20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted January 5, 2015

same-sex marriage bigotry gayIn a Christian Post end-of-year survey of “intolerant liberalism,” half of the 33 examples had to do with same-sex marriage or acceptance of homosexuality. Why is this issue so persistent?

I recently speculated how the conservative anti-gay fight might change (“Having Lost the Same-Sex Marriage Fight, What Will Opponents Do Now?”). I keep thinking that conservatives will throw in the towel and begin to worry about other issues, maybe ones that actually matter. How about energy independence or improving conditions for America’s poorest citizens? If voters reward conservative posturing, couldn’t we trust them to reward conservative politicians who actually address some of society’s problems?

Some conservatives may be dropping the issue, but not all. Let’s take a look at one who’s keeping the anti-same-sex marriage candle burning. Frank Turek is one of the fish in this “traditional marriage” pond, but the pond is drying up. I’d like to preserve what he says today so that it can be used to plague him tomorrow.

Much of the following is in response to a few of his recent articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Let’s consider some of the popular arguments against same-sex marriage.

1. Activist judges! In Frank’s dictionary, “activist judge” seems to mean “a judge who doesn’t do what I want.”

Activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states!

Yeah, that’s how the legal system works sometimes. Very few laws are put in place by direct vote of the citizens, and sometimes judges are the last step in the process.

Frantic Frank imagines the sky falling with these “unelected judges” rampaging through society, but the Constitution defines the separation of powers that form the checks and balances between the branches of government. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by senators who are elected. Judges can be impeached. The Constitution can be amended. I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur for when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.

For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

But surely that’s not true for Frank. He’s okay with public opinion—which is good, because a recent CBS News/New York Times poll showed the public strongly in favor of same-sex marriage by 56% to 37%, with the gap continuing to grow. Look at the trend from the Gallup poll:

2. But we’re already equal! Frank next denies that there’s a problem.

Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal—the white folks were constrained just like everyone else. That’s fair, so what’s to complain about? I wonder how Frank can fault the logic in the racial category but not in the sexuality category when we’re talking about people in both cases.

It’s amazing that he anticipates no consequences from his base after saying something so bigoted, but then George Wallace’s “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” from 1963 didn’t have major negative consequences.

Not immediately, anyway.

Frank’s assurance that things are fair and he’s not prejudiced sounds hollow when his proposal doesn’t inconvenience him. He wants to shut off an option that could help millions of Americans, but that’s okay because he’s not one of them. Here’s an idea, Frank: how about if people with odd Social Security numbers can only marry people with even numbers and vice versa? Everyone is constrained by the same rules, so it’s fair, right? Is someone you care about inconvenienced yet?

If you say that that’s a stupid rule, you’re getting an idea of what some people say about your claim above.

3. But you can’t redefine marriage!

Been there, redefined that. Don’t imagine that marriage has been a constant since Adam and Eve. The last major change (just considering marriage in the U.S.) was in 1967 when rules against interracial marriage were struck down in 17 states.

Even now, rules vary by state. What’s the age of consent? Can you marry your cousin? Is a blood test or Social Security Number required? What’s the waiting period? Residency requirements? Requirements for divorced persons? Let’s not pretend that marriage is fixed.

4. I’m not a bigot! Frank rejects the comparison of laws against same-sex marriage with racist or sexist laws.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage.

We can agree that laws that precluded citizens from voting were wrong. They thought it was okay back then, but society changes. Frank clearly has no problem with society evolving and improving. That’s good, because it’s changing again to accept same-sex marriage.

Continue with Part 2.

Heterosexuality is not normal,
just common.
— seen on the internet

Image credit: Wikipedia

"SeenoevoAnd many others.I've encountered many."

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"That said, I still have to find a member of the RCC saying all the ..."

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"I think it is getting a big test."

Stalin Was a Mass Murderer (And ..."
"I have found that it is difficult to address several questions at once, especially when ..."

Christians: Why You Need an Atheist ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Aram McLean

    It’s incredible to me that so many members of the human species get so upset about who people love and want to be with. This is such a non-issue in the real world. Just let people marry whomever they want, and can we please shift our interest to dealing with life’s real problems; like climate change and renewable energy, for example. How boring and empty these people must be to give such a shit about who other people shag and who gets to sign a fancy piece of paper. It’s ridiculous. (And while we’re at it, could we just legalize all drugs and stop wasting time and money and people’s lives enforcing these pointless laws that treat adults like children. Lets focus on murder and rape and corporations steadily killing us all instead. Please.)

    • My theory: it’s all about the politics. This narrative gets people wound up … and conservative politicians have the cure. Of course, those politicians need to have the “problem” remain for it to continue to be useful, which is why they actually wouldn’t want Roe to be overturned (to switch to a similar topic).

      • RoverSerton

        Agreed, if Roe was overturned, the GOP would lose the hot button issue AND, women would understand that they were indeed chattel.

      • Aram McLean

        Aye, I see your point. But the problem for me with this idea is that it presupposes that those in power are smart enough to know this and pull it off. I find that very hard to believe. But then again it could be they’re acting much like a praying mantis is when it eats its mate: on instinct.

        • Interesting point. With the anti-gay movement being so diversified, many will be rolling their own. I’m sure, though, that there are many conservative leaders who’ve put the pieces together and see the benefit of the “the sky is falling!” approach. A threat is a good way to rally the troops to your support. Don’t have a real threat? Just make one up.

        • MNb

          Oh, those in power are that smart indeed. That’s how and why they got in power. It’s not something intellectual.

        • Aram McLean

          I suppose it comes down to semantics and what one means by smart. Which is what I was getting at with my point here regarding instincts.

    • Sophia Sadek

      Slavery is all about controlling the bodies of others. The Church is an institution that is steeped in slavery. It continues to attempt to control the bodies of its subjects and the bodies of those outside of its own domain.

  • Dys

    There’s 20 arguments against same sex marriage? I thought there were only 2…

    1. It’s icky.
    2. God doesn’t like it.

    Every other argument I’ve ever seen has one of these at its core, or was the impetus for creating the argument in the first place.

    • TheNuszAbides

      yeah, but many of the rationalizers can’t be reached by an immediate, blunt “we see through your rationalizations”. I appreciate the “fight bad speech with better speech” aspect in such circumstances, even if it’s time-consuming.

    • adam

      Here’s 10 reasons:

  • smrnda

    1. is a totally useless argument, since the whole purpose of the judicial branch IS often to overrule the will of the people. It’s because whether someone has rights shouldn’t be put up to a popularity contest. The courts are supposed to tell the majority that, no matter what they feel, the laws on the books already go against what they want. Once we’ve got anti-discrimination laws in place, the courts have to uphold them even if people don’t like it.

    For 2. I love your social security number example. It’s totally arbitrary, but everyone is equally constrained, so it’s ‘fair.’ It’s just a constraint that will definitely impact people unequally. This is also a case in some laws – I believe that the firing of a teacher from a Catholic school who used ‘unapproved’ means of becoming pregnant was ruled discrimination on the basis of sex/gender by the court.

    3. I’d say marriage was also redefined in the 1990s, when marital rape became a thing. So it’s always changing.

    • Good point in #3. I’ll use that.

      • The Eh’theist

        I think that’s the key to increasing support, to keep showing people the diversity encompassed by the word “marriage” and all the change it has undergone over the years (much of it for the better, as you and smrnda point out).

        It’s a lot harder to lead a charge for “old-fashioned” marriage when people realize that such a beast doesn’t actually exist, and if it did, it would have elements none of us would support.

  • Greg K.

    This is off topic, but I wanted to let you know that from time to time, when I go to your blog on Patheos, I get a trojan or virus that tries to get me to download it. It comes in the form of an Adobe software update. It looks very authentic. My Norton Antivirus caught it, says it is low risk. Norton called it Suspicious.Cloud.9 trojan or virus. Since I only seem to get this trojan or virus when I go to your blog, it makes me wonder if some believer has attached this to your blog because they can’t handle your views, the truth. Maybe it is a Patheos problem in general? Just thought I would share that.

    • Thanks for the tip. I’ll pass it on.

    • Eli

      I’ve been getting the same thing. I emailed Patheos about it a few months ago, but never got a reply. I suspect it’s some sort of redirect ad, but I don’t know which one’s doing it. It really only happens to me on Patheos.

      • The powers that be assure me that they’re working on it. Give it a few days and let me know if you see more. Thanks.

  • Greg K.

    “How about energy independence or improving conditions for America’s poorest citizens”

    Hear, hear!

  • Kodie

    Who is being oppressed? They say they don’t like something, so what? They’re afraid that if we as a society accept it, then their children might accept it and accept themselves or their friends. They’re against making something they find objectionable perfectly normal. They want their children to hate and they want it to be acceptable to teach hate. It’s still within their rights to teach their children to hate, so they’re just not willing to be part of a society that teaches their children something else.

    • Perhaps the entire thing is a smokescreen. Perhaps they know that the balance scale tips the other way, but they put up as good a response as they can for the benefit (and support) of their followers. Politics isn’t far beneath the surface IMO.

      • Kodie

        Not too long ago, gay people were pretty invisible, and religious want to put it back that way, to a world where they can pretend gay people don’t exist and certainly aren’t proud. I do not really understand at all, since it comes from a time when gay people were misunderstood and it was ok to openly hate them. It’s not new, but I guess since gay people are more visible and have allies in plenty of straight people, the religious just want to keep hating like it’s ok to hate. They hate having their luxury of hating taken away from them.

        What’s really strange to me is they seem perfectly satisfied with unmarked gay people marrying opposite sex, raising children, joining the military, playing sports, and leading groups of young boys around the woods. That doesn’t fit with the misinformation they’re spreading, and their aversion to learning about homosexuality. They want to hate, and they don’t want the wrongness of their hate brought out into the open and make them have to defend it.

    • MNb

      “Who is being oppressed?”
      Frank Turek is being oppressed. Thanks to intolerant people like you and me he can’t be the bigot he claims not to be.

    • Sophia Sadek

      Attempting to indoctrinate children into a paradigm that runs counter to the sentiments of the general populace is not only abusive, it is futile.

      • Kodie

        That’s why they want the law to comply and society has to obey instead of revolt and get the equality that’s their due. This is really messing up the way they want to teach their children.

  • TheNuszAbides

    great closing quote. i’m reminded of how so many folks seem to use the word ‘normal’ as though it literally means “as is proper” (i.e. wishful thinking in attempts to normal*ize* something); while many of the same folks may indeed believe propriety is paramount or sacrosanct, it’s still worth clarifying the distinction in the hope that thinking it through breeds discovery/questioning.

  • MNb

    “There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage.”

    Or:

    “There was no rational case to preclude people changing marriage because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude from voting.”

    Same difference.
    Great closing quote indeed.

  • Blizzard

    Too may carts before his horsies. First we need a god. Then we need a god that dispatches edicts to everyone. Then we need a god that dispatched the ones Frank says it does. But first we need to know how the heck Frank knows any of this or if he is just bluffing. As of now we have no clue. Not a good thing since this is Frank’s profession. Maybe try selling vacuum cleaners or something Frank since you are (pretending like you are) incompetent with legal and theological and scientifical thingies.

    • Frank’s audience doesn’t is eager to agree with him, so the bar of evidence is low. We’re sort of eavesdropping.

  • Sven2547

    I’m going to expand on point # 3 a bit:

    Marriage, in the context of this discussion/debate, is a legal term. Understanding this is crucial.

    Legislatures have the power to enact, repeal, and modify laws. That is their primary function. It is one of the powers of a just government. Legal terms fall into that category. You know who doesn’t have the power to enact, repeal, or modify laws? Churches.

    How ironic that most of the same people squawking “you can’t redefine marriage” have been trying to redefine “murder” since 1973.

    • To your last comment, smrnda’s comment was helpful for me. I’d been focused on Loving v. Virginia (1967) that eliminated laws against mixed-race marriage, but she noted that marital rape is a new thing since then. As is no-fault divorce.

      The conservatives will respond that, well, marriage has been redefined, but in insignificant ways. I disagree.

  • Sophia Sadek

    It never ceases to amaze me how these folks claim that marriage is natural. There is nothing more artificial than marriage. Even the most traditional marriages are thoroughly artificial. Laws concerning marriage typically run counter to what people do naturally, such as have sex without the state looking over their shoulders. They mostly involve property rights, the least natural of all rights.

  • Blizzard

    Seriously, this guy gets up and presumes to lecture people a bazillion times a year, and he doesn’t understand what judges do? What is he, a freakin child or something? I call baloney.

    • RichardSRussell

      C’mon Jillian, we’re adults here. It’s not really “baloney” you’re calling, is it?

      • Blizzard

        I get the same thing form my friends too believe it or not. Just can’t bring myself to swear very much lol. It never seems very sincere. It’s the way I was brought up I guess. I much prefer hoo-haw and baloney.

        • RichardSRussell

          Heh. Well, either way, we know it when we see it, right?

        • MNb

          Ah, as a Dutchman I like the sound of the word “baloney”.

    • it tells you how low the standard is for his target audience

  • Pofarmer

    I wonder. All of these “sanctity of marriage” ammendments were passed by popular vote. State legislatures wouldn’t touch them directly. Did the legislatures know this was unconstitutional from the get go and this was done as an end around, or just a way to provoke outrage as they were inevitably overturned?

  • Brian Murtagh

    [Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person
    in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial
    Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal—the white folks were
    constrained just like everyone else. That’s fair, so what’s to complain
    about?]

    You might want to rephrase this bit, Bob. The white people are not being constrained the same as everyone else by that wording alone, they’re being constrained more. If that were all the statute said it would be unfair to them.

