ceremony and stick to enforcing voluntary contracts between people – which may be the traditional marriage contract or some modified version of it.

    • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

      I seriously am getting sick and tired of this response to the SSM issue.

      YES, we understand that civil marriage is truly the only important thing as far as rights and responsibilities and legalities matter.

      NO, it doesn’t make sense to make marriage a religious-only exercise while civil unions (whatever) will be the actual legal terminology.

      This is a stupid compromise, and it’s still creating religious bigotry in the same form as “well they’re not -really- married.” Religious people should have to come to terms with not being able to hold onto a term like “marriage” rather than everyone making a compromise to not hurt their little feefees.

      Fuck bigots. Seriously. I’m TIRED of having to tread on eggshells to not injure someone’s feelings if they’re a bigoted asshole. I’m TIRED of having to think about what some asshole might think about me. So screw it. THEY are the ones who should change. Their bigotry should not be tolerated anymore. It should not be condoned anymore.

      • keddaw

        How about, before you go throwing the B-word around, you actually analyse what was said and see that it’s an anti-(state involvement in)-marriage post, not an anti-SSM one…

        How about our government doesn’t try to incentivise one form of relationship and disincentivise another?  How about it’s none of their business?  How about they don’t even recognise people as married or not?

        How about you don’t tell religious people who can and can’t attend their magic ceremonies, or what they can call them afterwards, and they don’t tell you what you can do in your non-religious ones and what the participants are called?

        How about you leave the ignorant cretins to their mumbo-jumbo-based bigotry and you perform all the all-inclusive ceremonies you want and the state stays the hell out of it?

        • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

          Why? Why should we leave people to be bigoted assholes? No seriously, give me a GOOD reason to ignore them. Why should we have to give them what -they- want (the right to determine who is and is not married) and allow them to be bigots? Bigotry needs to die. Compromising to allow bigotry to continue is NOT the way to handle it.

          SSM will happen. It will be determined by the states. It will be allowed by the states. Religious bigots will rail against it, but society will leave them behind. Which is where they should be left.

          Put the bigotry and meanness behind us, or we’ll never advance as a society.

          • keddaw

            “Why should we leave people to be bigoted assholes?  No seriously, give me a GOOD reason to ignore them.”
            Because the general principle of liberty is that you leave people alone.  And especially don’t interfere with people’s thoughts.

            I know you think they’re trying to harm gay people, but they’re actually not.  They’re trying to get the state to harm them on their behalf, which is what we should be fighting against.

            “Why should we have to give them what -they- want (the right to determine who is and is not married)”
            I’m pretty sure that is exactly what I said we shouldn’t do.  What I said was that the state should  not have an opinion on who is married and the people can decide what they want to call each other, or deny that some people are what they call themselves.  Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

            Don’t know where you thought there was a compromise in anything I wrote, unless you need everyone to agree to and support certain lifestyles, in which case I’m afraid I am back to the First Amendment to support the right of the churches to be bigots.

            In the free marketplace of ideas the best place for bigotry is out in the open where it can be scrutinised and ridiculed and those who practice it convinced it is wrong or socially shamed into ceasing it.  This is not only not compromise, it is the only way to rid us of the bigotry in society.

            • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

              You state that we should prevent the church from harming people by way of the state. Not allowing the church to have a chokehold on what marriage means is the WAY to stop this. Yours is no different a response than the “let churches have marriage and redefine all legal marriage as civil union” argument. It’s -stupid-.

              And yes, that is what you’re saying. You’re saying the state should stay out of the marriage business, call it some other legal terminology (civil union, contractual partners, common-law relationship, I don’t CARE what it is you’re calling it,) and allow the church to define what marriage is.

              This is bullshit.

              If you want to defeat bigotry, the way is not to let them determine the rules of the game. By sitting back and kowtowing to their demand that they get to define marriage, you’re compromising. They should not be allowed to define marriage.

              • keddaw

                “Not allowing the church to have a chokehold on what marriage means is the WAY to stop this.”
                They don’t, and what I’m proposing would remove any possibility that they ever could.

                “Yours is no different a response than the “let churches have marriage and redefine all legal marriage as civil union” argument.”
                No, I’m saying let anyone use the term marriage if they want to.  It’s not the government’s business.

                “You’re saying the state should stay out of the marriage business, call it some other legal terminology”
                Did you read ANY of what I wrote?  I am categorically stating that the state should stay out of the relationship business altogether.

                “and allow the church to define what marriage is.”
                The churches can call whatever they want marriage.  So can any group.  But since it is a term that the state has no relationship with, the state does not recognise the term.

                Are you being wilfully blind to what I write, or do you think I am making points I am not making?

                • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

                  So the state has no business in marriage, correct? So what does the state get to do with the marriage-type relationships currently and in the future? Sure I can say I’m married to my non-existent boyfriend/girlfriend, but what’s the point? Just to call myself married is fine.

                  There are LEGAL aspects to marriage that are currently associated with the term. Are you saying that the legal aspects should be maintained while also abandoning the term “marriage”? If so, you’re doing EXACTLY what I said. Marriage is a term that is non-defined (allowing the church to define a form of marriage) while the state gets to hold onto the civil, legal aspects of marriage – IOW, calling legal marriage something like a civil union, contractual partnership, or common-law relationship.

                  WHY do we need to make this concession to asshole bigots? We should not let them take control of a word that has a very real and very LEGAL definition in the states, and then re-define the legal definition to fit something else entirely. What should be done, rather than make a workaround to not tread on their feefees is that we simply adjust the current definition to fit the new social order where bigoted assholes’ feefees are not important.

                  Marriage should be a social, legal, civil notion that includes same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. While it does marginalize polyamorous and other forms of relationships, that is due to other laws that should be fixed to include them.

                • keddaw

                  Everyone who is currently married/civil unioned can keep the legal contracts, that’s great.

                  But when I want to choose someone to be my medical proxy I want it to be my doctor friend, not my great but non-medical girlfriend.  I shouldn’t have to ‘marry’ my friend to ensure I get the best treatment according to my wishes.

                  Likewise my legal proxy.  Or financial, unless we have joint finances.

                  So, please explain a single legal issue (excepting the state financial benefits of marriage) that would not be equally resolved by mutually agreed contract (or living will) that requires the state to recognise the outmoded concept of marriage in any form…

                • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

                  Those things can already be determined by a legal contract. Do you just want to have marriage as a legal term gone?

                  So what you’re saying is: when a couple decides to get married, they have to have a marriage ceremony and then get a paper signed by a judge defining the limits and conditions of their relationship together.

                  So the bigots get to keep their definition of marriage, and we let them keep their definition of marriage while everyone else gets their definition of marriage.

                • ortcutt

                  Marriage isn’t a contract.  It’s a legal status.  There is no way to recreate the rights and obligations of marriage under contract law.  Contracts deal with legal obligations between the contracting parties.  Many of the rights and obligations of marriage are in relation to the state.  I wish people who made this stupid argument actually knew something about the law.

                • keddaw

                  Well that’s a strange statement.  Pretty sure married people all sign a contract which encompasses a whole host of legal obligations and various other legal entanglements on each other.

                  Also, what makes you think people can’t have a contract with the state?

                  And even if your objection is in relation to legal status with regards to the state, I’m not sure how marriage makes the slightest bit of difference since it’s simply a generic term used for various tax codes and what have you that the state could decide was for 2, 200 or 2 million people regardless of who they are copulating with or who they have decided to tell their friends and family they are planning on spending the rest of their lives with.

            • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

               “Because the general principle of liberty is that you leave people alone.  And especially don’t interfere with people’s thoughts.”

              But how is it not leaving them alone, or interfering with their thoughts, to do something that’s right even though it pisses them off? The argument seems to be that we should let bigots have the term “marriage” because they think they own it, but IDGAF if they think they own it. They don’t. Christianity did not invent marriage!

              • keddaw

                You have to read the whole conversation to get this part…  I was asked:

                “Why should we leave people to be bigoted assholes?  No seriously, give me a GOOD reason to ignore them.”

                Ignoring bigoted assholes seems like the best response.  Which includes ignoring their idiotic please to have the state define marriage as between a man and a woman when it recognises the marriage of two corporations, or two pieces of legislation, or any of the other definitions of marriage.

                • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

                   I have no idea what the “marriage of two corporations or two pieces of legislation” is about, but OK.

                • Coyotenose

                   I believe s/he means that there are numerous types of contractual mergings that don’t have idiotic stipulations about gender, so why should marriage?