    The preceding clause makes your case better:

    “4. No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk
    has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man
    and woman are correct.
    If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure
    white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall
    withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is
    produced that both applicants are “white persons” as provided for in
    this act.
    The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.”

    • You’re right. Whites could only marry whites, but non-whites could marry each other according to that 1924 law.

  • RichardSRussell

    3. But you can’t redefine marriage!

    Whenever this crusty canard comes up, I delight in retorting that I am a firm believer in Biblical marriage as practiced by Solomon, wisest man of antiquity and one of Yahweh’s all-time personal faves. And Solomon set an admirable precedent, that marriage is a sacred bond between 1 man and no more than 700 wives and 300 concubines. I personally don’t feel the need for more than 40 or 50, but Frank Turek should be totally down with that, right?

    • I remember an argument about polygamy with one Christian woman. She insisted that the marriages in the Bible were never one man and many woman. It was one man/one woman … many times.

      OK, the marriages were with the same man, but that’s still one man/one woman.

      Ain’t God glorious?

      • Kodie

        Well from the woman’s perspective, she has one man, and she’s only one woman. The rest don’t concern her what her husband does with his free time. When a man marries many women, he usually does it one at a time, or am I wrong about that?

        • RichardSRussell

          Beats the crap out of me. I still haven’t gotten around to Wife #1 on my agenda of 40-50. Been too busy with other things. (Altho I gotta admit that it’s starting to get kind of annoying with all those women hanging around outside my front door just pining away for me to pay them some attention.)

        • I see that point. What I object to is this woman (I think it was Amy Hall at Greg Koukl’s STR) trying to defend the “the Bible is all about one man/one woman” trope. She wouldn’t accept that polygamy was a (dramatic) counterexample but had to go to this legalistic contortion to argue it.

        • Kodie

          In their submissive culture, I’m surprised more aren’t on board with polygamy. It is a sign of wealth for the man to be able to support so many children. It’s not how many wives he has, it’s how many baby factories. Why every Christian woman thinks she has any rights to be the exclusive wife of one man and saddle him down like that when he could be so reproductively prolific with many more just like her, I do not understand. One man can impregnate many many women, if he can afford to keep them all. But however, sexually, I mean one man can only have his penis in one woman’s vagina at any given time, but marriage is an economic arrangement for the stability of a household. If you’ve got means and can afford so many children from many women, you’ve also got each woman taking care of all of them. In these one man-one woman marriages where they have one woman taking care of 10-20 children, it really is more like a factory. They have no time for inefficient nonsense, and everyone has their role defined at birth and put to work as soon as they can walk. I can almost understand the abuse in that way, it is the quickest way to restore order from chaos and train these children to their roles so the household runs smoothly like a factory would. They are proud of how efficiently it works and how well-behaved their children are. One time I was visiting my mom, she wanted to watch the Duggars show, and she commented that even though she disagreed with them, she liked how smoothly the house ran and everyone got along and helped out. They don’t show the underneath, just like every other family my mom wished we were like.

          But anyway, so a woman’s whole achievement of marriage is supposed to be that she is taken care of in return for taking care of the household and child-rearing while her husband can bring home the financial resources. If he can afford more than one, what is the complaint, from a Christian woman’s perspective?

        • Makes sense. From a rhetorical standpoint, however, they can’t budge on the “one man/one woman” position. If they admitted that, yes, marriage has been redefined throughout history, their anti-same-sex marriage argument is weaker.

  • 90Lew90

    In solidarity with the brave defenders of free speech at the brilliant Charlie Hebdo and in honour of those murdered today.

  • Marvin Edwards

    A handicap impairs someone’s ability to do what people are normally able to do. People can normally see colors, but some are born colorblind. People can normally hear, but some are born deaf.

    A person is normally attracted to the opposite sex. This is nature’s way to encourage mating and offspring.

    But the gay person’s mating attraction is to someone of the same sex. This impairs, but does not necessarily prevent, normal mating. Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson married, had two daughters with his wife, and only later chose to follow his natural desire. He was honest with his wife from the beginning and his new life partner is loved by his ex-wife and daughters.

    Like any other handicap, being gay is limited and specific. You probably would not know someone is gay until they tell you.

    A caring community normally supports individuals with handicaps. We reject prejudices that some people may have about them. We try to imagine what it would be like to walk in their shoes. We admonish our children to not make fun of someone who is different from themselves. And, to the degree possible, we accommodate that person’s special needs.

    I have long resisted using the term “marriage” for same-sex couples, preferring a different name, like “domestic partnership”. My concern is that, in the same fashion that Bishop Robinson was able to sustain a relationship that seemed unnatural to him, it is also possible for a heterosexual to find himself or herself in a long-term, same-sex relationship.

    Emotional bonds are easily established with someone of either sex. The sex act itself requires little more than physical stimulation. The presumption that only homosexuals can be drawn into a same-sex relationship is likely false. So I still worry about the moral harm to a person drawn into a relationship that unnecessarily prevents him from having a normal family. Hopefully, that fear can be addressed in other ways.

    It seems the time has come to call the commitment of two people to love and care for each other “marriage”, whether of the same or opposite sex.

    Marriage arose in society as an ethical structure for mating, insuring that someone was responsible for the children and, historically, the dependent spouse. That’s why it always assumed an opposite-sex couple.

    But marriage is also a pledge of sexual fidelity, emotional support, and sharing a home. These are the same for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.

    • 90Lew90

      Homosexuality is not a handicap although homosexuals may be handicapped. Marriage did not arise as an “ethical structure”. As has been pointed out below, it has a lot more to do with property than ethics, and if it arose out of anything, it arose out of farming. Yes, there is a degree of bisexuality in all humans to one extent or another, but that does not detract from the fact that there is a contingent of people who are attracted, emotionally and physically, to the opposite sex and some who are attracted emotionally and physically to the same sex.

      Getting married is not a commitment to popping out babies.

      • Marvin Edwards

        I agree that “getting married is not a commitment to popping out babies”. There is no guarantee. Some couples, for reasons beyond their control, have impaired reproductive ability. We may call that a handicap to successful mating as well.

        But marriage has historically presumed opposite sex. And the only clear reason for the presumption of opposite-sex is that mating is also presumed. Rules against marrying someone who is underage or too closely related (incest) also presume mating.

        This presumption is also in annulment rules, where sexual consummation bars annulment.

        And the same is witnessed by divorce law as well. Alimony implies unequal earning capacity of a dependent spouse. And child-support directly implies mating.

        The reason for these rules is clearly to impose legal and ethical rules upon mating. And that is why opposite sex has nearly always been presumed in marriage law.

        The marriage of same-sex couples is relatively new and different. (Keep in mind that I’m 68 years old and “new” may mean something different to me than to you).

        • 90Lew90

          You’re 68. Fine. You’re not that old. Not in terms of the evolution of marriage, a few of the stages of which you’ve mentioned. Could it be that opposite-sex is presumed in marriage because most people are straight? Wouldn’t that mean that the male-female (I’m uncomfortable with “opposite-sex”) paradigm predominates in the general discourse on marriage? And I’m sorry, but implicit in everything you’ve written is that you think marriage means mating and unless your marriage has been particularly good fun, reality gives the lie to that.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Marriage does not “mean” mating. Mating was going on a long time prior to marriage. This created problems, like children without economic support, like the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. So we came up with rules to solve these problems. You have to choose a mate and stick with her. You can’t sleep with my mate. Any children that result are your responsibility. Etc.

          That’s where all rules come from. There is a problem with the way people are doing things. For example, if you keep stealing everything I produce, then I’ll stop producing more than I can use. So we come up with a rule that says you have a right to your property and it is wrong to steal, and everyone is better off because everyone is more productive.

          Same sex “mating” produced no children that society needed rules to protect. There was no dependent spouse unable to support herself during pregnancy.

          The social problem of same sex mating was that it also produced no heirs. Therefore it became taboo among all those invested in the idea of a large extended family. And of course, back in tribal cultures, where “be fruitful and multiply” meant you would outnumber your enemy during battle, the taboo helped insure more successful mating and a larger army. So a rule was created prohibiting same-sex coupling.

          Today, every human created problem is made worse by the uncontrolled growth of population. So the rules are changing.

        • 90Lew90

          This is conjecture. Or to put it more bluntly, you’re talking out of your hat. It is without basis in history or anthropology or psychology or biology. It’s simplistic. And excuse me, it’s bunk.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Wikipedia has a reasonable article on “marriage”. I think you’ll find that most of the facts about marriage presume that it is historically and anthropologically about mating. There are certainly other aspects of marriage, such as shared property rights, etc. But if there were no mating there would be no institution called marriage. All other considerations could be handle by other forms of contract.

          What do you think is the basis for agreements on rules, if not to address and resolve social issues? Rights arise by agreement. To make things better for all of us, we resolve social problems through laws. Laws prohibit behavior that violates rights that we have agreed to respect and protect for each other.

          For example, if you marry someone, and I sleep with your spouse, I would be violating the social agreement to respect your right to sexual exclusivity with your spouse. That is one of the ethical/legal rules imposed upon the act of mating by the institution of marriage.

        • adam

          Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family’s children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally (see for example coverture).

          Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

          “For example, if you marry someone, and I sleep with your spouse, I would be violating the social agreement to respect your right to sexual exclusivity with your spouse”
          Historically the spouse was the PROPERTY of the man, again PROPERTY rights.

          Where is the mating clause?

          It is about property rights according to your reference.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Okay. Here are a few quotes from the article:

          “it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged.”

          “In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.”

          “In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interracial, interfaith, and same-gender couples.”

          Now that last quote is important. Note that it refers to “same-gender couples” and that it refers to “equal rights”.

          So the question to you is this, is the same-gendered couple seeking property rights through marriage? Does one spouse wish to “own” the other?

          Or is the goal an equality in the area of sexual fidelity and mutual social support and recognition of the fact that they are a “couple”, similar to an opposite sex couple in every way except that they are handicapped in the area of mating, and will require either an opposite sex third party or medical science or adoption to produce children?

          I don’t know how many homosexuals are looking for that. But for those that are looking for it, it must be provided from a sense of fairness and equal treatment of those in similar circumstances (couples).

          So, do you still want to try to convince me that marriage is all about property?

        • adam

          “In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing
          the marriages of interracial, interfaith, and same-gender couples.”

          This is DIFFERENT than what you are claiming is HISTORICAL.

          Historically marriage was about property rights.

          “So the question to you is this, is the same-gendered couple seeking property rights through marriage? Does one spouse wish to “own” the other?”

          Of course they are seeking property rights, but marriage (at least in developed countries) is no longer about ‘ownership’ but AGAIN about property rights.

        • 90Lew90

          Point me to the Wikipedia article you read, because I’d say there are a fair few on marriage and as you’re aware, Wikipedia is to be taken with a bucket of salt, particularly on dog-whistle issues.

          You’re wriggling here and I’m not going to let you. First you implied that marriage is about mating. Called out in blunt terms, you tried to say that no, marriage isn’t all about mating. Now you’re back to marriage is about mating again. Marriage is about property primarily, not about sexual ethics. The explosion of sexual “ethics” is actually quite recent and only circuitously derives from the tribal ethics of which you speak. They’re a hangover from a very high Victorian peak in a line of peaks and troughs.

          I’d put it to you that the explosion in sexual “ethics” that occurred during the Victorian era did not coincide with the industrial revolution accidentally. The emergence of marriage with agriculture and by extension property concerns, and the insistence on it by the captains of industry are two glaring facts you can not ignore. Are we not now mature enough to broaden the scope of marriage?

          I’ll close with this: As a gay man, I’m pretty damn lukewarm about the whole idea of gay marriage. As an Irishman it offends the rebel in me. Perhaps you should be a bit more honest about what it unsettles in you.

        • Marvin Edwards

          When I entered “marriage” in the search, it took me to:

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

          Rule systems include manners, mores, customs, ethics, laws, etc. Some, like customs, simply smooth social interactions by establishing expectations. Some, like laws, are formal agreements as to rights that we respect and protect for each other through legislation, courts, correction facilities, etc.

          Marriage has always been rules about mating. For example, you can’t marry your sister, or a child, or more than one spouse, etc. And there are rules for divorce, like the requirement that you support any kids or pay alimony to support your dependent spouse.

          Property issues arise from the fact that the husband historically supported both a dependent wife and the children. Upon the husbands death, the wife first, and then the kids inherit.

          When I said that marriage does not “mean” mating, what I meant was that (1) mating can take place without marriage and (2) marriage cannot guarantee offspring.

          But marriage was created specifically to deal with issues arising from irresponsible mating. Marriage has historically and anthropologically provided an ethical or legal structure imposed upon mating. That is the center of it’s meaning.

        • Kodie

          Historically, the damages would be to the husband whose property you violated, much as if you had painted a swastika on his house or smashed the headlights of his car. It was not until relatively recently in human history that women were considered sexual at all. It could have been their lack of enthusiasm for the sexual act whenever her husband rolled on top of her and initiated, but did anyone even ask?

          So anyway, you’ve violated his wife and shamed his household, he has no other choice but to turn her out and take away his children’s caretaker (not to mention his own). To some extent, it’s about mating, but it’s more about procreating, for the male to make heirs, and he needs a woman to serve that purpose. She, on the other hand, needs a home, for she no longer feels welcome at her father’s house the older she gets. Without a marriage, she ain’t mating nobody or her father will shoot them for spoiling his property. Her whole life has been shaped up to this point to make babies and to feel worthless if she cannot be chosen in order to give her the honor of producing heirs for her husband.