                  I vehemently disagree about ignoring them. That’s how these types have always gained in strength, by not being dragged out and exposed. I hate to Godwin. but, well… you know.

                • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

                  that keddaw evil guy wants incest and pedophilia legalized. yet you think supporting same sex marriage which will then lead to his 2 pet projects being legalized is a good thing. Idiot. Im the good win. I will not let you pedophile and incest promoters get away with leaglizing such sick abuse as those 2 things are.

                • keddaw

                  Polyamory and incest my friend, NOT pedophilia.

                  I don’t know how many times you need to be told, but it’s about consenting ADULTS. Maybe you should look into why you keep bringing up pedohphilia, it is maybe on your mind a bit too much…

      • Christi99100

        Of course, members of interfaith marriages that were not sanctified by the “right” clergy are not “really” married, either.  Their bigotry is not restricted to same-sex couples.  Remember that church (not too long ago) that forbid an interracial couple from marrying?  

    • Question Everything

      Except that there is no push, at the state or national level, to remove the current state-sanctioned benefits for heterosexual marriages.  There are plenty of fights to ensure that same-sex couples will not ever get the benefits currently enshrined into law.

      If there were pushes for removing all benefits, I could see what you’re saying.  It’s just not happening, though.

      • keddaw

        So your solution to the state sanctioning bigotry against many minority groups is not to stop the state being playing favourites but to include yet another group within the favoured group which would marginalise those not in that group even more?

        The push against anti-gay bigotry is great, and necessary, but when it comes to the state, it really isn’t helpful to singles, polyamorous or those who just don’t want to be married to increase their financial and social burden even more…

        • Question Everything

          My solution wasn’t mentioned.  I was speaking of the reality of the non-push to get the state out of marriage, and the push to ensure at least one of those groups could never get the rights currently enshrined.

          Can you point me to any proposed law or amendment at the state or national level to get rid of the system of marriage and all the rights it grants?  I can point to plenty that are trying to ensure certain groups never get the rights currently enjoyed, but I can’t think of a single one trying to get rid of the entire system, only those strengthening the current man-woman marriage set.

          I completely agree that there are other marginalized groups, being in some and knowing people in others.

    • C Peterson

      It is in the interest of society to recognize a contractually defined family- a small group of people who pool their financial resources so that different members can engage in different tasks, and frequently raise children. Treating families as single entities makes the same kind of sense that treating companies does. That’s all a marriage need be from the standpoint of the government… and indeed, that’s largely what it is in practice.

      Government needs to define marriage in order to require and enforce marriage contracts (whatever name we want to use for these things).

      • keddaw

        I would be very careful about defending something that is “in society’s interest” when it is clearly not in many people’s interest…  Also, not everything that is in society’s interest should be codified into law or financially incentivised at the expense of a minority.

        But let’s say you are right.  So what?  Consenting adults should be able to voluntarily enter into legal contracts that the state then upholds.

        “Treating families as single entities”
        Something that isn’t done, legally.  But other than this I am not entirely in disagreement, as long as you’re not limiting it by gender, sexual relationship, number, genetic relationship etc.  So 3 brothers could enter into a ‘marriage’?  I’d be totally in agreement with that.

        • C Peterson

          A primary benefit of marriage is that it allows families to be treated as single entities. This means that the finances of the partners are pooled for tax purposes. It also means that property is held jointly (to different degrees, depending on the state).

          How is it not in anybody’s interest for society to recognize families in a legal way? This seems like an example where something is clearly in society’s interest, and doesn’t conflict in the slightest with any personal interests. Such recognition doesn’t come at the expense of anybody, minority or otherwise.

          • keddaw

            “[Marriage] allows families to be treated as single entities.”Only for the purpose of state benefits which I fundamentally disagree with.  They are not legal entities, biological relationships remain regardless of marriage, only legal relationships between non-married people are affected by marriage and those can be resolved by explicit legal arrangements.

            “It also means that property is held jointly”
            A situation any group of people can be in.  Not related to marriage or family.

            “Such recognition doesn’t come at the expense of anybody”
            Okay, so when married people pay less tax, who has to pay more?   Or are allowed to refuse to testify against their spouse, doesn’t justice suffer?

            Society is just us.  It is not your business to see persons A and B living together in a way you agree with and decide that you should take money from persons C, D and E to reward A&B which you hope will incentivise D and E to live together in that way too.  (And if you then revisit your opinion and decide C&D can live together and be rewarded too then E is suddenly getting seriously shafted.)

            NB.  MANY and ANY are very different beasts.

            • C Peterson

              You may disagree with those state benefits, but you are not materially harmed by them. And I think that almost everybody would agree that the organizational unit we call a “family” is beneficial to society, and that a family can’t exist functionally without it being treated as an entity, with common income, common property, and many common rights and responsibilities.

              Taxation isn’t a simple zero-sum system. A pair of people who pay taxes in a lower bracket by virtue of pooling their income do not necessarily require that anybody else pay higher taxes. You overlook the possibility that the family adds value to the system in other ways.

              In any case, I don’t see it as inherently inappropriate for others to pay higher taxes to support families. Taxation supports society, and everybody benefits from a healthy society. It’s the wingnut Libertarian view that everybody should pay only for what they personally receive. The proper name for such a system is “anarchy”.

              • smrnda

                 I think libertarianism is also similar to feudalism. There will be no such thing as public infrastructure or education, so we’ll go back to the company town model, and the company church along with it. After all, if the serfs don’t like it, they can submit to a different feudal lord. Ah, the freedom!

                • HannibalBarca

                  Well, I identify as Libertarian, not as an anarchist. I actually do have some anarchist friends who literally do believe there should be no government at all. I consider this to be ridiculous. I don’t advocate for the government not to build roads, or infrastructure, etc. My definition of libertarianism is simple: At all times, the freedom of the individual should be upheld and protected, unless a very good case can be made that exercise of that freedom would be detrimental to society.
                  It seems that there is a general dislike for libertarianism in the atheist community, and I think that part of that dislike might be because people accept anarchist positions as libertarian ones and don’t bother to discern the difference.

                • amycas

                   I think it’s because every libertarian I talk to gives a different definition of what it means and what they believe. But that’s just me.

                • C Peterson

                  I think you are right. It seems to me that many atheists are mild libertarians, meaning they support the idea of as small a government as possible, while still fully supporting an extensive public infrastructure. Humanism also overlaps with libertarianism to the extent that it seeks to maximize individual freedom- but unlike more extreme libertarianism, it does not do so at the expense of the wider society.

                • smrnda

                  My main issue is with the economic libertarian arguments, like the idea that it’s government tyranny to force businesses to provide fire exits in factories or that sexual harassment legislation is ‘tyranny’ since the employee can just quit. Social issues I’m totally okay with libertarians, but I guess my take is that controlling resources = controlling other people, so political power has to be leveraged against economic power.

                • keddaw

                  “it’s government tyranny to force businesses to provide fire exits in factories”

                  It is.  But not all tyrannies are equal!

                • C Peterson

                  It’s never “tyranny” when decisions are the product of how a society thinks it needs to operate to be effective. Tyranny is what you have when one person, or a select few, make decisions on your behalf without being accountable to society.

                  Libertarians generally place individual liberty over maximizing everyone’s liberty- which requires compromises between individuals.

                  A purely libertarian society can’t work, of course… because there is no society left.

              • keddaw

                Care to define what a family is?

                Please make it as uncontentious as possible…

                • C Peterson

                  It could mean different things. Legally, it’s an adult man and woman and their dependent children if they have them (and in some places, adults of the same sex). Socially, it’s any couple and may include more extended relatives.

                  What I think it should be legally is any small number of adults of any sex and their dependent children.

                • keddaw

                  So, should the state positively incentivise people who do not have children?  Who cannot have children?

                  Is it the relationship you want to incentivise/subsidise or the children?

                  Because you’ve gone a bit off-track here and defined family, which you said was really important to society, in such a way as it has nothing to do with marriage – which is fine by me, but somewhat at odds with your original statement.

                • C Peterson

                  I think the state should recognize families, with or without children, by allowing them to treat their income as common, by recognizing community property, by allowing untaxed inheritance, automatic powers-of-attorney, visitation rights, etc.

                  I’ve defined families in a functional way. Those families lose much meaning without state recognition. It was assumed in each case that such recognition was a given.

                • keddaw

                  Which has completely nothing to do with marriage…

                • C Peterson

                  It has everything to do with marriage, since that is the legal recognition of a family by the state.