          In this day and age, it is remarkably like this still, for women as well as men. You might be surprised how many men try out their dates to find a home-maker, but they want it all – they do not wish to have a dependent, they are modern men, but they still want someone to take care of them like mother, and not be so well-employed as to emasculate them. And women still regard their wedding day as the highlight of their lives (until maybe they get some perspective).

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’m pretty sure that women were sexually attractive to men from the beginning. Consider the Old Testament story of King David who saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof and sent her husband to the battle front to get him out of the way. Sexual attraction is significant in species that reproduce sexually.

        • Kodie

          Marriage is not historically organized around a woman’s sexual attractions, despite your biblical anecdote.

    • I’m straight. I don’t think I’m able to form a romantic bond with another man.

      • Kodie

        Do you have a best male friend? I might be thinking out there but I don’t think romantic and sexual mean the same thing.

        • and a third category might be the one that Marvin referred to–emotional. I can see having an emotional (friendship) bond with another man that ranked zero on the romantic and sexual scales.

      • Marvin Edwards

        Interesting. I read something ages ago, that men tend to self-identify as heterosexual or homosexual, while women tend to be more flexible in their sexual identity.

        I had two experiences as a pre-schooler. In the first, an older boy gave me a cool toy for performing an oral service. So later I offered the same service to another older boy, but got chased home pelted with raw eggs. So I learned there were two opinions about this.

        Today, my thinking is that the taboo is acquired socially. It is not a part of heterosexuality. In fact, it was common practice among Greek soldiers to have homosexual lovers when away from home.

        Another interesting thing is that homosexuality tends to arise more frequently in older men. So, who knows, there may be hope for you yet, Bob.

        But seriously, the taboo is disappearing. When it is gone completely, and marriage between two men is totally okay with everyone, then what would be the downside? The only thing I can think of, is to simply be realistic about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The truth is that it is an accommodation to a handicap.

        • 90Lew90

          Typical straight boy. Didn’t even cook the eggs.

        • smrnda

          “The truth is that it is an accommodation to a handicap”

          I really wish you wouldn’t think of it that way. I actually have several disabilities, but being homosexual isn’t a disability in any meaningful sense.

      • MNb

        But if you were and for some personal reason wanted to marry another man, would you like someone like Marvin prevent you?

        • No. The part of Marvin’s post that intrigued me, though, was the idea that homosexuality is a handicap like colorblindness. That argument does nothing IMO to push back against same-sex marriage, but it’s intriguing.

          Lew, what’s your response?

        • MNb

          Yes, I noticed it as well. Hasn’t Lew responded somewhere?

        • He did reply, as I recall. He rejected the idea, but I didn’t get enough to give a proper rejection myself.

        • adam

          Just like atheism is a handicap against Christianity, is the way I read Marvin.

    • Kodie

      Marriage is an economic union that originated in ownership. The father gives away his daughter to her husband. If a daughter was not chosen by any man, she got to stay with her parents, she always needed someone to take care of her needs, and is a liability. A man wants his daughters to be eligible for marriage primarily for that reason and not for her happiness. Marriage is also a form of birth control. Without a contract, a woman should not risk pregnancy, and because adolescence and sexual maturity is part of being the animal we are, we’re gonna do it anyway. So it was always a waste of education to teach women anything other than their goal in life, to be chosen by a man to bear his children and keep his home. Within marriage, sex is seen as ok because she has a guarantee.

      The opposite sex marriage as we’ve known it is also a matter of gender roles. The man does these things and the woman does these things. Division of labor like that is definitely one way to run an efficient household, as all of those tasks need to be tended to – income to run the business of a household, as well as feeding, cleaning, and child-rearing, because let’s just suppose that there is a time when getting pregnant was inevitable. Modern society still looks down on men taking care of themselves or their families in certain ways, and looks down on women trying to “immigrate” into the man’s domain, and if the woman is doing the same things as a man, who is doing the “woman’s work” etc.

      To me, that is how marriage is defined in our culture. I think you need a minimum of two people to get everything done, especially when you have children, but society also looks down on single adults past a certain age having roommates, and I think society also looks down on parents, either married or single, using help to raise their children. I mean like parents have more limits on how much a stranger can teach their child or hold them responsible if you’re not watching them yourself. We’re not a community like a tribe looking after one another and filling in the gaps, so people seem to need someone to help but do not ask and have to do it all themselves. It’s not the housecleaner’s job to tell your child he’s being rotten and should stand in the corner or whatever “time-out” they call it now. They have to just put up with it.

      Anyway, I just think this comes from a society expecting marriage to mean children and if you can’t make them yourself, you have no reason to form a household together. Just enjoy being single and you can’t have a roommate or anything because that’s just for recent college graduates moving to a new city. People are fixated on sex and they don’t want to be, so if you’re a male and your roommate is male, and you’re over a certain age, like in The Odd Couple or even Friends, people used to think that was normal, and now it’s a topic of gossip, confusion, or pride. Shut the fuck up, everybody. Bert and Ernie are puppets. Society looks and analyzes the shit out of every thing a man does and what you do to “declassify” someone as handicapped because their sexual preference is different. If a man cooks or sews or stays home while his wife works, or puts on sunscreen, or drinks a diet cola that’s not specifically for manly men, people talk. What are they talking about and can’t they be done speculating on what the man does with anyone else of his choice behind a closed door? Men have their “role” and if two men create a household, then people will ask them who is the man and who is the woman? Who gets to go to work and who has to stay home and do chores? Who is on top and who is on bottom? Nobody asks this about heterosexual couples, but should a man be a sensitive and caring househusband, stay-at-home dad while his wife works, people question that too. Everything that needs to be done in a household needs to be done, so it’s getting done. Besides the inability of a homosexual couple to create biological children together, or the fixation on what their private sexual encounters are like, people seem mostly to be fixated on how it works when two men live together, like take-out every day, and they have to hire a cleaner? Maybe, what’s it to you.

    • RichardSRussell

      I’m told (but haven’t independently verified) that in Florida it’s fairly common for elderly widows and widowers to move in together for purely financial reasons (and also maybe to have someone around to keep an eye out if “I’ve fallen and can’t get up”). Clearly no reproduction is going to occur, and it’s entirely possible that there’s neither sex nor romance, either, but it’s a family of sorts, nu? Why should anyone else have a problem with that?

      And if they also want to get married for purely financial reasons (none of the claptrap that the fundies claim that marriage is “all about” and therefore a sine qua non of the institution), what’s wrong with that, either? Yet if it were 2 widows or 2 widowers with the exact same motivations, all of a sudden it’s a threat to “real” marriages all across the Sunshine State. These people are so full of shit their eyes are brown.

      • Marvin Edwards

        You’re right. It would be silly to argue that having children is a requirement. So, it is not a requirement. Mating, not childbirth, was the presumption.

        • adam

          No, property was the presumption.

        • Marvin Edwards

          There are rules about property as well. And historically, there were rules governing slavery, which treated people as property. The one thing that makes marriage unique is that it deals specifically with issues arising from mating.

        • Kodie

          You mean childbirth.

        • adam

          Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family’s children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

          So marriage historically was about property rights.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Was that also true of same-sex marriages in history? Or is it true that marriage historically presumed opposite sex. And if so, then why? For example, there might have been two women getting married or two men, in which case the property rights would, I presume, have been equal.

          I believe it is more reasonable to assume that marriage was primarily an ethical structure imposed upon mating. And the unequal property rights were a result of the fact that marriage, being about mating, always including a male and a female.

          It is more accurate historically to say that marriage has presumed opposite sexes because it has presumed mating.

          If you sold a slave or a cow or a plot of land, it would involve property, but would never be referred to as “marriage” without also implying mating.

        • 90Lew90

          So marriage does mean mating, according to you. But you’re getting there though, in recognising property as being central to historical marriage, but what you seem to have missed is that the wife herself was basically chattel — property. In a relationship between two males, this would have been a dishonour to the “owned” party. This dynamic existed even in Greek pederasty; it was dishonourable for a boy to accept the advances of someone who could offer him no benefit or elevation in status, militarily or intellectually. That “mating” (as you so romantically insist on calling it) takes place is a given. The only ethical considerations were about who owns what, including wives bought from fathers for a pig (dowry) for the prevention of wars over rights to land which had in turn only come about with the agricultural revolution. Farming gave rise to marriage. I’ve said this before. Not much ethics in it.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Marriage is an ethical or legal rule structure imposed upon mating. That is it’s historical and anthropological basis. If it were, as you suggest, a simple conveyance of property, as in your example of the wife for the pig or for a plot of land, then one could have also married the pig or the plot of land. But that is not the case. The marriage in your example only existed between the man and the woman.

        • adam

          Wheres historically SHE becomes HIS PROPERTY.

          Property rights.

        • 90Lew90

          Now you’re just being daft. And you know it.

        • adam

          ‘biblical’ ‘marriage’

          Again all about property rights.

        • Are you against same-sex marriage? If so, what’s the problem with it?

        • Kodie

          “Mating” seems to imply equality. Biologically, if a man wants heirs, he has to acquire a woman to bear his children, and he has to make certain bargains with her father or he will hold out for a more suitable prospect. It is totally about property and inequality. What the woman really wants is irrelevant, but she is trained to want a home and a husband and children. None of that is about “mating”. Her sexual needs are irrelevant, and previously thought to be non-existent anyway. “Mating” seems to mean more of a mutual sharing of sexual urges and bliss that inevitably results in offspring when it is between a man and a woman, such that they would both enter into an agreement with one another to partake of the sex and raise those children together.

          It’s about PROPERTY.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Biologically, in species that reproduce sexually, sexual attraction plays a significant role in mating, whether through pheromones or other cues.

          And every human child who has survived has experienced love and affection. So I think your claim that marriage is about property without love or attraction is inaccurate.

        • Kodie

          I think you’re an ignorant blowhard, how does that suit you?

        • 90Lew90

          The plot thickens. First marriage was about mating. Then it wasn’t. Then it was again. It’s most definitely about sexual ethics, except it isn’t. And since being told that your view has no basis in history, anthropology, psychology or biology, suddenly you’re interspersing your posts with “biologically this” or “anthropologically that”. Nil points. Fail. I don’t mean to be rude, because you don’t seem to have intended to be rude (though you’ve posted plenty at which I could take offence), but you’re a poor bluffer and you’re trying to make out as though marriage has always been about morals and the facts of it don’t bear that claim out. Allow that some of us here have taken more than a cursory interest in the issue and can call your bluff.

        • Marvin Edwards

          You’re welcome to disagree. You’re not welcome to distort. Marriage is an ethical structure imposed upon mating. I’ve said that from the beginning. Marriage does not require producing children, because that would be impossible for some people. But marriage traditionally has presumed mating and the probability of children.

          That’s why rules of annulment include failure to consummate. That’s why rules of divorce require alimony and child support when appropriate.

          This idea that marriage is somehow separate from sexual relations and only about managing your property is ridiculous.

          As to calling my supposed “bluff”, put up or shut up.

        • adam
        • Marvin Edwards

          Thanks for the excellent references Adam. I’m not in any way against same-sex unions for those who need them to find their best happiness. My concern is for those who may become confused about what they think they need.

          First, from the data on sexual orientation that I posted earlier, it appears that nearly everyone is “bi-capable”, even though they may lean primarily toward heterosexual or homosexual orientation. Those incapable of anything but homosexuality or heterosexuality are the minority. The ability to form either bond, both emotionally and sexually, is present in the vast majority of us.

          Second, while attraction and sexual stimulation are innately pleasurable, any aversion that we experience is likely to be socially acquired.

          Third, as the taboo disappears into the sunset of history, so will the aversion. And things are likely to change. One change will be that many people will consider same-sex relationships who previously would not have.

        • Kodie

          A lot of people in this world enter into relationships they’d probably rather have thought about beforehand, and you don’t seem to care about them. As long as they “mate,” they are morally alright in your book.

          You have a paranoia that homosexuality will stop being taboo and the “lifestyle” or those predatory gay guys will “seduce” young men who are confused, according to you, or just exploring or whatever. For whatever reason you are afraid of the plague of gay. For whatever reason, you think this is the way things seem to be going and it worries you. Don’t worry, you’ll be dead. You won’t have to live in a nationwide gay orgy. Is this the worst future you can envision?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Well, the gay/straight thing seems to be the issue in this particular blog. And the information you’re working with, specifically the presumption that everyone is either straight or gay, is incorrect. So someone needs to set the facts straight.

          As to your personal attacks, you know what you can do with them.

        • Kodie

          Nobody is uneducated here about a sexual continuum. You seem to believe this makes all the dudes susceptible to homosexual seduction, acquiring a “handicap” and defying their moral value. You don’t give a shit about women at all, you don’t give a shit about history at all. All you care about is repeating your dullard nonsense and hearing yourself talk and fear-monger and clutch your pearls over an imaginary phantom. Shove that up your ass, you might enjoy it a whole bunch and turn queer.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie: “You don’t give a shit about women at all”

          Sorry, but it is easier for me to speak from the perspective of a man. As for caring about women, I faithfully sang the modified lyrics in the UU choir to assure that no prejudice favoring of a male God would be perpetuated.

          I have no clue about what the world looks like from a lesbian’s viewpoint. All I know is that I read somewhere that women were less likely to view themselves as exclusively straight or gay but men do adopt that view of themselves. And I’ve observed that society is more tolerant of gay women than of gay men. (And I never consider watching GGW dvds “objectifying” women. I am entirely grateful for what they do and would personally thank them if I had the opportunity. By the way, did you watch G on G 3? Freakin’ Awwwsome on the bathroom sink!).

        • Kodie

          I’m not a lesbian, but I was talking, and I had made a point yesterday that you ignored, about homophobic men and how they feel when THEY are objectified (or just fear that they will be targeted for sexual advances). I am very straight, but I would also say I don’t like people in general, and I find it hard to get close to any women even as friends, since we just have nothing in common. I definitely don’t see it as a moral obligation to bring more people into the world.

          Homophobic men like you make a huge drama about the fear of seduction from these predatory gay men targeting straight men and turning them away from their “MORAL VALUE” as a heterosexual “mating” partner. I also suggested that men are handicapped in general, which you ignored, in precisely the same way you define homosexual men. A man historically needs to have heirs and he can’t do that alone. Women have suffered being the target of unwanted advances and having their entire worth being measured in being a mother, being a wife, being chosen and not to be an “old maid”. Your opinions seem to line up with prejudice against people living their own lives as they see fit, and you need every single person on earth to adhere to YOUR MORAL VALUES instead of their own. How about mind your own fucking business.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Considering that most people are bi-capable, even if they suppress it, it would not be surprising that a man would be homophobic or feel threatened by his own feelings if approached by a gay man. I’ve been surprised a couple of times myself (when I was younger in my 30’s and prettier).

          But I had already had two experiences with older boys as a pre-schooler — one pleasant and the other not so — such that I started thinking about the issue earlier than most.

          When the issue of gay rights came up in college and later, I was totally in favor of equal treatment and “domestic partnership” legislation. But when the UU suggested we redefine “marriage” itself, I rebelled. That seemed to me to be a distortion of the truth that could have unintended consequences. And I’ve described my concerns here.

          Your point about men marrying to produce heirs is a social convention, probably driven by familial pressure. My point about the moral value of children is different from that.

          Ethics is about rules. Morality is about good. We call something good if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species.

          Everyone, including you, makes moral judgments. These are simply considered opinions as to the benefits and harms of choosing one option over another.

          One judgment that we all share is the moral value of the freedom to make our own choices.

        • Kodie

          Your point about the moral value of anything is pretty disturbing and biased.

        • adam

          Prohibition was a ‘moral’ movement that caused more harm than good, same with the War on Drugs.
          There are many more things done called ‘morality’ that are. certainly BAD

          So CLAIMING something is moral is different that the thing being moral.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Correct. Whether one option is more moral than another is judged by the expected outcome in terms of relative benefits and harms. And there are many cases where the outcomes cannot be objectively determined, but can only be estimated.

          Therefore, two good and honest persons, lacking a “God’s eye view” of ultimate outcomes, may reach different views of the outcomes of a given choice. When there is disagreement, you take a vote to put a working rule in place. Over time, the actual outcomes may become clear, and you can revisit the decision to choose a different option.

          The criteria of moral is always a matter of the best possible good and least possible harm for everyone. And this kind of assessment is happening all the time. And it is present on both sides of every discussion of any issue.

        • adam

          What ‘God’ and what is so special about it’s eye view?
          Are you talking Horus or more likely Isis?

          Or are you speaking first hand that YOU know the ‘ultimate outcome” and you are holding out of us?

          What kind of DAMAGE will this CLAIMED ‘harm’ do?

          And clearly denying civil rights in a civil contract by sexual identification is IMMORAL.
          In the same manner civil rights were denied in the same civil contract based on race, or denied by slavery.

        • Marvin Edwards

          (a) Any omniscient being, perhaps one’s wife.
          (b) Pretty sure I’ve made no claim to omniscience.
          (c) I’ve spelled it out several times now.
          (d) I’ve also clearly stated that I favor equal rights.
          So b, c, and d would be what are called straw men, arguments that you should be having with someone else, not me.

        • adam

          (a) you’ve demonstrated NO omniscient being or that that is even possible.

          So, JUST like I said, the Strawman is YOURS.

          What kind of DAMAGE will this CLAIMED ‘harm’ do?

          And clearly denying civil rights in a civil contract by sexual identification is IMMORAL.
          In the same manner civil rights were denied in the same civil contract based on race, or denied by slavery.

        • The focus of this blog is on the accuracy of the Christian claims. Social issues like homosexuality and abortion are often side issues.

        • adam

          IF nearly everyone is ‘bi-capable’ where does the confusion arise?

          I am certainly not confused, as are anyone who knows what their sexual orientation is.

          If bisexual people are confused then is only because of the kind of propaganda that primarily self righteous people spread.

          Of course the aversion is socially acquired, YOU ARE SPREADING the same kind of aversion.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Well, you’re confused if you think that being heterosexual prevents you from getting it off homosexually.

        • adam

          I dont understand what you are saying here.

          If you look at the spectrum you’ve posted about, there are, for the sake of argument, heterosexuals at one end, homosexuals at the other and a full range in between.

          Each end stands on its own, while the rest are, as you wrote bi- capable meaning they can swing either way.

          You seem to be VERY concerned about this VERY small amount of heterosexuals (and it seems like men only in your case) who have NO homosexual component to them, claiming some potential ‘moral’ damage to society by homosexuals who really have NO avenues to seduce THESE heterosexuals.

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’m concerned about the vast majority who are bi-capable. Within this group there are homosexually leaning and heterosexually leaning. Depending where you are on the continuum, your opportunity to parent children with an opposite sex partner is lower or higher.

          An example of the moral value of this opportunity is Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson. He was homosexually leaning, and discussed his feelings with his fiance before they were married. They married in 1972. They had successful sexual relations. And he fathered two daughters. They divorced in 1986 and in 1988 he began living with Mark Andrew. When civil unions were legal in 2008 they tied the knot. They broke up in 2014.

          But the point is that Robinson had two daughters. This would be highly unlikely had he followed his leanings earlier.

          And that’s what I’m worried about. Having children is morally valuable. It is a great personal benefit. And it ties your current decisions to people who will live past you, giving you a stake in the future, which improves your moral judgment.

        • smrnda

          I don’t have kids. But my decisions are still tied to people who will live after me because I don’t have to be related to someone to be emotionally invested in the future.

          On the personal benefit, I think it might be declining owing to increased mobility and lifespan. When my grandparents died, my father was still a working adult. On top of that, he didn’t even live in the same country as them. My father, my brother and myself live in different countries. Our hope for the future is a decent welfare state since we can’t really expect to take care of each other.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Good point. And I’m not trying to write a prescription that everyone should follow. Everyone’s circumstances are different and only they can make the choices for themselves. Many people, of all different persuasions, consciously choose not to have children. And unbridled population growth also grows every problem that humans create, like pollution, destruction of the rain forests, global warming, etc.

        • adam

          Sorry but I fail to see the moral value of your Bishop example.

          Bi-capables who are ‘seduced by homosexuals’ in a manner like your Bishop can still have children, can still have ties that live past them just like your Bishop example. None of which has any direct affect on improved moral judgement.

          Seems like your are REALLY trying hard to sell elbow deodorant.

        • Marvin Edwards

          The bishop was seduced into a heterosexual relationship by his religious faith. My point is that he was better off for having two daughters than he would have been without them.

          And your point is well taken that, today, anyone who is committed to raising a family can achieve it, even with a same-sex spouse.

        • Kodie

          That’s your opinion and not a matter of fact, and it’s also none of your business.

        • Marvin Edwards

          And the point of these blogs is that people get to express their opinions.

        • 90Lew90

          True. I’ve only vaguely been keeping track of what you’ve been saying to me, and you’ve been cagey and evasive with me. You’ve been dallying around what you really think. But it being Saturday and having some time on my hands, I’ve had a look at what you’ve been saying in responses to others and by triangulation, so to speak, your point emerges. Say what you mean. This is getting tedious.

        • adam

          So again, why does society need your elbow deodorant?

        • Marvin Edwards

          The current popular understanding of the issue is missing a few pieces of information. Like this: Heterosexuality offers no immunity to a life-long homosexual relationship any more than homosexuality offers immunity to a long-term heterosexual relationship.

          There is an “unintended consequence” if we “glorify” same-sex relationships, rather than being honest about them. Same-sex marriage is an accommodation to a handicap.

        • adam

          “Heterosexuality offers no immunity to a life-long homosexual relationship any more than homosexuality offers immunity to a long-term heterosexual relationship.

          ABSOLUTELY it does, that is what the ‘spectrum’ is all about.
          Seems to me you just need to come to grips with your own homosexuality.

          You said you werent concerned about this.
          YOU SAID your concern were all the bi-capables.

          What ‘unintended consequences’ are there if same sex marriages have the same RIGHTS as non-same sex marriages?

          Same sex marriage is NOT an accomodation to a handicap, it is a RIGHTS issue.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Surprisingly no. Both the generally heterosexual and the generally homosexual are bi-capable. Only the extreme heterosexual and the extreme homosexual, both of which are in small minorities, would be less than bi-capable.

          Please see the Wikipedia article on sexual orientation if you haven’t yet.

          Therefore general heterosexuality offers no immunity to a homosexual relationship any more than general homosexuality offers immunity to a heterosexual relationship.

          Bishop Robinson is the obvious example. Other examples would be all of those who were generally homosexual but who, due to a cultural bias, were coerced into heterosexual relationships. And who had successful sexual relations with their wives. And who raised children — all the while in the closet.

          This works BOTH WAYS. The only reason you are convinced that it could not work the other way is because of the very same cultural bias — WHICH IS NOW BEING ERASED.

          (At some point a lightbulb should be going off above somebody’s head).

          As to equal rights, of course there must be equal rights. To the degree that a gay couple is in a committed relationship similar to marriage they MUST rightfully be treated as if they were married. That has never been an issue here, at least not with me.

          But there are several incorrect assumptions out there. The first is that heterosexuality makes anyone immune to a long-term homosexual relationship. It doesn’t. It certainly did not for the Greeks.

          So what will result when there is no longer any bias at all? And what will result if same-sex relationships are made very popular, or even become the current fad?

          Luckily, it will not happen in your generation. But then again, neither will the worst effects of global warming.

        • adam

          NOPE

          Heterosexuals are heterosexual

          Homosexuals are homosexual

          Bi are bi.

          Your Bishop was bi, OBVIOUSLY…

          But there are several incorrect assumptions out there. The first is that heterosexuality makes anyone immune to a long-term homosexual relationship. It doesn’t. It certainly did not for the Greeks.

          OF COURSE IT DOES.

          THAT is very definition of the ‘spectrum’

          Not all Greeks had long term homosexual relationships

          And as you keep pointing out MOST people are bi.

          So what will result when there is no longer any bias at all? And what will result if same-sex relationships are made very popular, or even become the current fad?

          Then you wont have this:http://www.research.va.gov/currents/fall2013/fall2013-12.cfm

          or this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

          And we can be a more loving and gentle world without self-righteous homophobic BIGOTS like you.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Wikipedia: “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.”

          Wikipedia: “Kinsey reported that when the individuals’ behavior as well as their identity are analyzed, most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual — i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5–10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.”

          Wikipedia: “Laumann et al., (1994) found that among U.S. adults 20% of those who would be considered homosexual on one component of orientation were homosexual on the other two dimensions and 70% responded in a way that was consistent with homosexuality on only one of the three dimensions.[93] Furthermore, sexuality is fluid such that one’s sexual orientation is not necessarily stable or consistent over time but is subject to change throughout life.”

          Wikipedia quoting Kinsey: “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.—Kinsey et al. (1948) pp. 639.”

        • 90Lew90

          And what? We’re hurtling towards 9,000,000,000 people on this cramped planet. Maybe more satisfying same-sex relationships is a Good Thing. Maybe having more children is the real “handicap”. You’ve already mentioned climate change. You contradict yourself left, right and centre. Your arguments present no consistency. You’re anonymous here. At least have the balls to say what you really mean for fuck sake.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Sorry if I’ve seemed confusing to you. But I believe I can hold the position that overpopulation is bad and that being a parent is good without being inconsistent. Obviously there are trade-offs to be made at some point. We can’t sacrifice the species for the sake of the parent. Hopefully we’ll curb population growth. And perhaps, as you suggest, more same-sex coupling will provide the answer. Or we could use family planning and birth control. Or both.

        • Kodie

          Being a parent is often very bad for children. Being a parent is often very destructive for the parent, you are not winning at all with this argument, and it just seems like you have an unfounded bias against people who choose not to procreate. You might just be obsessed.

        • 90Lew90

          So is not parenting/refusing to parent/inability to parent a handicap or not now, because I remain confused.

        • Marvin Edwards

          A condition which impairs your ability to do something that people are normally able to do, like see, or hear, or walk, or mate, can be reasonably called a “handicap”.

        • Kodie

          A man cannot “mate” by himself. He is not normally capable of mating. Here you go, treating women like they don’t exist and taking us for granted again, sicko.

        • adam

          Then obviously rational thinking is your handicap.

          Bi-sexuals CAN mate, and also can have children and do all the time

          Elbow Deodorant..
          Why do I need any?.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Not only that, but state by state their handicap is being accommodated by opening marriage up to same-sex couples. And, although I’d prefer to call it something else, the simplest solution is to redefine marriage to be between any two people who wish to live together as a couple in love. And that simplicity, like the heliocentric solar system, wins the argument.

          However, it also opens the door to unintended consequences, because it is no longer just about two gay persons.

          Well, it may be that my fears are unjustified. Thanks for letting me talk about them.

        • adam

          So bisexuals get married to each other, they do ALL the time, because most everyone is bi.

          You still havent demonstrated what ‘handicap’ you are talking about, they ALL can mate, they ALL can have children, they ALL can raise families.