                • keddaw

                  Too far

                • keddaw

                  “It has everything to do with marriage, since that is the legal recognition of a family by the state.”
                  (Comments too deep)

                  Dunno, state seems able to treat unmarried people as families just fine for everything other than tax purposes.

    • Coyotenose

      The denial of equal protection to two groups is not a reason to argue against one ever being treated fairly unless the other is also.

      There is a specific, strong secular argument against marriage between more than two people receiving legal recognition: it is a contractual nightmare. I’m happy for people who are in loving triads (I think I would find giving enough attention to everybody to be such an exhausting life that it would wreck things), but it might require a ridiculous amount of legal retooling to make rights and obligations clear and manageable.

      Gays getting married makes single people feel more socially isolated? That’s a new one.

      • keddaw

        Special privilege being granted to one group is no reason to grant the same privilege to another group, the argument should be to stop granting special privileges based on who you’re sleeping with.

        Just because a legal arrangement is complicated is no reason to ban it.  It actually becomes much simpler once the state ceases to privilege such relationships.

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

    All this boils down to is policing the potty. ZOMG there are differences between genders, we can’t have boys in girls potties!!!

    Ugh, I’m sooooo tired of that argument. It’s all it boils down to in the end. It boils down to gender norms and boundaries and cis-gendered assholishness. It’s all patriarchy and gender roles, and it’s annoying as hell.

    • Randomfactor

       And we all have segregated bathrooms in our homes, right? 

      • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

        Well I certainly don’t.

        My kitty’s litter is in my bathroom (cause there’s NOWHERE ELSE in the apartment I can put it.)

        • Coyotenose

          My cat sitting in the litter box and staring at me while I’m on the potty is a million times more uncomfortable than anything a consenting, happy couple of whatever gender(s) might want to do together.

          • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

            It’s no less uncomfortable than having your cat more or less trying to sit in your LAP while you’re on the potty. Seriously, if I don’t close and lock the door behind me, my cat is right in there with me.

            I mean what the heck is so fascinating about watching me pee?

          • walkamungus

            My dogs (3 of them!) seem to believe that it is their *duty* to stampede into the bathroom and stare, ask for attention, bark at me, whatever! I know what you mean!

      • Trailrunner

        No, but we also have a door to close too. If I ever see a guy checking me out at a baseball or football game “at the trough” they’re going to need some security guards to break it up!

        • Drew M.

          You should probably get a room in that case.

          • Trailrunner

            Yeah, uhm, no. Clearly the security guards would be for this persons safety from me kicking his butt. Not playing with him like you’d apparently like to do since that’s where you disgusting mind took it. 

            • Drew M.

              Well, here’s one resounding “no” to the question posed by the article.

              Good people don’t brag about their ability to commit violence.

  • Aimee

    I think that most everyone is good and how they decide where they stand on this issue comes from the pulpit of their church and their peers.  The ones who are not good are those who are behind the pulpits of these institutions teaching love in one sentence and hate in the next.  How can someone who is basically good and kind make a clear decision on this issue when the clergy continues to muddy the waters? This has been their modus operandi for centuries.  It is how politics works and it is how religion works.  Tell them what they should think.  This article is basically preaching to the choir because those of us on the other side of this issue are also good people who can see beyond the rhetoric.   

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      being against gay mariage is not hate, is complying with mother natures definition of marriage as 3x plus one y sex chromosome.

      • Sven2547

        Marriage isn’t found anywhere in nature. “Mother nature” has defined no such thing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Lol “those that think think the way i do are good” those who dont are haters or hateful….Such a logical fallacy you make. ur opinions arent correct just cause you think they are. Going against mother nature will ruin us.

  • Dread Canary

    I want to start by saying that I completely agree that any two consenting adults should be able to get the legal entitlements that come with marriage.  What we call that institution doesn’t seem overly relevant.  HOWEVER, I do get up in arms about logic and he did not use a false dichotomy given his premises.  A false dichotomy exists when someone acts as if there are only two options when there are more e.g. You must choose between oatmeal or eggs with bacon for breakfast. 

    His argument there was:
    Gay marriage is bad for society.  (if a then x)
    Not Gay marriage is unfair to gays. (if not a then y)
    Therefore we will either have something that is unfair to gays or bad for society.
    (either a or not a)
    Unspoken premise:  the good of society is more important than fairness to gays
    (x>y)
    Therefore not a is better than a.

    The misstep here is a lack of support for the first premise, not a false dichotomy.

  • C Peterson

    I see being good as consisting of two components: you need to be true to your personal moral code, and you need to be true to the ethical system defined by societal consensus.

    Throughout history, good people have supported slavery and infanticide, and have opposed all manner of equal rights. They were good because they believed these things to be morally acceptable, and society believed the same. In actual fact, there was nothing wrong with these things by their standards.

    Of course, it’s still possible for good people to oppose same-sex marriage, because acceptance of that type of marriage is not yet recognized as an ethical requirement by consensus in our society. That appears to be changing, however.

    A different, and I think more interesting question, is how many people who oppose same-sex marriage actually are good people… and I think it’s a much smaller number than those people would like to admit. That’s because I think many people fail on the matter of being true to their own moral code. We live in a time when most people recognize equal rights as a fundamental moral truth. It seems likely to me that many, perhaps most, people who oppose same-sex marriage know that their position is unfair- that is, they recognize that they are not being true to their personal morals, and are therefore not “good”. They are manipulated by their churches, or by their own inability to fully accept something different… but they still know inside that they are wrong.

    I believe that most people are naturally good, and that it is this recognition that they are wrong that is driving many relatively conservative people towards supporting same-sex marriage (which is, of course, also pushing the societal ethos towards consensus).

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Its not unfair. Its not about “rights” marriage is not a right else a person can force someone else to marry them or can marry a child clearly these are not moral and thus are not allowed thus marriage is not a “right”. And no just because society is tending towards saying that its ok to kill jews ala hitler (or in this case promote gay marriage when it has the wrong number of sex chromosomes for marriage) does not make the person who stands up to the genocide of jews ” a bad” person or in this case the person who defends marriage as between 3x chromosomes and one y sex chromosome is not a bad person either because their is an objective morality and just because society decides to become evil does not mean the person who remains good in such a society is in fact evil you make the idiotic mistake of being a moral relativist but in fact infanticide and slavery where always wrong irrespective of how many people recognised that just like gay marriage will NEVER be true marriage because it can never be composed of 2 people who add up to give 3 x chromosomes and one y sex chromosome. Equal rights is not a fundamental truth because non rapist men dont have the right to stop their baby being aborted and no one speaks out against it as being a form of sexism, mabye when artifical wombs exist more will.

      Equal rights always gives privilege to one person at the expense of the rights of another, I prefer the doctrine of human dignity which allows the individual the right to their own individualist rights rather than be subjected to someone elses more equal rights than others as Orwell warned.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        There are people with XXY chromosomes. There are people with XXX chromosomes. There are people with XY who identify as female and people with XX who identify as male. Should these people be denied marriage, because they won’t wind up in a marriage with three X chromosomes and one Y chromosome? What do chromosomes have to do with love, anyways?

        Hemant is the opposite of a moral relativist. Slavery is always wrong. Genocide is always wrong. Discrimination is always wrong. Even if society says those things are acceptable or even good, they aren’t. Ever. That makes him (and me, since I agree with him) a moral absolutist is some ways.

        Also, you obviously don’t understand equal rights. By definition, equal rights doesn’t privilege anyone over anyone else. Men don’t get bonuses just for being men. White people don’t get bonuses just for being white. Straight people don’t get bonuses just for being straight. Everyone is treated as an individual with their own strengths, weaknesses, talents, dreams, and abilities. If you’re scared that people won’t treat your (presumably male, white, straight) self as being special, well, maybe you should become a special person?

  • Nickolas Johnson

    I wonder how many “great moral thinkers” pushed for woman’s equality or animal rights. If it didn’t happen in the past, why should it happen now! His reasoning is sooooo anti-progress that it’s just laughable.

    • RobMcCune

      Dennis Prager doesn’t seem too keen on equality between the  sexes since he spends so much time saying they’re different.

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

        well does a man have breasts? Is a mans reproductive freedom rights ever respected in cases of abortion? Does a man have the same chance of getting custody in a divorce… Clearly they genders are different.

        • RobMcCune

          So what?

  • observer

    Christian fundamentalists have such a strict view on the roles gender has on society, to the point where it’s often scary and/or annoying. But I guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising, considering that people who are in favor of “gender roles” in society are more often then not misogynistic, so anything THEY deem to be feminine, or anything typically related to women, is inferior by default. Though, I do wonder which came first: Does the misogynistic views make you believe in gender roles, or does the concept of gender roles make you misogynistic?

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      actually feminsit qualities are good its the lesbian abortion activists who have also never gotten pregnant telling a man who has an unborn child he has no right to have that child that his wife is the only allowed to “want” the child in order for it to be born that his reproductive rights and the fact he wants the child is totally irrelevant if his partner doesnt want it….. thats ok whilst we have no artificial wombs but one we do it beomes clear misandry sexism and genocide against the female unborn child as it is no longer neccesary for one persons reproductive rights to take precedance over anothers.

  • ortcutt

    If we take Dennis Prager at his word that the prohibition on same-sex marriage is based on sex differences, then laws prohibiting it ought to be subject to Intermediate Scrutiny like any other sex-based classifications.   However, courts have already found that these prohibitions don’t meet Rational Basis Plus, so Intermediate Scrutiny would be impossible to meet.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      courts full of libearls who care not about rule of law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Buchholz/1203282337 Christopher Buchholz

    “Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker”

    wtf? He is just making up history now?

    And the Midianites were black? Really? That is new.
    The bible didn’t say “masters be good to your slaves” even in the new testament
    Aristotle (whose ethics formed the basis of most Christianity for a long time) didn’t say it was ok to enslave non-Greeks, because they, by their nature, were fit for being ruled, not for ruling.
    Those statements were added by Satan in the last few decades to trick Christians into supporting same sex marriage.

  • Sven2547

    In many hot-button political topics, there are two sides with varying degrees of merit.
    For example: I am against efforts to ban abortion.  But I get it.  They consider it murder and they want to prevent it.  I don’t support it, but I get it.
    I am against efforts to abolish the minimum wage.  But I get it.  They consider the minimum wage to be an impediment against employers and the unemployed.  I don’t support their position, but I get it.

    What I don’t get is opposition to same-sex marriage.  There is NO remotely-reasonable argument to abolish it.  Every single so-called ‘argument’ is so fallacious and bunk that it boggles the mind.  Allowing same-sex marriage is all ‘pros’ and no ‘cons’.

    Can a “good” person oppose same-sex marriage?  Let me put it this way: it takes a very stupid person to be oppose same-sex marriage.  And sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Erm I support a high minimum wage, end all wars, am anti abortion (its killing and frequently its against women more than men thus any bs from some women claiming to be a feminist is just that, Id get it if they were pro abortion of boys not girls but I don’t get how they can claim to be pro all abortion and still say they are feminist as surely all women should be treated equally and sex selective abortion against girls should be against a feminists views?)

      But am against gay marriage for 3 main reasons. 1 its against mother natures law from time immoral of 3x plus one y sex chromosomes equals marriage.

      2. Many religions claims its a sin for gay sex, not gay orientation or gay kissing, and I would agree as a person can love a person of the same sex without having sex, why its a sin is because their is no real intimacy or complimentary between the two people their is NO emotional connection in the act just depraved ‘d lust.Until they can enginere complimentary in gays I’d say god/mother nature/budda or whatever else paranormal entity or metaphysical science powers the universe is advising us against such a practice, and they have set it up for gays to be loving to their partner but abstinant. They can have far more honest and moral fun going to a movie or playing a card game or working on a drug that benefits humainty and its something they can bond far more and show their appreciation of mother nature far more.

      3.I dont see it as being anything to do with equality as a gay should have the same tax rights and legal rights in a civil partnership as granted by a marriage but should not be allowed to call it marriage as previously eluded to above, they have a right to same support and protection by state but not to redefine a word attributed by mother nature as existing only for those couples who posses 3x chromosomes and one y chromosomes.

      As for abortion it should be reduced to 8 weeks as after that point the baby feels pain and is also far beyond a random clump of cells and brain waves are detected and it looks just like any other human but smaller, as a socialist I believe in protecting the weak and those unable to defend themselves, unborn children are a minority that no one speaks out for and even animals get more rights as it seems the vegan crowd dont care that babies feel pain as they are killed. 8 weeks is more than enough time to make a decision. I also think the mans reproductive rights have been far to long neglected as he should be allowed to stop the women aborting when artificial wombs exist if he was not a rapist that is!

      Because the pro abortion crowd say a child must be wanted, and not just wanted by itself but wanted by an adult, well if the man wants it then he should be allowed the freedom to have said child without any discrimination due to the lack of an extra x sex chromosome. He on the other hand cant force a women to have an abortion because in matters of life or death and where 2 conflicting “reproductive” freedom arguments exist the balance of rights should always go both the person on the side of life and in favour of making the child “wanted” rather than to the person who does not want the child. The child being “wanted” is a lie from the pro abortion position but from my position it only takes one parent to want the child for its life to be saved. Ps abortion is a far bigger issue to me than gay marriage as the first is about life or death the second is merely about being disrespectful to mother nature.

      • Sven2547

        1: It’s against “mother nature’s law”? Marriage doesn’t exist in nature. Anywhere. It’s a purely artificial human-made construct, so let’s throw your naturalistic fallacy out the window.

        2: “there is no real intimacy or complimentary between the two people, there is NO emotional connection in the act”? I’m just gonna call bullshit, plain and simple. Their love is somehow less intimate, less complimentary, or less emotional? Do you care to quantify that in any way? It’s absolute rubbish.

        3: A rehash of separate but-equal. ‘They should have all the same rights in civil unions’, you say? Read the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v Ferguson and try again. And now you’re just reverting to “point” number 1, the naturalistic fallacy. Nature didn’t invent marriage. Deal with it. Accept it. Stop repeating the lie.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

    The bottom line is that there is no reason other than a religious one to disallow same sex marriage.  Period.  Everything else is a Christian stretch to make that statement false, and it just doesn’t work.

    As to the question in the blog title, I do believe one can be a good person and vote against same sex marriage.  My mother, whom I mention here a lot I know, was about a 100% no on gay marriage until we really talked about it and I discussed the lesbian couple I know with kids in my son’s school.  Put a decent, upstanding face (one of them is a high-ranking cop) and she shook a little in her standing.  I think she’s at about 75% no right now… still a mostly solid no, but she has thought about it from a person standpoint.  She’s an exceptionally good woman, kind, generous, smiles all the time, is a musician, has had my gay friends over for Christmas even.  She is just so set in her religious belief that she can’t see the forest for trees.  I don’t think she’s a bad person just because she is so indoctrinated in her belief that she can’t get past this issue.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      actually mother nature tells us 3x one y is mariage and that has nothing to do with christian arguments. Muslims also think it a sexual sin for gay sex, not for people who happen to be gay. I agree mother nature has told us that gays shold just kiss each other and live a life of abstinence when gay couples can add up to give 3x and one y sex chromsome then they can have sex. Its not just about morality its about mother natures decleration on biology and sex chromsome number.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Also I knew a gay chrisitiann a good guy who happened to be against gay marriage because he regards it as a sin. He thinks Im silly for believing in moher nautre he calls it “god” thats religious tolerance for you but he is trully wise as he recognises mother nature has told him to live a celibate life and he is against trying to call “sin” moral. Is He homophobic against him self? Of course not. Why should his opinion not matter?

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      LOL AT THE WAY you think your promoting morality when your actualy promoting bigotry against your own mum thats really no on. Shes right and your wrong, because you can be someones friend without agreeing with their sexual choices. Yes you cant choose to be gay but you can as my friend did choose not to practice the gay activities and lifestyle.

  • smrnda

    Many people think they are good people, but I prefer to decide whether or not people are good or bad by what effect their actions have on others. Those opposed to gay marriage are doing harm to people who want their unions legally recognized. Doing this gains them nothing. End of story. I can’t be a good person and support a policy that is harmful to you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      civil partnership legally recognizes it. Plus mother nature knows best 3x plus one y equals marriage equals one women one guy. Its harmful to mosques etc to force them to marry gays, its harmful to homeschoolers to deny them that right its harmful to straight men to force them to have sex with gay men or be called a “boring bigot who is unwilling to try new things” because once gay marriage is leaglized they will try to get it so that teachers have to have sex with their teenagers in classrooms in order to “teach them how to have safe and enjoyable sex” before they do that they will make it illegal to refuse sex to someone on the baisis of your sexuality and the law will end up only being applied to heterosexuals as anything else will be classified as homo or biphobic….

  • Edmond

    I think the post asks the wrong question.  We should try it this way….