          What ‘unintended consequences’
          What ‘harm’ are you so AFRAID of, you’ve never been able to say.

        • Marvin Edwards

          (A) Let me try to spell out the harm in detail. The harm would be a bi-capable heterosexual in a homosexual relationship losing the opportunity to be a parent and the benefits of having children. That’s the harm.

          Compare that with the parallel case, a bi-capable homosexual in a heterosexual relationship, such as Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who had two daughters. That, in my opinion, was a net benefit rather than a harm.

          (B) The handicap is the impairment to mating caused by a homosexual orientation. Normally, people are attracted to the opposite sex and this aids successful mating. People attracted to the same sex are at a disadvantage.

          The fact that a person can easily work around their handicap or find ways to accommodate it does not change the truth of the matter that it is an impairment to doing something people are normally able to do without special aids or accommodation.

          I don’t see how it can be argued that a homosexual orientation is not a handicap to mating.

        • Kodie

          Does it bother you so much that you can’t decide for other people what they want and what they might be willing to sacrifice for a fulfilling relationship with someone of any sex?

        • adam

          a. But OBVIOUSLY they dont loose the opportunity to be parents and having children. JUST like your Bishop example

          That is why I dont understand your position.
          Your are NOT making any sense.

          b. AGAIN, there is no impairment to mating,

          They can ALL mate.
          they may not all want to mate to reproduce, but this IS certainly the norm, or else 19 and Counting would be the norm and not the 2.5 or so number we see.
          It is a spectrum remember.

          Normally, as you have provided evidence for, almost everyone IS bisexual already.

          So what kind of DAMAGE do you FEAR this perceived “harm” would do?

        • Kodie

          Marv’s more like “don’t encourage the gays” by giving them equal rights, then there will be no barrier preventing straights from getting their chests waxed and enjoying Cher concerts.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Sorry, Adam, but I don’t know how to make it clearer without simply repeating what I’ve said above.

          We don’t know whether Bishop Robinson would ever have had children if he had met Mark Andrew and same-sex marriage was already available to him.

          In his book he says he had wanted a family since he was a child. And he had a loving relationship with his wife and daughters. But he also says he felt most fulfilled and happy and at one with himself with Mark. And he believes God endorses their relationship. And apparently the Episcopal church (or at least most of it) agrees with him.

          In my argument, I’m playing the odds. And it seems reasonable to me that the probability of a bi-capable heterosexual in a same-sex relationship increases as the social pressure shifts from negative to positive. As the stigma is replaced by celebration, same-sex relationships, even for persons who don’t really need them, will increase.

          And in those cases, where a bi-capable heterosexual does not really need the same-sex relationship, a large percentage who would have otherwise had children will not have children–even though, as you point out, they can adopt or use a surrogate. Many, if not most, will simply choose not to have children at all.

          And there’s the loss. Not that the children do not exist, but rather that the relationship of parent and child, and the experience of having a stake in the future, does not exist.

        • MNb

          You have made yourself perfectly clear. You want grant same sex unions the same rights as man-woman marriages, you just don’t want to call such unions marriage. Because it scares you. You suffer from logophobia.

          “In my argument”
          Your only argument is “it scares me”.

          “it seems reasonable to me that the probability of a bi-capable heterosexual in a same-sex relationship increases as the social pressure shifts from negative to positive.”
          And you are the only atheist around who has a problem with this. The only argument you brought up was “it scares me”.

        • Marvin Edwards

          What I fear is the harm to others. For example, children who dream of marriage may dream of same-sex marriage, even if they are heterosexual.

          I also worry about the kids who like dance, music, or the arts (like me) and get shoved into homosexual roles due to the current popular set of prejudices. — I had a friend in high school, and we sang “Once I had a secret love” in the shower after gym class. Being Christians, he invited me to a convention his church was having at the high school. He was a sweet guy. A few years later, I asked a friend of mine what became of him. He said they kicked him out of the church because he was gay. And that was the first I knew of it. It made me sad because his church was very important to him. We never did anything sexual, of course. But I did care about him.

          But if things were different then, as they will be different in the future, I may have had a homosexual relationship with him,

          And that would NOT have been the best outcome for me. Because the best outcome was that I married, had a son, and now have a granddaughter and grandson.

          And since I don’t think that I am unique, I can see the other path being taken by a lot with other bi-capable heterosexuals.

          I guess everyone has their own experiences and can only judge the future based upon their own past. So it is not surprising that you cannot see the problem that I see.

        • MNb

          “children who …..”
          How is that harmful?

          “….. get shoved into homosexual roles ….”
          You write it yourself – due to prejudices, not due to same sex marriage.
          You still don’t make sense.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Sorry. But I don’t know how to explain it any better than I have already. And please be aware that my post is NOT an argument against providing marriage rights to same-sex couples. It is simply a concern about how we view same-sex marriage. It should be viewed as a reasonable and justifiable accommodation to people who by nature have a mating handicap. Otherwise, same-sex marriage would be unnecessary and would make no sense.

        • Kodie

          How many times have I explained to YOU that MEN do not have the ability to “mate” all on their lonesome, so society has hijacked women and their futures, historically relegated to a submissive role as property and baby factory for a man to purchase from her father. You know what’s even easier than that? CONVINCE little girls systematically that that’s their sole purpose, to settle for a big wedding DAY instead of a fulfilling life for herself. You actually do not give a shit about history.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie, have you considered the possibility that you are not the slave of society or of convention, but that you can make your own choices, and chart your own course, and stop acting and yelling as if you were the victim of someone else’s choices other than your own? History begins now.

        • Kodie

          Have you considered that women even exist not to be your “mating” partner? You keep pointing at men being kept from the choices you want them to make by moving forward and accepting homosexuality instead of being ashamed of it. You want everyone to breed! It’s fucking nonsense.

        • Kodie

          Just in case you think I’m trying to change the subject, NO, it relates directly to your use of the word “handicap” to describe homosexual couples. You’re ignorant of history and disturbingly obsessed about the “victimization” of poor nearly-almost-completely-straight men being turned on and making a choice that makes them happy. You don’t want people to be happy, you want them all to breed. Guess what, they can if they want. Your obsession with straightening everyone out and pairing them up with women, like we’d all love to waste our time being married to closeted gay men and bearing them children. YOU FUCKING SEXIST PSYCHOPATH BIGOT.

          Go back under your rock.

        • Marvin Edwards

          And as Tommy Smothers used to say, “well…well…Same to you fella!”

        • adam

          BUT YOU WANT to limit choices for the majority of people ,who are bisexual people, as well as all the homosexual people.due to your IRRATIONAL fear that you FAIL to demonstrate any real harm.

        • adam

          But they have NO mating handicap, they all CAN and DO mate now.

          Why not stop being deceptive and give your REAL reasons.

        • Marvin Edwards

          And that’s about enough from you.

        • Kodie

          Enough what? Enough you don’t want to hear it la la la?

          Nobody else is giving you even the time of day here. We’ve figured out what you are, drawn you a diagram, and you still think you have a valid argument. You’re delusional, and you’re paranoid.

        • adam

          Enough of the Truth?

          Never…..

          Enough of your DECEPTION though.

          I am now assuming BECAUSE of all your deception that you probably self IDENTIFY as a ‘Christian’.

        • MNb

          Sure I am aware of your logophobia. You want to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, you just don’t want to call it marriage. Because you’re scared to call a legalized relationship between two men or two women marriage. The word marriage scares you.
          Have you already contacted a therapist?

          “a reasonable and justifiable accommodation to ….”
          According to the same reasonable and justifiable lines we can call it marriage. But the word scares you.

          “same-sex marriage would be unnecessary”
          As unnecessary as man-woman marriage.

          “and would make no sense.”
          It perfectly makes sense to call something that looks like a marriage, functions like a marriage and has the same legal status as marriage indeed “marriage”. You are the one who doesn’t make sense. Indeed, no phobia does.

        • Guest

          But they have NO mating handicap, they alll CAN and DO mate now.

          Why not stop being deceptive and give your REAL reasons.

        • adam

          “For example, children who dream of marriage may dream of same-sex marriage, even if they are heterosexual.”

          So WHAT damage would be done.

          People of same-sex marriages STILL have children and raise families.

          why dont you stop being dishonest and deceptive and give us the REAL reason you oppose same sex marriage.

        • Kodie

          Maybe we would not be so sexist and pigeon-holing people according to gender roles and allow people to grow up and have healthy, caring relationships with someone they want to spend time with. Is there something terrible to you about that?

          You think homosexuality might just appeal to people who wouldn’t consider it, like you, you are fearful of an event in your own past where if you could accept your homosexuality, you’d be deprived of something. YOU need things to be clear, for men to be men and for women to be women and know what (you think) they should be, and not find something else equally appealing. You’re a fucking bigot, self-loathing bisexual, who wants to control everyone else. You keep saying you don’t but you do.

          We never did anything sexual, of course.

          But you feel like you had to mention that you didn’t have sex with a dude, “of course”. We would have held that against you because you’re paranoid that people give a shit what you do with your private sex life. We’re not obsessed like you are.

        • adam

          So, you are basing all your FEARS on something that you have NO IDEA about.

          But you do.
          MOST people are already bisexual genetically and STILL have children.

          So your argument IS a Strawman.

          Like I have said there is a spectrum of people who want/dont want children, And since most people are bi already it is quite evident that desire for children is based PRIMARILY on ECONOMIC factors and not bisexuality or even marriage.

          So what your REAL GOAL should be to allievate your IRRATIONAL FEARS should be to PROMOTE POVERTY and POOR HEALTH care as THAT produces the people who want children.

        • 90Lew90

          Oh what a load of bollocks.

        • adam

          It is the VERY BEST his ‘faith’ has provided for him.

        • There’s a fork in the road. One fork leads to two children, and the other leads to a gay marriage with no children. You’re telling us that the first fork is the better fork. Always.

          I have two kids myself, and that’s a pretty great thing … in my opinion. To say that that would be the better route for every single person needs far more evidence than the none that you’ve provided.

        • Marvin Edwards

          The only evidence required is the moral benefit of having children which we appear to agree on.

          In the case of the bi-capable homosexual, you have some room to argue that it would be better for most to choose a long-term same-sex relationship.

          In the case of the bi-capable heterosexual, I think it is clear that it would be better for most to choose a long-term opposite sex relationship.

        • Dys

          Arguing over the moral value of having children vs. not having children is a highly subjective and personal opinion, not particularly something one can argue against same sex marriage over with any real relevance. Unless you plan on going around and accusing couples who don’t have children of being immoral, I don’t see that you have that much of an argument. Besides the gay seducer boogeyman that conservatives have been peddling for years in an attempt to maintain homosexual’s pariah status in society. Which you seem to have latched onto for some bizarre reason.

        • Pofarmer

          Why is it a moral benefit to have children? Is it somehow immoral not to have children?

        • ??

          Yes, there are good things about having children. There are also good things about not having children. Not a hard concept, right?

          Somehow, you seem to think that you’ll decide that one path is the right one for all of us?

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’m not deciding anything for anyone but myself. I’m simply presenting an issue for consideration. If you’re done discussing the issue, then we’re done.

        • You sure didn’t make that clear. I thought you said that it was morally wrong forsociety to create a situation that would make more likely that a straight man would be tempted by gaiety.

        • adam

          In the case of the bi-capable heterosexual, I think it is clear that it would be better for most to choose a long-term opposite sex relationship.

          No that is not clear at all.

          They DO and CAN still have children.

          The SPECTRUM of DESIRE for children is what has and will always be the thing that preserves our species.

          Why not be HONEST about your REAL FEAR?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Really, Adam? Do you think I have been dishonest with you in any way whatever? Didn’t I provide several examples from my own personal experience? Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist? And I’m pretty sure i’ve answered all of your question many times now. If you cannot hear, then I cannot overcome your deafness.

        • adam

          Of course I think you are being dishonest.

          No, you have not provided ANY examples from you own personal experience that demonstrates your claims of ‘harm’.

          You’ve STILL not specified what DAMAGE you ‘believe’ the ‘harm’ you are CLAIMING causes.

          So NO you’ve deliberately DANCED around answering my questions without addressing them.

          You’ve apparently DELIBERATELY avoided the FACTS in matter relating to the spectrum of WANTING children and ECONOMICS as the MAJOR factors in whether people have children or not.

          And you’ve demonstrated NO ‘harm’, or even potential harm.

          I probably am SOME kind of conspiracy theorists as there are such things as conspiracies, but I have accused you of no such thing, so I dont see the relevance.

          I am a little hard of hearing in one ear, but no deafness.
          And my reading comprehension is good.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Let me try to spell out the harm in detail. The harm would be a bi-capable heterosexual in a homosexual relationship losing the opportunity to be a parent and the benefits of having children. That’s the harm.

          Compare that with the parallel case, a bi-capable homosexual in a heterosexual relationship, such as Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who had two daughters. That, in my opinion, was a net benefit rather than a harm.

          Now, there is no harm in someone deliberately choosing not to be a parent. But there is a harm if someone is deluded into believing that they don’t have that option.

          Now you are certainly free to claim there is no harm in the one case and no benefit in the other. That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.

          The “facts” that are wrong in this forum are: (1) The mistaken idea that everyone is either 100% gay or 100% straight, and that if someone is straight they can’t have feelings of attraction to someone of the same sex, or they must be gay. (2) The idea that civil marriage is primarily about managing property rather than primarily about managing mating.

          Both of those “facts” are screwed up.