    Can you be a good person, while being opposed to the freedom of others?

    Can you be a good person, while blocking someone else’s pursuit of happiness?

    Can you be a good person, while behaving as if marriage was your personal property, to be doled out to those you approve of, and withheld from those you don’t?

    And the answer is sure to be complex.  You can be a good person in many areas of your life, but it is NOT good to hold these positions.  Whatever other good you may do, you are failing to do good in this respect if you behave in these ways.

    • AxeGrrl

      Perfectly articulated, Edmond.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Can you be a good person if you hate mother natures law of 3x and one y being a marriage? Can you be a good person if you don’t respect someone elses religious rights? For example forcing a jew to eat pork is considred evil but forcing a Muslim or christian to marry gays is right even when they strongly think that mother natures law of sex chromosomes must be upheld that is 3x plus one y equals marriage.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CKQEXWUDO4UDPBRXPYVVIUOLFI Matt P

    A quote from Fred Clark on your August 2nd post,

    “It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Except its not about equality. Civil partnerships can be had for the same tax benefits but mariage is a social construct and religious institution, which has always been between 3x chromosomes and one y chromosome, and homosexual unions dont posses the required sex chromsome numbers to get married. People oppose it because they dont want their chruch to be forced to marry gays when to them marriage is a specific chromosomal contract between 2 halfs that add up to 3x and one y. Its bigoted to force people to change their stance, and if you think its about equality your an idiot because gays can never be equal in sex chromosmoal number to heterosexual unions thus can never get married due to the bigotry of nature. You want to blame anyone blame nature because it made it so that marriage is between 3x chromosomes and one y. It is a privilage not a right. Thus we dont let children marry adults and neither should we call gay civil partnerships marriage because they do not have the required sex chromosome combination for a marriage, because the total sex chromsome number is the MOST important and unique part of any marriage. Fred Clark was a bigot because he frames something that is about sex chromosome numbers in terms of equality which is like a man complaining its sexist that he cant have periods. nature has told us 3x plus one y is marriage. Hence most people tend towards that union than 4x unions or similar, when gay couples are capable of having 3x sex chromosomes and one y chromosome then it can be considered marriage.

  • http://twitter.com/AchronTimeless Achron Timeless

    I think this whole fight has been framed the wrong way. Right now people are asking for the right to marry as if rights are something that you need permission to have. Instead, they need to demand that their rights stop being denied.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Marriage is NOT a right. Else you can force someone to marry you who doesnt want to or people will ask to be allowed to marry children because “they have a right to marry who they want”. Its a privilage resigned for 2 adult people who love each other and whose sex chromosomes add up to 3x and one y, gays cant be equal in this way because 2 gays either have 4x chromosomes or 2x and 2y’s and that is not the number of sex chromosomes marriage has been defined as having for 5000 years.

      • Achron Timeless

        Yeah as soon as I got to the “force someone to marry you” bit I knew you were a loonie. Ironically, your bible lists several examples of when you supposedly can force someone to marry you. Those wedding bells are just one rape and a shoe away.

        Now, as for digging up a 4 month old blog post and feeling the need to respond to damn near everyone in it. Yeah, get some counselling, maybe up the dosage on some medication.

  • Marco Conti

    Thank god that in the US I am still listed as “Father” on my daughter’s passport. You don’t know how many times I forgot and I had to look it up.

  • Coyotenose

    “While there are no differences between black and white human
    beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human
    beings.”

    Oblivious to the words coming from his own brain, he manages to use old anti-interracial marriage line while complaining about being compared to racists.

    I don’t recall any of those thinkers he names advocating for gun rights, privacy laws, or freedom of the press either, so by his own logic…

    Were there anti-religious Enlightenment thinkers? I don’t mean anti-Church, but anti-religion?

  • gandalfe

    Also, on the “No great moral thinker” thing, I think we can also check off the “No true Scotsman” argument.

  • jose

    Try to tell there are no differences between races to the people in the black&white picture.

    “That is why sports events, clothing, public rest rooms and (often)
    schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and
    white sporting events, black rest rooms and white rest rooms, black
    schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing
    stores would be considered immoral.”

    Yeah no. Segregationism had to be fought and it cost blood and lives. That’s why he can now sit there and act like segregationism never happened and nobody ever said whites and blacks mixing would be the end of civilization as the virtue of whites would be dilluted and impaired by the moral and mental retardation of the negroes (Louis Agassiz, greatest American biologist of his day, said just that).

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Shorter Dennis Prager: “The world is changing, and I don’t like it! WAAAAAH!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

    I hate arguments like Mr. Pragers.  I’m a LGBT black woman in an interracial hetero relationship.  Personally the color of my skin is as unchangeable as my sexuality.   I should be able to marry someone of the different race as much as someone of the same gender.  People who are against SSM are bad as those against interracial marriage.  They are involving themselves thru the law and saying whose relationships are of meaning or not.  Denying someone of equal rights has never been what a good person does now or back then.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

      Marriage is not a right and its horrible to deny interracial marriage because those couples have the required sex chromosomal numbers for a marriage, 3x and one y. But gay couples do not have such sex chromsomal numbers. Cant argue with mother natures law. Marriage is not a right, else you could make any marry you or marry children… Its a privilage that should only be allowed to adults and those who love each other and crucially have a combined 3x chromosomes and one y chromosomes, when gays can have this sex chromsome number they too can get married morally in mosques and seikh temples till then they can not. Its demeaning to moral black straight people to compare them to people they see as immoral white gay people as their is NOTHING wrong with being black white or blue but sexual activity is a choice (not sexual orientation which is mostly biological). You fancy someone of the same sex, well the religious say you can date but not have sex with them as sexual activity is a choice. And they are right, mother nature gave us free will.

  • Wocaca

    To be fair, there isn’t a false dichotomy. It’s totally possible to say that, no, denying gay marriage isn’t fair to gays. And, no, same-sex marriage is not good for society. It’s stupid and untrue, but those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

    As for the rest of his argument, it made about as much sense as a monkey attempting to convert a pastafarian to the Butter God.

  • pillbucket

    why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage?

    So did I hallucinate that whole thing about androgynes in Plato’s Symposium?

  • Doesky

    Most (if not all) the arguments on this board are commonly dis-assembled by Prager on his 3hr daily show.   He regularly encourages and pushes to the front of the line advocates of SSM.    There is nothing new on this board that withstands  Prager’s lucid thinking.  

    The most common argument stated in this board is typified by……..” love is love, my friends. try and get in the way of it and you will have a bad time”

    Prager’s response will be “Fine, if its all about love, so what do you do when two sisters love each other, two brothers love each other,  or one man loves four women?”

    If you’re answer is that you would not allow marriage in those cases then you are simply drawing the STANDARDS line at a point that’s based on your feelings rather than the feelings of all the other combinations of “loving couples” mentioned above.  In this case the most logical place to draw the SOCIETY STANDARDS line is where it has been drawn for the past 3,000 years or so.

    If you answer is that those marriage requests would not happen than you are engaging in the Stage 1 thinking that Prager writes about.  You care only about the immediate self gratification of getting your own way and to hell with society as a whole.

    If you answer that you WOULD allow all those other marriages I can bet my life that you and all the other like minded proponents are engagiing in a dishonest movement  because you would never utter that in the mass public forum knowing full well that the SSM movement would be buried instantly due to public revulsion.

    • keddaw

      1. The vast majority of human cultures have been polygamous.
      2. Many civilisations engaged in incest at the top level to keep the blood line pure.
      3. As prevalent as you think monotheism is, the vast majority of civilisations and cultures that have been around for the past 3,000 years have not been so.

      4. I would argue for incestuous and polygamous marriage – no harm no foul.  Even though I am arguing against marriage as a state-sanctioned concept I think the logic against these other types tend to be, as you say, personal revulsion and/or societal norms which are really, really bad reasons for restricting rights.

      • Doesky

        Ok fine,  you are honest and admit it, you are not for societal norms, and are just hunky dory for incestuous relationships.  What I dislike is that I feel that many of the public advocates of SSM have similar beliefs as you and do not honestly divulge these opinions in the debate because they know it’s a losing position.   Essentially you real objective is the tearing down of what marriage means and what it stands for thousands of years.

        • Sven2547

          “Essentially you real objective is the tearing down of what marriage means and what it stands for thousands of years.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

          • Doesky

             Fail. It’s not a strawman to say that Keddaw is for tearing down what marriage means when Keddaw said himself that…….

            “Even though I am arguing against marriage as a state-sanctioned concept”

            • Sven2547

              He is arguing against the state-sanctioned concept of marriage, not “what marriage means” and “what it stands for”.

            • keddaw

              I am also for not stoning your bride if she’s not a virgin – I guess I’m simply not one for tradition.

    • Sven2547

      “If you’re answer is that you would not allow marriage in those cases then you are simply drawing the STANDARDS line at a point that’s based on your feelings rather than the feelings of all the other combinations of “loving couples” mentioned above.  In this case the most logical place to draw the SOCIETY STANDARDS line is where it has been drawn for the past 3,000 years or so.”

      In other words, maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo.  That’s not “lucid thinking”, that’s circular logic.

      And it’s not about “self-gratification”, it’s about having the long-term stability, that deeper fulfillment, that marriage gives to a relationship.  It’s a step AWAY from hedonism and promiscuity, and TOWARD wholesome love.

      • Doesky

         You can have an equally  ” long-term  stable and deeply fulfilling” civil union with the same rights as a marriage.   But face it, it’s not about having the same rights as a married M/F couple, it more about saying that your SSM coupling is equivalent to a tradional M/F coupling….and it’s not.  

        • Sven2547

          “You can have an equally  ‘long-term  stable and deeply fulfilling’ civil union with the same rights as a marriage.”

          Yeah, I’ve heard that one before.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperate_but_equal_doctrine
          “it more about saying that your SSM coupling is equivalent to a tradional M/F coupling….and it’s not.”

          Go on?  How is it not?  Give me an argument that hasn’t already been shot down a thousand times.

          • Doesky

             If all other factors are held the same, the raising of a child by  M/F couple is better for a child than a SSM couple.

            • Sven2547

              If your (unproven) claim is true, that would be an argument against same-sex adoption, not marriage.  As expected, you are employing a stale, already-refuted argument.

              So again: how is same-sex marriage not equivalent?

              • Doesky

                 So my assertion that a M/F couple is better for a child than a SSM couple to you is an “unproven claim” ?  Only in your leftist fairyland of buttercups and rainbow colored unicorns should I have to prove the obvious.   Shouldn’t you as the challenger to the 3,000 year institution have to prove that SSM is the equivalency?

                Regardless, I’m generous and I’ll further prove my point.   For you to say that a SSM couple can bring up a child as well as a M/F couple you have to assert that a MOTHER or a FATHER brings nothing of value to a child growing up.  By definition, a SSM will be missing either a mother or father.   Of coarse your side will respond that a mother/father influence can be provided by either sex and of coarse we are right back to the other Prager central assertion that the Leftist/SSM movement is to out to crush gender differences.

                Ouch.  God it must sting when Prager is proven right again!

                • keddaw

                  How are these gay couples getting children?
                  If your area of concern is primarily children then why are you caring about SSM?

                  Setting that aside, your point of comparison is wrong (heck, you might as well say poor people shouldn’t have kids as rich parents are better for children, or black people, or Evangelical Christians…) it should be one of:
                  - Is it better to raise a child in a loveless sham of an m/f marriage where one person is gay or in a happy gay family?
                  - Is it better to raise a child in an orphanage or in a happy gay family?
                  - Is it better to raise a child in a single parent home or in a happy gay family?
                  - Is it better to raise a child never to have existed or to grow up in a happy gay family?

                  The only point where your comparison could even be considered is when a child is up for adoption and a gay couple and a straight couple are both vying to adopt it.Your mother brings X, father brings Y (literally!), to the child’s upbringing is at odds with your insistence on traditionalism since kids in the past rarely saw their fathers, and in upper class Edwardian/Victorian households were brought up by staff  rather than their actual parents.  A long time before that raising a child was a communal effort and there was only limited interaction specifically between a child and its parents (as is still the case in some tribes).

                  Also, don’t hitch your wagon to Prager, he’s a hypocritical bigoted idiot.

                • Doesky

                   Disappointing that you resort to the typical Leftist slander in order to shut down the discussion (especially when you’re losing).  The practice is so common that Prager uses the now popular acronym of SIXHIRB.  Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic,Homophobic,Islamaphobic,Racist, and Bigoted. 

                  We on the right just think you’re wrong on certain issues, whereas the left screams one of the seven slanders above.  Of coarse the irony is that the Left has so indiscriminately used the seven words to the point that they are now meaningless.

                  The danger is YOURS  though, because when there is REAL homophobia (i.e. Iran and Islamist treatment towards gays) the  world just shrugs their shoulders and thinks……”oh just another false accusation of homophobia”.

                • keddaw

                  My dear Doesky, Prager is a bigoed idiot, he really is.

                  I have refrained from calling you bigoted because I hoped you’d move away from his idiotic line and make some decent arguments, heck I even forced a decent one on your behalf.  (Which went the way you can only wish you could make pro-SSM people go).

                  “We on the right”
                  I really don’t give a fuck which side of the political spectrum one is on, all I ask is that they be consistent and use the same rules for all competent adults.  Hence I took your ‘slippery slope’ argument and ran with it – and people should be ashamed for not having reasons for opposing what I mentioned yet using the same arguments in favour of SSM!  I push for more freedom for people, left or right, I take whichever side is pro-freedom on any given argument.

                  “You’re losing”?
                  Really?  I’ve gotten people to reevaluate their views on sibling incest, their reasons for supporting SSM, to reevaluate their views on why the state should have any role in marriage.  I haven’t won anyone over completely, but I’ve made the argument more nuanced than it normally is and that, for me, is a victory for now.

      • Doesky

        So I take this as an admission by you would indeed block marriages for sibling and incestuous couplings when they would make the same argument that they are loving couples.  Why are you discriminating against them?

        • Sven2547

          I’ve admitted no such thing.  Why are you so desperate to change the subject away from same-sex marriage?

          • Doesky

            Nope, I’m not changing the argument away from SSM, we’re just discussing it at an intellectual level that your side usually does not want to engage in because you quickly get placed into uncomfortable places. 

            Yes you did admit  that you would block these other marriages because your reply quoted the “If you’re answer is that you would not allow marriage in those cases….”

            Dennis Prager has taught me well….

            • Sven2547

              The fact that I quoted you is not a statement on my part, only that I am pointing out which of your silly fallacies I am addressing.

              Prager HAS taught you well.  Avoid the point, repeat nonsense, refuse to employ logic.  Classic conservative baloney.

              • Doesky

                 No Sven, like Prager I’m trying to have you CLARIFY your position because like other people on this board, I don’t know what your position is after 10+ posts of yours. 

                So please get your thoughts together, look at my original question….

                 “Fine, if its all about love, so what do you do when two sisters love
                each other, two brothers love each other,  or one man loves four women?”

                ….. and tell me what your position is.

                But better yet, why don’t you seek help from other posters on this forum, and as a collective devise your two very best questions or challenges of Pragers article and then call his Friday open hour show and challenge him directly. 

                Tell the call-screener that you have have 2 of the best questions from a large group of SSM proponents and you stand a high likelihood of getting through if  you can make it past the busy signal.

                But let me give you fair warning, many have tried and they usually end having their head politely handed to them on a platter.

                Outta here, so long.  I subscribe to Prager so I’ll be listening for you.

                • Sven2547

                  Calling into this hack’s show won’t be a good forum for two-way communication.  I doubt I’ll be given time to rebut whatever bullshit response Prager throws my way.

                  Since Prager “trained you well”, why can’t you handle it instead?  Put down the idol worship and use that thing between your ears.

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

        yes but calling it marriage is a mistake however. It should be called civil partnership whilst gay couples can not aggregate 3x chromosomes and one y sex chromsome between them. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of mother nature.

        • Sven2547

          The “wrath of mother nature”? Are you one of those weirdos who thinks gay marriage causes hurricanes and earthquakes?

    • Sven2547

      It is also intellectually dishonest to make a ‘slippery slope’ argument here.
      Incest is a question of familial relationship.
      Polygamy is a question of numbers.
      Same-sex marriage is a question of the sexes.

      These are different questions.  Different issues.  You have no valid argument against same-sex marriage, so you are dishonestly lumping it together with incest and polygamy, as if SSM proponents somehow need to defend those things too.  Well we don’t have to.  They’re not the issue here.

      • keddaw

        Sorry, I have to defend the nutter here – the proposal for SSM is a break away from tradition/current legal situation, in doing so you are saying the line can be drawn at X.  You now have to defend why X is the line and why it can logically go no further as these other groups don’t deserve the same rights.