        • Kodie

          You say there is “net benefit” in millions of gay men hiding in heterosexual marriages because then they can have children, but you don’t like to see this “trend” turn around. It frightens you because you think gay men can’t have children if they want them, and still get married to a man.

          Because you’re ignorant and stupid!

        • adam

          Oh he is ‘all for equality’, it is just that some are more equal than others.

        • adam

          OK you’ve played this many times now WITHOUT demonstrating the TRUTH.

          “Let me try to spell out the harm in detail. The harm would be a bi-capable heterosexual in a homosexual relationship losing the opportunity to be a parent and the benefits of having children. That’s the harm.”

          And like I have said, they dont LOOSE the opportunity to be a parent OR the benefits of having children.
          Many of these same bi-homo couples WANT children, HAVE children WITH OR WITHOUT marriage.

          “The “facts” that are wrong in this forum are: (1) The mistaken idea that everyone is either 100% gay or 100% straight, ”

          Nobody but YOU are making this claim.

          “(2) The idea that civil marriage is primarily about managing property rather than primarily about managing mating.”

          Marriage is a LEGAL contract that IS PRIMARILY about managing property. Divorce from marriage is nothing about mating, but everything about property rights.

          So you are 0 for 3 on your ‘facts’ and ‘fears’

          So why not be HONEST and give your REAL reason.

        • MNb

          “The harm would be a bi-capable heterosexual in a homosexual relationship losing the opportunity to be a parent and the benefits of having children. That’s the harm.”
          How is that a harm?
          Is it a harm for a married straight couple that decides not to have children?
          Given the overpopulation if anything this is a good thing.

          “That, in my opinion, was a net benefit rather than a harm.”
          Yeah, good for him. He made a choice. A bi-capable etc. in a homosexual relationship makes another choice – the same choice I made more than 15 years ago when I underwent vasectomy.
          You still don’t make sense – and I don’t make the two mistakes you mention; I’m not even interested in the question if they are mistakes, because for my arguments they are totally irrelevant. My argument is very simple: you don’t get to make decisions for other people. Period.
          My counterargument is simple as well: you’re incoherent, because your “objections” apply in exactly the same way to the legalized partnerships with equal rights you claim to support.
          In short: you don’t make sense, you never made sense and until you give up your faulty line of thinking you never will make sense.
          No wonder I get so few replies from you.

        • Dez

          Please do not talk about bi sexuality if you are not one. You have no idea what I think or feel. I happened to be married to an hetero man because I love him. I do not need to marry a women too though I have attractions to them. Like most adults I am capable of following the law. Again children are irrelevant to marriage unless you can show a law that says you have to have children or the ability to do so in order to obtain a marriage license. Your belief that marriage is about children is legally incorrect. Morally we don’t care what you think about what marriage should be about. That is your personal views and should stay as such. I will dictate my own marriage. Stay out of it.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t see how it can be argued that a homosexual orientation is not a handicap to mating.

          By “mating”, I assume you mean “reproducing”. Menopause has evolved in humans because it is better for a family to have access to a long lifetime’s experience than it is for one more woman to risk dying in childbirth. Menopause has evolved in whales, too,which are also social animals. It’s apparently better for the selfish genes to benefit existent relatives than so they can reproduce than to continue to reproduce more.

          Ants and bees are also social animals. It beneficial for the colony that nearly every member does not reproduce but the colony still requires the non-reproducing members.

          There are many strategies for surviving. Some live fast, die young, allowing a few to reproduce a lot. Some live in groups with various reproductive strategies.

          Humans have been able to reproduce faster than the Malthusian limits can sustain since before our ancestors were considered human even with members that did not reproduce themselves. It seems you are taking the most simple model of reproduction and trying to judge a species that uses a more advanced reproductive strategy.

        • 90Lew90

          But neither of those three things are impairments and by the same token I can call religion an impairment.

        • Kodie

          He’s worried, like for instance most straight guys assume they are straight and don’t know about their “bi-capability” or deny it in some way, or are born lucky that they can pass for completely straight when they marry a woman and never have to “come out” per se. He’s worried that we’ll accept the “handicap” of homosexuality and given society’s subsiding of bias toward homosexuality, more and more men will be unafraid to embrace their gay side, instead of being disgusted straight by any stirring in their lower regions whenever that dashing weatherman is on the news or the movers moving in that family across the street take off their shirts.

          He’s afraid that acceptance and allowing marriage equality (by calling it marriage) will give men the idea that they don’t have to be disgusted with themselves and might just go for it, unashamedly. Marvin is really fixated on the moral value of men who could or would otherwise identify as straight being taken for the other team and losing their “moral value”. In other words, he thinks gay people are “handicapped” against “moral value” ie. are less moral because they can’t have children, they won’t “mate” and this is just plain bias that gay people are overall worse for society – mostly because he believes childless people are more selfish and are incapable of considering future generations.

          This is basically another argument for Christians are better people than atheists because atheists have no “meaning” or “morality”. He is just saying the same thing about gay men, but he is adding on the paranoia that all the gay men will go after the straight men and tell them it’s ok if they like buttsex, it’s just as good, maybe better.

          In other words, Marvin is an asshole.

        • 90Lew90

          I’m glad you’ve figured out the charade because I’m fed up of trying. He’s not even interesting. “So I went to Wikipedia…”. Great. Don’t wake me when you get back.

        • MNb

          So much for the concern that straight people might be seduced into gay relationships ….. so much for the foolish idea that homosexuality is a handicapped.

        • adam

          Yes,

          Heterosexuals are heterosexual

          Homosexuals are homosexual

          Bi are bi.

          Your Bishop was bi, OBVIOUSLY…

          It doesnt matter what you CLAIM to identify with.

        • 90Lew90

          I’m interested in this notion of sexuality as offering “immunity” to certain kinds of relationship. It suggests that you regard certain kinds of relationship as toxic.

          Your mask keeps slipping.

        • Marvin Edwards

          The popular presumptions are that (1) a homosexual cannot have a successful heterosexual relationship and that (2) a heterosexual would never enter into a homosexual relationship. We know from history that the first presumption is clearly bogus, because of the many examples of closeted gay men who married and had children to fit in. I am asserting that the second presumption is no more valid than the first.

          I have not said that either relationship is “toxic”. You keep trying to attach masks to me that simply do not fit. You would prefer to be in a more familiar argument, so you keep creating straw men.

        • Kodie

          Except that you keep calling homosexuality a “handicap” thus continuing to stigmatize and fear homosexual men for predating straight men, and concerning yourself of men growing acceptance of themselves and liking what they like. Nobody is going to face social pressure to be gay when they’re not the same way gay people face pressure to assimilate into straight marriages, and you are actually promoting that they should continue to deny their true selves and hide in the closet of a straight marriage, in order for you to find them acceptable and not “handicapped.”

        • 90Lew90

          I’m reading into the language you keep using and its perfectly reasonable to do so. In this instance, you’re rather tellingly using terms which concern disease.

        • Kodie

          When there’s no more bias against homosexuals, oh my god, what?????? What? “Luckily…“?

          This seriously bothers you that some people might feel good about their choices without thinking what it means to you.

        • MNb

          Yadda yadda yadda. Now what was that “unintended consequence” you are so worried about, that apparently will not happen in my generation? That straight people will have some same sex fun too? Sounds great in my ears.

        • MNb

          Even if this foolish idea were correct, what exactly is wrong with accommodating to a handicap? This is one too:

          http://www.hertzfurniture.com/i/480x160x1/intros/wheelchair-accessible-tables.jpg

          In your (il)logic such tables should be outlawed as well.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Of course. And I do fully support same-sex unions with every right that is afforded to married couples.

        • MNb

          Then the only reason left not to call that union marriage is logophobia.

        • Kodie

          Nobody is glorifying anything. You are a paranoid pearl-clutching bigot.

        • Kodie

          And that’s what I’m worried about. Having children is morally valuable. It is a great personal benefit. And it ties your current decisions to people who will live past you, giving you a stake in the future, which improves your moral judgment.

          Is it morally valuable to society to make more dipshits like yourself or is it self-obsessed?

        • 90Lew90

          How do you know the children weren’t, you know, turkey baster kids? How do you know he wasn’t miserable in the relationship with his wife, despite the kids? Don’t you suppose he went to the religious life because celibacy is seen as virtuous in Christianity and that would have provided good cover for his homosexuality? Do you know how many women would readily bend over for a bishop? What’s to say his relationship didn’t work out with the other guy because the abidance of screwed up ways of seeing himself and his sexuality, informed and redoubled by his deeply lived religious life, made him basically unfit to sustain a mature, loving relationship with anyone, male or female, as it’s fair to surmise might be the case. Who knows what might have become of this man had he not had to grapple with the terrible conflict imposed on him by a nonsensical and prurient taboo. Who knows.

        • Marvin Edwards

          No turkey baster was involved. If you want the whole story, his book, “God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage by Gene Robinson” is available on amazon in the Kindle version for 9.99.

        • 90Lew90

          Life’s too short. The penny dropped a while back because you said as much (the egg-throwing incident and the preceding one), but what you’re afraid of is your own sexuality. You have no business projecting your fears about your life and self onto an entire swathe of others and trying to call it morality. None.

        • Kodie

          He’s very concerned about men who generally identify as straight getting turned away from their identity in a predatory way, not by their own preference as circumstances arise. He is faulting the gay man for “seducing” and thus harming the moral value of the man who is not so far “handicapped” because if he commits to this gay man, he will not be able to produce children, which he is, according to Marv, obligated morally or would be deprived of something he is required to do as a living human male. He is against straight men potentially getting lured into this less ideal lifestyle, even if it’s what they think they want. The Kinsey scale of sexuality frightens him because it means that it is possible for a man who identifies as straight to get turned on by another man, and paranoid that gay men do this on purpose to destroy ‘murica family values.

          In other words, Marvin is a turd bigot who is trying to use science to explain why homosexuality is a sin.

        • adam

          Identify I think is the key term.

          He seems concerned that all these bi people are bi and they wont reproduce like his Bishop, but completely ignores the same spectrum that he uses as evidence.
          The heteros wont stop breeding, and neither will most of the spectrum.

          I am not convinced he is a bigot, seems more like he is trying to rationalize a way to come out of the closet.

        • Kodie

          He’s losing sleep at night that he can’t legally prevent men from getting trapped into childless marriages when they could have gone straight.

        • 90Lew90

          You think gay marriage might spread gayness? Or the disappearance of taboos might bring about the disintegration of society? I knew you were one of the sky-will-fall types.

        • adam

          “You think gay marriage might spread gayness?”

          HIs spectrum argument disputes this,
          Heteros will be heteros
          Gays will be gays
          And everyone else is bi.

          He seems to be afraid that all the bis will figure out that they are all bi, like he keeps telling them they are..

        • Kodie

          He’s afraid for those who would normally be straight (get straight-married and have children with the lucky woman of his choosing) lowering their inhibitions and experimenting with homosexuality and maybe like it, of course not on their own, but at the pointed suggestion of a gay fella awakening their gay side and stealing them for the gay team forever, thus diminishing their moral value.

          Lew is right, this is mealy-mouthed plain homophobic paranoiac bigotry.

        • 90Lew90

          Since I was about 14 I’ve thought the world would be a happier place if, for males in particular, same-sex romance was nothing to be upset about. Damn! I might have felt able to do something about the massive schoolboy crush I harboured for the whole seven years of high school! I fell in love right from the first Assembly on the first day and the idealistic part of me likes to think if I’d had him then I’d still have him now. There was a real frisson there. Unacknowledged and ignored. I once made a joke to others about our legs always coming together under the table in geography and he confronted me about it, not angry but hurt. Shit, shit, shit! Fucking hell, if I could have told him I loved him that’s exactly what I would have done. Alas…

        • 90Lew90

          Scanning them again, I’d call them rectum arguments, not spectrum ones.

        • So that’s the problem? You’re straight but not 1000%, and you’re worried that you’ll be tempted to have a dalliance?

          If you’re committed to someone else, that would be a problem, just like a straight affair would be. If you’re not committed, this would be a romantic/sexual thing just as if it were with a woman.

        • Marvin Edwards

          It’s not really about you and me. Me? I’m the statistical norm, a bi-capable heterosexual. You? I presume you also fall into the same, most frequent group. But, like most of us, you grew up in a culture that entrained an aversion to same-sex sexual relationships. So you’ve convinced yourself that you are 100% heterosexual. My childhood experiences give me some insight that you might not have.

          But, it’s not really about you and me. When the culture has eliminated all aversion to same-sex sexual relations, perhaps in a few generations, things will be different. What you find unimaginable for yourself will not be unimaginable for our great-grandchildren, or their children.

          If it is truly, equally desirable in a culture to marry someone of the same-sex as it is to marry someone of the opposite-sex, then all it takes is one same-sex infatuation.

        • Let’s get back to the interesting question. You said that it would be morally bad for a straight man to have a same-sex dalliance (I can’t find the comment to quote). And now you seem to have no problem with it. Care to clarify?

        • Marvin Edwards

          It’s not the dalliance. It’s when the bi-capable heterosexual forms a long-term same-sex relationship that causes the harm. Men tend to view themselves as strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. According to the experts, that presumption is wrong. Nonetheless, if the bi-capable heterosexual becomes charismatically infatuated with a male, he may assume, incorrectly, that he is homosexual.

          The long-term relationship, with male or female, satisfies the needs for affection and sex. And if it is same-sex, children are much less likely. And there is the moral loss.

          Any questions?

        • No questions. I’m bored now.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Good. Kinda makes you wonder what everybody else is so excited about…

        • Pofarmer

          I wish he would actually define the moral loss. But, yeah, this has become silly.