        • Sven2547

          Why?  Why must I say “no further than X”?  Why not leave the question open for subsequent generations to consider and reconsider?

          Doesky clearly has no defense for where “the line” currently is.  Therefore “the line” should be subject to movement.

          • Doesky

            Sven, you’re too good to be true.  Even when  Prager and I accuse the SSM argument as  “Stage 1 thinking” numerous times you dive right into the Stage 1 pool.  LOL.    Sure, let’s pass SSM because it makes me feel enlightened, noble, and superior and let the subsequent generations deal with the ramifications.    Brilliant!   Kinda sounds EXACTLY like the great society big-government arguments of 40 years ago and now we (the subsequent generation) has to solve a 100 Trillion dollar obligation somehow.

            Your SSM side is the ones asking for the change of a 3,000 year institution…. don’t you think that you should be the one on the hook to justify your requested change?

            You are a fine example of how even though our side would like to keep the 3,000 year old standard in place, your side accuses us of being the radicals.

            • Sven2547

              The fact that a bride’s father does not sell her to the groom in exchange for livestock means the “institution” of marriage today does not resemble the “institution” of marriage 3000 years ago.

              Further, conservatives howled about changes to the “institution” of marriage back in the 50s and 60s when anti-miscengenation laws were abolished.

              You are deeply ignorant of history when you repeat this bogus “3000 year old standard” remark.

              • Doesky

                 conservatives howled….I think you mean racist Southern Democrats that were misusing the Bible.  They were set straight in their thinking by the REVEREND MLK using the Bible correctly.

                Sorry, it’s not a bogus claim the the CENTRAL OVERRIDING TENET of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

                • Sven2547

                  Now you’re moving the goalposts from “3000 year old standard” to “central overriding tenet”.

                  3000 years ago, the central tenet of marriage was PROPERTY TRANSFER.

                • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

                  actually its not, the central claim of marriage is the union of a couple who as a whole have a specific combination of chromosomes that being 3x and one y. Gays can get married when they can achieve this chromosomal sex numbering in their couples.

                • keddaw

                  I am mightily confused at your exceedingly vulgar discrimination against my fellow humans, especially the chromosomally challenged ones such as my XXY brethren. Why are you trying to deny them the right to marry the woman they are in a loving relationship with?

              • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

                except I did not I was not born, I am not “a conservative” I am a free thinking non marxist socialist who believes all people are equal and that people have the right to what some, often erroneously, see as modest discrimination because we have choice of where to eat our food etc but such discrimination can only be based on morals not race or religion moral issues include anything about life or death of an entity or being and anything involving sex and marriage etc. A person also has the right to be offensive. as some people have very thin or biggoted skin and take offense to nothing and others have much thicker skin.

            • Sven2547

              It’s pathetic that you think allowing same-sex marriage “sounds like a big-government argument”.

              My side: let people make their own choices.
              Your side: Government should step in and BAN them from doing that.

              Which one of these is the “big government” approach?  You’ve been drinking too much right-wing kool-aid.

              • Doesky

                 Once again you miss the central theme of the article even when you yourself prove his point.  Prager argues that the SSM is a classic example of stage 1 thinking and then you end up saying ” Why not leave the question open for subsequent generations to consider and reconsider?”

                That is a PRIME EXAMPLE of Stage 1 thinking.

                I wasn’t saying SSM=big-government spending.   I was saying the emotional feel-good policies of SSM and social-security are Stage 1 thought processes.   And you happily illustrated my point with your above comments.

                So now on to your other assertion….

                SSM side: let people make their own choices (i.e. No societal standards)

                Traditional marriage side: Continue with time proven societal standards

                • Sven2547

                  I love how you keep calling my arguments “stage 1 thinking” without offering any decent arguments of your own.  Stuck at stage 0?

                  YES, you ABSOLUTELY said that SSM arguments sound like big government policies.  Read your own post!

                  Society’s standards on marriage HAVE CHANGED and CONTINUE TO CHANGE.

          • keddaw

            You don’t have to say no further than X, but I assume there’s logic in your reasons why a gay couple should be allowed the same privilege a straight couple are and so if that same logic applies to a sister-sister couple then you should be arguing for that too, unless there is a reason not to.

            Doesky is not using a fallacy when he uses your own logic against you, or the SSM movement, if you cannot come up with a reason for extending a privilege to group A but not group B.

            Ironically, you can actually get some religious people to agree to gay incestuous ‘civil partnerships’ because their main argument against m/f incest is increased likelihood of genetic problems in their offspring.  This logic may well apply to you too.  Unless you have some other reason for denying sisters separated very early, brought up in different foster homes, who meet each other as adults and fall in love the right you apparently want for any two other women…

            • Doesky

              ” Since Sven hasn’t made his position on any topic outside of SSM clear”

              …and so this is one of Prager’s central concerns with SSM is that the public face of SSM refuses to talk about the long-term ramifications of breaking the the central tenet of marriage.  What happens next?  Kind of like the two teenage pleasure seekers in the back seat of car….what can possibly go wrong about what feels so good.

              Prager is routinely mocked on TV debates about possible ramifications.  However he used to leftist mockery since it’s their central debate tactic.

    • jose

      That’s a good argument against interracial marriage. Or against anything, really. Look:

      I mean, vegetarianism? What will be next: a man marrying four wives?

      Makes just as much sense :)

      • Doesky

         Dennis regularly explains the difference between interracial marriage  and SSM.  It’s also explained in brief in the article.   There is no difference between black and white people.  There are big differences between male and female.

        • jose

          So black and white people are allowed to marry because there are no differences between them; but men and women are allowed to marry because… there are big differences between them?

          You continue to make lots of sense! :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

            no a black and white combination of a man and a women are allowed to marry because their sexual chromosomal number adds up to 3x and one y but gay couples cannot marry regardless of race because they lack an aggregate of 3x and one y sex chromosome. Their is no difference between a black man and white man but their are difference between genders thus a man and a women can marry because they are different but that difference is the SAME difference regardless of skin colour but that men and men cant marry because their is no difference between them and the difference between them can never be the SAME as the difference between a man and a women regardless of the races of the two men. Gees liberals are dumb or twisted.

  • Tez Skanza

    Just listen to (with a barf bag handy) Denis’s Wednesday radio show typically title the “Male-Female hour” and you’ll see just how hard he works at mysogany. I mean, the radio just drips with this smut as he takes calls from fellow fools and they stoke each other.
    I don’t listen anymore (even though I’m driving at that time) because I’ve had my fill.

    • Doesky

       The most honest discussion of male/female relationship issues of consistent high quality and intellect.   Most leftists hate Prager because it befuddles them.

      • Sven2547

        Most leftists disagree with Prager because his “arguments” are vacuous fallacious nonsense. Did you even read the blog posting? Can you refute anything Bluemke said without resorting to ‘leftists are stupid’?

        • Doesky

           I didn’t say leftists were stupid,  I said that it befuddles them.    Kinda like when a fish gets pulled out of the water and is confounded by the situation presented to them.  Most leftists who are indoctrinated in a leftists university for 4-8 years and then immersed in a leftist dominated society (paper, movies, TV) are truly befuddled by cogent conservative ideas.   The ultimate shock to a leftist is when then encounter the nonservative black economist Thomas Sowell.  That usually send them off the deep end.

          Lastly, there is nothing to counter argue in Bluemke response because it is nothing but emotional non-content responses.  
           

          • smrnda

             Thomas Sowell, I recall reading him when I was about 12 or so. Dismissed the libertarianism then as I realized that control of resources basically equates to controlling the lives of others, and that the belief that certain people have a right to control access to resources was simply a social construct that was built after people acquired land through conquest and sought to make their claims appear more legitimate. I’ve also read about everybody from the Austiran economic school (nice of von Mieses to state that his ideas are unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be refuted.)

  • Sven2547

    All I’m seeing from Doesky are the same tired old bad arguments.  Nothing new here, and nothing that stands up to scrutiny.  Let’s summarize:

    * ‘It’s a tried-and-proven institution, unchanged for 3000 years!’
    -False.  Marriage has seen many changes over the years.  It used to involve selling the bride for goods (usually livestock).  Now it’s not.  It used to be solely between members of the same religion.  Now it’s not.  It used to be solely between members of the same race.  Now it’s not.  Marriage has seen changes in America as recently as the 1950s.  Arguing to preserve the status quo for no reason other than preserving the status quo is fallacious circular logic.

    * There’s the dishonest attempt to link same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.
    -This is fallacious for several reasons.
    –First and foremost: these are DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.  This is a question of the sexes, not a question about familial relationship or a question of numbers.
    –Second, polygamy has been SHOWN to cause societal harm (look up “lost boys”).  Incest has been SHOWN to cause genetic harm (look up “homozygocity”).  Same-sex marriage DOES NO HARM to ANYBODY ANYWHERE.

    * ‘Same-sex couples can’t raise children as well as opposite-sex couples’
    -Several reasons why this is a bullshit argument:
    –This is an argument against ADOPTION, not against MARRIAGE
    –To ban the practice, you must claim (and demonstrate) that same-sex parenting is worse than single-parenting (which is legal) AND foster care (which is also legal).  Simply being worse than opposite-sex couples (if true) isn’t a reason to ban the practice.

    * ‘Liberals just care about people feeling good, without regard to the long-term ramifications’
    -Liberals care about civil rights and human equality.  This isn’t about “feeling good”, this is about equal protection under the law.
    -There ARE NO negative ramifications to same-sex marriage.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.  Nil.  Zed.

    Look at it his way:
    You and I are neighbors.  Every morning we both eat breakfast.
    You eat a tall stack of blueberry pancakes with a side of bacon.
    I eat two fried eggs, with a side of toast, and homefries.
    We both call it breakfast.
    We both enjoy breakfast.
    We’re both happy and life is good.
    The end.
    My breakfast does not cheapen your breakfast, or harm the “institution” of breakfast.  Shut up, enjoy your breakfast, and love your neighbors.

    • keddaw

      Incest has been SHOWN to cause genetic harm
      So you’re okay with same-sex incestuous marriage then?
      Or opposite sex incest where one is sterile?

      I am, but I strongly suspect you’re not and I’d like a real reason, not simply birth defects (since we could also test regular couples and ban people with potentially incompatible genes from marrying but I don’t see you proposing this either) as these are irrelevant for the cases above.

      Come on equality-loving Sven, what’s the real reason you’re against a couple of half-brothers who didn’t grow up together getting together as consenting adults for a nice wedding?  Anyone?

      • Sven2547

        Honestly, if the homozygocity is set aside, I see no reason government should make it unlawful.  Cultural taboo perhaps, but not the government’s business.

        Now can we please focus on the topic at hand?  This incest stuff is a distraction from the issue being raised here.

        • keddaw

          Agreed, but since Doesky did not seem capable of evoking the response s/he was looking for I thought someone should step in.  I thought s/he had a point worth following up on and I wasn’t happy with the stock responses of calling it a slippery slope fallacy (since you’ve shown it clearly isn’t) or the various other approaches to dismiss him/her.

          On the bigger picture, banning same sex couples from marriage is clearly unfair discrimination.  If two adults either can or cannot do something based purely on their gender that is clearly gender discrimination.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

            It is a slippery slope argument.  The issue is SSM.  Not other couplings.  When the subject comes up for incest and group marriages then as a society we will deal with it. Until then it is irrevelant to the issue of SSM.

            • keddaw

              No, the issues are the reasons why SSM is the right thing to do.  If those reasons are applicable to other groups it is NOT a slippery slope, it is a logical necessity to apply it to those other groups.  Unless you think society should be hypocritical and deny rights to groups they feel icky about?

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                No it does not apply to other groups.  There is no valid evidence to suggest that incest and group marriage advocates will use SSM to pass marriage ballots for their cause.  SSM only deals with SSM.  Incest and polygamy are subjects onto themselves.  Ballots on SSM only ask about SSM not incest or polygamy.  Society would have to knock down laws prohibiting incest and polygamy before even considering the idea of legalizing marriages for those groups.

                • keddaw

                  You mean like they did for being gay before SSM was proposed?

                  Polyamory isn’t even illegal, so it’d just be a case of allowing people in those relationships the legal protections of marriage, albeit a more complicated version.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  Yes SSM, incest, polgamy are all separate subjects that we deal with when they come up in society.  Once incest and polygamy comes up in the ballots we will deal with it then. Polyamory needs to start a movement then to get legal recognition.  That is not the issue of SSM.  That is the issue of polyamory. Interracial marriage only dealt with interracial marriage.  SSM only deals with SS couples.  Incest and polygamy deals with only incest and polygamy issues.   

              • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

                Clearly you also support pedophilic adult child couplings…. Dont think many will back you on that. even libtards are not that stupid. Long live hugo chavez who reigns in heaven.

                • keddaw

                  Not sure how you missed out on the whole informed consent thing, but let me fill you in: children cannot consent to seual or legal agreements. Neither can animals. Are we done with your nonsense now?

                • RobMcCune

                  I doubt it, this person is necromancing this thread to show their superiority when hardly anyone’s around to argue with them, or an unhinged crank. Probably both.

          • Sven2547

            I don’t remember people needing to justify incest or polygamy when interracial marriage was legalized in the ’50s…

            • keddaw

              I bet a few of them said it was a slippery slope to gay marriage though…

              But I’d rather hoped we’d moved on from then to look at the broader issue of equality, liberty and fairness.  That we’d cease to look at our current favourite discriminated against group and look at the broader issue of discrimination as a whole.  Apparently not.

              • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

                what about sexism against men who are told to shut up on abortion debate “or not have one” when in fact if its their child it materially affects them and also their right to have “reproductive rights” clearly is not respected or even acknowledged.

                And also invalidates the line “every child must be wanted” well if a man wants his child it is wanted,as a socialist I see this as the most unjust thing about abortion the sexism it exhibits against mens rights now mother nature seems to condone it but when we have found out how to get artificial wombs that will be the clearest sign yet that mother nature wants men to be able to stop abortion of their child on the grounds of love of their child and gender discrimination against their right to reproductive freedom.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.barry.75839923 Barry David

            Ah but its not based on their gender, its based on their combined sexual chromosomal number dictated by mother nature who has told us 3x and y is marriage. Simply its like saying we discriminate against men because they cant breast feed or enter a womens toilet, its mother nature who does the discriminating and she is not to be called cruel unjustly. Your not saying a man cant get married or a women cant get married thus its not gender discremenation your saying 2 men or 2 women cant get married because their sex chromosome number is inncorrect and that is fair and is not in the least bit sexist towards either men or women as they can always choose a partner who tops up their chromsomes to 3x and y thus men and women on their own are not banned from getting married thus no gender discremenation.

  • Clinehan

    You don’t know what a “false dichotomy” or a “false analogy” is.

  • ReflexPoint

    “It’s that marrying whomever you see fit is our right.”

    By that definition, A father and his son be able to should marry. And I have little doubt that after gay marriage is legal, we’ll start seeing things like this cropping up as well. I recently saw an article about an Australian man that “married” his dog. There are Japanese men attempting to marry inanimate objects like dolls. Look, I’m willing to give gays civil union with full rights and leave it at that. I think heterosexual marriage should remain the social NORM. When you scratch the surface of this debate, this is what the culture war is really about. It’s not about whether gay marriage hurts families or hurts anyone else’s marriage, it’s about what our society defines as a social norm. And social norms are values that a culture deems to be preferable. Is a man marrying a man as socially valuable and necessary or even desirable as a men marrying women. I would argue absolute not since male-female pairings are what creates children and families. Marriage itself is at the fundamental level a heterosexual creation, universal across all cultures. It was created for the purpose of formalizing family between men and women and to signal to a community that this couple is now a family ready to bear offspring. Liberalism has essentially flipped that on its head and turned marriage into an expression of love and freedom. Combine this with deracination of gender roles/identity by 30 years of gender feminism and this is where we are now. I’d rather that gays just create some new name for their pairings, and call it something other than marriage rather than piggy-backing on concepts that were never meant to apply to them.

    Keep it one man and one woman. All the legal matters can be address with civil unions. I think male-female marriage deserves special status and should be reinforced as the cultural and social norm. The ultimate goals of same sex marriage advocates are to make gender identity irrelevant and to make homosexuality into a social norm, when biologically speaking it is not a norm at all. If we take off our politically correct blinders for a minute, it’s clear that homosexuality is a type of birth defect which effects sexual preference. And if you think it’s not, then I’d love for you to explain why gay men have sperm and lesbians have eggs. Sperm and eggs do server a purpose right? Men weren’t designed to be with men. And if he does prefer men, then it’s a defect. Doesn’t make them bad people anymore than it makes albinos or hermaphrodites bad people. They can still live functional, productive lives. But their sexual preference is something of a mistake of nature. Now we are about to redefine this behavior as something normal just so we can be politically correct.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X