        • MNb

          Yeah. I’ve got one – how come you are so stupid that you undermine your own position.

          “if the bi-capable heterosexual becomes charismatically infatuated with a male, he may assume, incorrectly, that he is homosexual.”
          Then I sincerely hope that bi-capable heterosexual enjoys every second of his homosexual relationship. Whether that assumption is correct or not is not up to you to decide.

          “children are much less likely. And there is the moral loss.”
          In the first place there is no moral loss.
          In the second place this bad argument applies equally to the legalized same sex relationships you claim to support.
          In the third place this bad argument equally applies to men like me, who underwent vasectomy.
          In the fourth place this bad argument equally applies to women who have passed menopause.
          So it’s one of two cases. Either you want to prevent me, with my vasectomy, to marry my female counterpart, who is 57, for the same stupid reason you want to prevent Lew to marry any man. Or you’re too stupid to understand how inconsistent you are.
          In either case you are not capable of making sense.

        • Marvin Edwards

          MNb, 1) I would certainly hope that he enjoys it as well. Especially if he presumes he cannot mate with a woman. But that mistaken presumption may cause him to never have children. On the other hand, if he were in a relationship with a woman, then it would probably not be up to him, and if she wanted children he would most likely become a father. I think these are both reasonable presumptions for a bi-capable heterosexual. So, although there is the always the possibility that I could be mistaken, I have not lied.

          2a) Anyone who considers being the father or mother of children to be a morally valuable experience must, in my opinion, agree that to lose that possibility unnecessarily would be a harm. 2b) And it would also follow that if I am correct in (1) above, that a bi-capable heterosexual in a same-sex relationship because he thinks he’s gay is less likely to expect to have children, then we have an unnecessary loss of something that is morally valuable. Hope I didn’t lose you.

          3) It is not the legalizing of same-sex partners which creates the problem. It is the cultural shift in viewpoint, from seeing same-sex unions as an accommodation to a handicap, versus the viewpoint that same-sex relationships are equally just dandy for everyone, gay or straight. I know that sounds unlikely at this point in history. But if marriage is redefined to mean that it no longer matters whether you marry the same or opposite sex, then we have a “brave new world” with some unknown consequences. — One of them, in my view is that there will be more bi-capable heterosexuals in same-sex unions. You may disagree, of course. But I think that is a reasonable prediction. (Not that everyone will, but that the number will significantly grow).

          4) My wife also chose to stop having kids after our first. And there is no problem with people deliberately choosing to have or not have kids. My concern is for the unintended consequences of causing confusion about marriage.

          5) Your suggestion that I would want to prevent anyone from marrying simply because they are infertile is totally false. I would not. And I’ve explicitly said that at least twice somewhere in this blog.

          6) I don’t expect to “make sense” to everyone. Either you see it or you don’t. And if you do see it, you’re certainly free to disagree.

        • Kodie

          On the other hand, if he were in a relationship with a woman, then it would probably not be up to him, and if she wanted children he would most likely become a father.

          What the fuck.

        • Marvin Edwards

          It’s called “reality”, Kodie.

        • Kodie

          Are you writing to us from the 1950s?

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’m 68.

        • Kodie

          I didn’t ask you how old you are, I asked you what year is it where you are writing to us from right now.

        • adam

          “hat a bi-capable heterosexual in a same-sex relationship because he thinks he’s gay is less likely to expect to have children, then we have an unnecessary loss of something that is morally valuable. ”

          So then ANYONE who doesnt have all the children that they can, like YOU (“My wife also chose to stop having kids after our first”, as you said) is an unnecessary loss of something that is morally valuable?

        • adam

          “In either case you are not capable of making sense.”

          Propaganda is only meant to appeal to the emotions, not make sense.

        • adam

          So you’ve convinced yourself that you are 100% heterosexual. My
          childhood experiences give me some insight that you might not have.

          What?
          YOUR childhood gives you insight on Bob’s sexuality?

          Why not be honest and admit it is ALL ABOUT YOUR OWN sexuality?

          When the culture has eliminated all aversion to same-sex sexual
          relations, perhaps in a few generations, things will be different.

          How will things be different, and WHAT is the DAMAGE?

        • MNb

          Oh yes, it’s all about you. You are the one who is scared. You are the one who imagines himself all kind of made up “unintended consequences”. In your own words: you are the one who has problems to separate fiction from reality.
          I know what gay marriage is and what the consequences are if I marry another man. You apparently not. Oh yes, it’s all about you and your imaginary fears.
          Adam is spot on underneath. I have asked you the question several times myself. SO WHAT if things will be different? SO WHAT if my great-grandchildren will imagine things that are unimaginable for me? Why would I care and WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to decide for them what they should imagine and what not?
          Every single “argument” you make is about you and how you want to impose your views on the next four generations. I suspect you are dissatisfied with yourself indeed and that the idea of same sex marriage is too confrontational – you are to weak to watch yourself in the mirror. You. YOU. No one but YOU.

        • Kodie

          Consider that a man is handicapped (according to your definition) by being a man by himself, and cannot produce or bear his own children.

          OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY. He must acquire a wife if he is to produce offspring, and she became his property.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie, I don’t know why you wish to demean a same-sex couple’s relationship by suggesting it is about ownership and property. What gives?

        • Kodie

          Why don’t you read.

        • 90Lew90

          I’d say it’s pretty demeaning of any couple’s relationship to say it’s a handicap and to imply that it’s inauthentic. You were complaining about misrepresentation. Can I just remind you that this *fact* about marriage being one of the social institutions to arise out of the agricultural revolution concerning property rights was put to you because you said that historically, marriage was all about sexual ethics. The best authority I’ve come across who has taken a forensic look at the history of marriage in relation to sex is Foucault, particularly in part 2 of his History of Sexuality Vol. II, entitled ‘Economics’, the entirety of which deals with marriage. Histories of the agricultural revolution abound. All of them deal with marriage. All bear out the fact that marriage is a property contract and the explosion in interest in people’s sexual proclivities in the West came about with the prurience of the Church.

        • Marvin Edwards

          So I looked up Foucault in Wikipedia to see what’s up with that. My impression is that the guy was more opinionated than informative. I do not believe his works are likely to give any kind of unbiased view of the history of marriage.

          In the section called “Scholarly Reception”, Wikipedia notes that “Literary scholar Camille Paglia rejected Halperin’s view of Foucault’s work as uninformed, calling The History of Sexuality a “disaster” and claiming that much of it is fantasy unsupported by the historical record.”

          I would suggest that an unbiased view is more likely to be found in an encyclopedia, which is open to scientific peer review and is therefore more likely to be an objective source of information.

          Here is a definition of marriage from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any). The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship. Perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent.”

          Marriage was originally and continues to be a union of two people with the presumption of mating and offspring. However, same-sex unions are similar to marriage and same-sex couples should be given the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

        • 90Lew90

          I would suggest to you that an encyclopedia is a good source for a simple overview, but that for scholarship, you must go to books. Foucault was not uncontroversial. He rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way, including some feminists like Camille Paglia. Notice that the person who lavished praise on the book was the only classicist quoted — Halperin.
          A not insignificant point is that the Wikipedia article you quote refers to a different book — Vol. 1 of A History of Sexuality. The second volume, to which I refer, is a complete departure from that book and Foucault makes no secret of it.
          And none of this detracts from the simple fact that it is historical orthodoxy that marriage came about as a widespread social institution out of the agricultural revolution. I don’t understand why you would be so resistant to that simple, widely known, widely acknowledged point of history other than that it upsets your agenda which is to make out marriage as historically having been a means of arbitration on sex. For the nth time: It was not.

        • Kodie

          You’re not fucking listening. You don’t think you’re more opinionated than informative??????

          Historically, marriage was about a man choosing a wife from among plenty of eligible virgin teen girls, happily married off by her father, the sooner the better. A man has zero ability to create his own offspring, “the handicap” you keep talking about, and so must acquire a female with a young fertile body. This is WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY and how the woman is his property. She is an object, almost exactly like your girls gone wild videos you jack off to. She is like a farm animal, there to do jobs he needs her to do, including bear his heirs. Girls are a waste of his lineage, and he needs sons.

          Why don’t you get some education about history before you go off again? You’re tedious. You’re talking about encyclopedias? They’re often obsolete before they hit the library. The laws about marriage now are typically consumed in inheritance and rights and duties to your partner and any children in your care, if there are any. It so very recently was legal to rape your wife, for example. The idea of “marital rape” was unheard of, simply for the fact that a man can fuck his own property any time he wants. But you go on worrying about those poor straight men getting attracted to other men because they happen to like it.

        • 90Lew90

          And I’ve been saying from the beginning that you’re posting ill-informed conjecture and you’ve been shifting and wriggling and honing your conjecture against the responses you’ve drawn. Even if we were to allow that “marriage is an ethical structure imposed upon mating,” I fail to see your point. Perhaps you’re trying to say that because homosexuals can’t “mate” in the traditional sense, then their marriages are invalid? Mating requires, after all, a penis and a vagina. Two penises or two vaginas do not a marriage make.

          But that would be conjecture on my part, so I’ll tell you what I think. I think you’re simply being mealy-mouthed. I think you’re of an opinion about gay marriage that stated plainly would be called out as prejudice. I say this fairly assuredly, because like pretty much everyone with the point of view I suppose you to have, you’re obsessed with the sexual act, which you rather quaintly choose to refer to as “mating”.

        • Marvin Edwards

          A prejudice is wrong because it is contrary to fact, and we should deal with reality rather than fiction. If we imagine a bridge where there is none then we fall off the cliff.

          I believe that two gay people should be free to form a long-term loving relationship. I believe that to the degree their situation is similar to a married couple, they should be treated in precisely the same way as a married couple.

          But calling it “marriage” rather than “domestic partnership” or “civil union” scares me. To me that steps into the world of fiction.

          The fact that I keep bringing to the table is that most of us are bi-capable, despite our illusion that we can only be attracted either to males or females.

          That means that opening up “marriage” to same-sex couples is no longer just about gays. This too is a fact, not a prejudice.

          On the other hand, the idea that marriage was about property rather than about mating is a self-serving bias, a prejudice.

        • 90Lew90

          The idea that marriage was about property is not self-serving bias, it’s a simple matter of historical fact. It’s not even an obscure fact, it’s well-known. Marriage didn’t become weighed down with sexual ethics until the church started wanting into the bedroom and having a say in every aspect of people’s lives. I couldn’t really care less if it’s called a “civil union” rather than marriage. I don’t buy the arguments against calling it marriage, including yours. They’re weak and they’re fussy. The arguments in favour of calling it marriage are stronger because they’re about parity and are in line with agreed principles of equality. So long as all the safeguards and benefits of straight marriage are conferred upon the gay one, I’m happy.

          I harbour no illusion that we’re not “bi-capable”. Sexuality is very far from cut and dried, which is what the church would have us believe. I don’t see how that impacts at all on whether or not we call gay marriage “marriage”.

          There’s a lot of waffle going on here.

        • adam

          So you are going to prove Kodie right.

          You are JUST a homophobic bigot.

          Marriage is JUST a legal contract concerning property RIGHTS.

          IF you were really HONEST you would be calling for the illegalization of DIVORCE. I mean if you were REALLY concerned about ‘marriage’ and its future..

        • Marvin Edwards

          You’re still dealing with a straw man of your own invention.

        • Kodie

          You’re still an ignorant blowhard and a paranoid bigot.

        • adam

          No you are.
          that is why you are TRYINg to sell elbow deodorant where none is needed.

        • MNb

          “we should deal with reality rather than fiction.”
          I’m looking forward to the moment you’ll start to take your own advise.

          “I believe that two gay people should be free to form a long-term loving relationship. I believe that to the degree their situation is similar to a married couple, they should be treated in precisely the same way as a married couple.”
          So in every aspect it’s like marriage – hey, I’ve got a good idea popping up! Let’s call it marriage!

          “scares me”
          Did you know that phobias can be treated? Perhaps afterward you will be capable to deal with reality rather than fiction indeed.

          “That means that opening up “marriage” to same-sex couples is no longer just about gays.”
          So what? If I decide that I want to marry another man tomorrow I don’t need your concern. I’m better of without it. You’ve got a problem, not me, and you won’t violate anyone’s rights just because it “scares you”.
          Plus you’re incoherent. What you bring up here applies to “long-term loving relationships” as much as to same-sex marriages. So it’s just a word that scares you. You should see a shrink as you just have admitted that you suffer from logophobia.

          (I apologize to all patients of logophobia; I suffer from a few phobias myself, but not bad enough to hinder my participation in society)

        • Kodie

          “That means that opening up “marriage” to same-sex couples is no longer just about gays.”

          When Marvin says this, he is talking about marrying your 10-year-old daughter, maybe her schoolmates, a cat, or your television, “slippery slope”. If you call two gay people in a committed and officially sanctioned relationship covered by protections and laws, then anything goes!!!!!!!!!! Holy shit!!!! It scares him that people might do anything he doesn’t think is good. He’s a plain old bigot trying to use science of sexuality to forbid the sin of homosexuality and deny gays the right to have a marriage. He is just using a lot of strange language to go over the usual talking points, i.e. one man, one woman; designed parts that go together; slippery slope; they can call it something else but not marriage; “handicap” instead of “sin”; the moral necessity of procreating; what if everyone accepted the lifestyle then we would go extinct because everyone would become gay.

        • 90Lew90

          You’ve nailed it with that.

        • RichardSRussell

          It would be silly to argue that having children is a requirement.

          Indeed it would. Which hasn’t even slowed them down one iota. I can’t begin to count the number of times when I’ve seen fundies make the unapologetic, unexplained, bald assertion that “The purpose of marriage is to have children.” Really, they just state it flat out like that, as if it’s completely self-evident, with no possibility of contradiction, let alone silliness.

        • MNb

          It’s also exactly none of your business if I marry with someone with the purpose of mating or not.

    • MNb

      “My concern is that it is also possible for a heterosexual to find himself or herself in a long-term, same-sex relationship.”
      BWAHAHAHAHA!
      My friend, I’m straight as an arrow, but I decide tomorrow that I engage myself in a same-sex marriage it’s precisely none of your business. Save me from your concern. I don’t need it, I don’t want it and I’m better off without it.

    • Pofarmer

      “So I still worry about the moral harm to a person drawn into a
      relationship that unnecessarily prevents him from having a normal
      family.”

      What moral harm?

      Also keep in mind that for much of history, anything like “marriage” was reserved for the aristocracy.

      • Marvin Edwards

        There is moral value in becoming a parent. Besides the normal joy and satisfaction of raising children, a child links a person’s decisions and choices to the welfare of future generations. To lose these moral goods unnecessarily would be a harm.

        And where do you guys keep coming up with these strange ideas about marriage? Limited to the aristocracy? When???

        • adam

          What is a ‘normal family’?

          And what kind of ‘moral harm’ are you talking about?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam: “And what kind of ‘moral harm’ are you talking about?”

          I said: There is moral value in becoming a parent. Besides the normal joy and satisfaction of raising children, a child links a person’s decisions and choices to the welfare of future generations. To lose these moral goods unnecessarily would be a harm.

          Adam: “What is a ‘normal family’?”

          A family is a group of living relatives. People become relatives by birth (or adoption) and by marriage. That is normally what is called a ‘family’.

          An ideal family would be grandparents, parents, and children, all living and maintaining a relationship with each other. Many families are less than ideal, due to death or divorce or separation, but still morally valuable.

        • adam

          No, what MORAL HARM are you talking about?

          Bad children come from good homes, good children come from bad homes.

          What ‘moral goods’ are being lost by same sex marriages?

          So what makes YOUR idea of an ‘ideal family’ ideal?
          I am guessing Andrew here had all those things you say you WANT.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Believe it or not, the straight guy being seduced into a homosexual relationship is the specific moral harm that I am concerned about. And this is the one that everyone writes off, because they cannot yet imagine a world in which the taboo is completely gone. Me, I worry about those things. Because I presume that there was a point in time, long ago, when there was no taboo. And then, for some reason, there was.

          And it had nothing to do with religion. Because all moral judgments begin with a perceived secular problem for which a rule is decided. And then we tell God what to say about it to fix and maintain the new cultural norm.

          As to the families, it doesn’t really matter whether all of the grandparents, parents and children are gay or all straight or any combination (actually, I think it would be beneficial for all of them if at least one of them is gay).

        • adam

          “Believe it or not, the straight guy being seduced into a homosexual relationship is the specific moral harm that I am concerned about.”

          1. Other than YOU being the ‘straight guy’ being seduced, why is it any business of yours.

          2. What harm do you ‘believe’ this is for others who makes this choice?

          No not all “morals” begin with a perceived secular problem, some are derived from peoples own fear of their own suppressed sexuality, some are derived for POWER and POLITICS.

          For me homophobes are not afraid of other peoples sexual nature, but their own.

          And it is obvious ‘families’ dont guarantee safety from molestation, as about a third of molestation comes of from FAMILY members.

        • Kodie

          Homophobia seems to be straight men finally getting a bit of what women have endured for all time, being the target of unwanted attention. I don’t think it’s all about suppressed homosexual urges, but feeling like a victim of the male gaze, slaps on the fanny and being undressed by someone’s eyes.

        • adam

          I think this is a small percentage of the cases in men at least.

          Most, I believe, are just afraid of being demonized and ostricized for their own inner feelings.

          So what do they do?
          They follow the ‘herd’ and demonize them even more as a cover or a ‘beard’ so to speak, hoping they never get found out.

        • Kodie

          No I think it is most of them. They think gay men are predatory because they are men, and men are predatory. They don’t like being the target of sexual predation, and like Marvin, fear being turned gay, or fear their social status of being friends with a gay man because people will talk. It’s like in When Harry Met Sally, straight men and gay men can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.

        • adam

          Speaking from my own experience…
          When I was young, I was afraid of gays (although never of lesbians) because I too thought they were predatory, and for lack of a better term at the moment – demons.

          Because that was the propaganda going around at the time.

          I was insecure about my own sexuality and convinced by people like Marvin that they could and WOULD seduce me.

          Once I understood my own sexuality and actually met men who were outwardly gay, I understood that I was not gay and that the propaganda was just that – deceptive lies. And no amount of ‘seduction’ was a threat to me.

          I no longer had an irrational fear of homosexuals and their ‘agenda’

          So this is why I believe men like Marvin are really suppressed gays spewing the same propaganda I heard as a ‘cover’ for their own desires that they are afraid to deal with BECAUSE of the propaganda they spew.

          And throw in ‘religion’ and………..viola – hypocrisy!

        • Kodie

          You’re pretty much confirming what I said. If they believe gay men are predatory, this is what they’re most afraid of, being the object of predation. Pair that with a social stigma on straight men being suspected of being gay or “less than” “real men,” that is widespread from early socialization of boys not to do girl things or be like girls, or be weak, the conflation of homosexuality (in men) with femininity, fears of parents that something they did, some concession they made in early childhood, from the color of their room to the toys they played with, not to cry, the allowance of “boys will be boys” in an attempt not to make sensitive or less violent men out of them, the refusal of grown men to eat a vegetable, wear sunscreen, or take time off for a sick child instead of his wife, locker room talk, i.e. going along with the other guys instead of stand up for women so they don’t think his silence will mark him as gay, etc. and etc. Oh, not to forget to mention, using words that mean gay as a slur to shame men.

          I think the suppressed homosexual urges is a phantom. Most men do not have them, but they do not know “how it works,” and think they can be turned gay against their will. They believe homosexuality is a matter of lust, and that their lust for men can be introduced through contact with gay men, much like taking a drug might snowball into an addiction. I guess when you’re young and begin to have sexual feelings, and there is a thick atmosphere you’ve been raised in of homophobia, you might be confused as to where your impulses may direct you. You might even have a “man crush” on someone a little older, more athletic or popular, and not know if those are sexual feelings or just plain admiration or envy. Men say they don’t look, but you know you do see guys you wish you were more like. The guy who gets all the attention from girls, you know those guys who get all bitter about it are a lot like homophobes.

          If you’re confused, as religious people tend to be, about how sexuality arises and whether it’s a sin or a choice or whatever they believe, they’re always going to fear being turned gay, led astray by the devil to fuck anything that moves just as easily as they could fall into drink or gambling or give in to the fantasy to run away from their family. They don’t know and refuse to learn how it actually works. While many modern men are secure in their sexuality, religious people don’t know how it works and are perpetually fearful they can be lured into sin.

        • 90Lew90

          I usually tell men who give me the “keep your eyes off me, queer” treatment not to flatter themselves. Most often they are.

        • The other factor is power. I wouldn’t mind being sexually admired, but as a guy, I don’t feel physically intimidated by many women. That might not apply if the admirer were another guy.

        • Kodie

          It seems to me to be a combination of things, based on sociology articles I’ve read. Consider things like the military and sports teams, where “brothers” are in close quarters and often shower and change clothes together. The opposition, the concern there, is this makes men more self-conscious that they are being looked over by a predatory man who prefers men to women. The idea would be this is why women “can’t” play sports or wouldn’t be housed in the same quarters with men in the military – predominantly that this would make them less comfortable. Men wouldn’t want their daughters to go on co-ed scouting/camping strips for the same reason they don’t want their sons to go on camping trips with gay males in their troop or leading it.

          It’s the same reason I keep after Marvin about women – we already live in this world, and deal with it. Homophobia is where men admit what they really think of their gender, because it affects them as victims. Only it’s not cool to be some man-hating feminazi, it seems perfectly reasonable to them that gay men are simply men who target other men instead of women. Additionally, they are raised to despise the potential homosexuality in themselves, or even the appearance of it. Just like women are shamed pretty much from birth for having any strength or autonomy, and whatever they’re doing isn’t attractive to men, and will scare away all potential suitors, men are shamed not to be feminine in any way – probably more now that homosexuality is visible and proud, everything they do is analyzed or picked on or teased for seeming like a gay guy. Men like Marvin felt much more comfortable in a world where he could sneak a peek and no one would suspect. Lots of old ads and tv programs show men doing activities together that would never even trigger someone to think they might be gay. Maybe unusual for a man, but nobody thought it meant they like men.

          In a man’s world, men like to feel secure and safe, but they are clearly uncomfortable with the potential that a man might be checking them out the same way they’d check out women in these circumstances. They tend to be rather flattered, or believe they would be, when a woman checks them out, i.e., men often think they would feel flattered and attractive if strangers called out to them, but then being the target of a homosexual man would put them in the same position as a woman. Like I said, men are taught, socialized, teased, and reinforced that being like a woman is the worst.

        • adam

          Like I said, men are taught, socialized, teased, and reinforced that being like a woman is the worst.

          Where would they ever get such a bigoted and HORRIBLE idea like this?

        • Kodie

          I actually think gender socialization doesn’t come primarily from the bible but that the bible gets it from social norms. It’s sort of this thing that keeps rolling along… society gets a little better and the religious either resist or progress, but it’s a deeper problem than just religion. They didn’t make that shit up out of the blue.

        • adam

          I agree, but do you want to place a bet on where Marvin gets his from?

          My bet is THAT is the REAL harm Marvin is talking about, displeasing an imaginary ‘god’ and imaginary fear of ‘hell’.

        • Kodie

          Straight women have been lured into straight marriage forever and nobody thinks this is a moral harm.

        • Greg G.

          the straight guy being seduced into a homosexual relationship 

          Do you mean a bi-curious guy being seduced? Then there’s the “bi now, gay later” plan.

          What about the gay guys who get seduced into a straight marriage?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Greg: “What about the gay guys who get seduced into a straight marriage?”

          Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson chose to marry a woman, but was up front with her about his feelings of attraction to men. He had two daughters with his wife. Later in life, they separated and he became life partners with another man. His new husband is well loved by his ex-wife and daughters.

          My position is that it was morally good for him to have children, and that to have missed that experience would have been a moral harm to him.

          No one should ever be forced into a relationship against their will, of course.

          But to be seduced into believing that you are homosexual when you are not carries a greater moral loss than to be seduced into believing you are heterosexual when you are not.

          Sexual orientation, for most people, is a continuum rather than an either/or situation. The Kinsey study suggested that those who are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex are in the minority. And that most people have a “degree of bisexuality”. (See “sexual orientation” in Wikipedia).

        • 90Lew90

          Not having children is morally harmful now? Just in the case of Gene Robinson or universally? You don’t half talk some shit Marv. The time to take a blunt instrument to your nonsense is fast approaching.

        • Kodie

          Already there, bro.

        • Kodie

          So you think it’s a moral harm to an adult to “miss out on the experience” of having children??? You’re an asshole.

          But to be seduced into believing that you are homosexual when you are not carries a greater moral loss than to be seduced into believing you are heterosexual when you are not.

          What the fuck are you talking about? Why would someone be seduced into believing they’re a homosexual if they’re not attracted to people of the same sex? Are you paranoid this will happen to you?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie: “Why would someone be seduced into believing they’re a homosexual if they’re not attracted to people of the same sex?”

          That’s not accurate. The point is that MOST people are “bi-capable”. They find themselves attracted to people of either sex. They are NOT equally attracted, however. MOST people lean into homosexuality or lean into heterosexuality, but still find themselves also attracted to people in the other group.

          I don’t know why. But apparently it is true. See the Wikipedia article on “sexual orientation”. Those who are strictly homosexual or strictly heterosexual are small minorities. Actual bisexuals, who are always equally attracted to either sex are ALSO a minority.

          For example, I’m heterosexual. I’m more attracted to females than males. But I find myself also charismatically drawn to some males. Being too old and fat for it to matter one way or another, I can be honest with myself and with you. According to the experts (see the Wiki article) I’m not unusual, but probably in the majority.

        • Kodie

          SO WHAT????????????

          I still don’t and nobody here does understand why you’re so fixated on the “moral value” of producing children naturally. MEN CANNOT REPRODUCE NATURALLY. THEY ARE ALL “HANDICAPPED” BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

          You’re not the least concerned with women being seduced by predatory men or raised… steeped in a culture that reinforces their only value is that of a wife and mother. You repeatedly ignore history.

          If a man is to produce heirs, he “needs to” acquire a woman, and historically she becomes his property, as do all the children she bears for him. You are fixated on the Kinsey scale and all those men being victimized by gay guys to find pleasure in a homosexual relationship and forgoing the “natural” ability to have his own children, which he cannot do without the HELP OF A WOMAN ANYWAY. Men are useless, handicapped, whatever you want to call it. You are paranoid about men’s future heirs and their own moral value being lost somehow. You seem to think their choices are wrong.

          FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

          How many times do you have to pretend nobody hears you about that fucking Kinsey scale, when everyone heard you and understands THE FIRST FUCKING TIME and already knew before because we’re not fucking illiterate or uneducated. You seem to think what’s at issue is these guys who might be targeted or victimized or seduced, because you think they ought to stay straight when it’s none of your fucking business, actually. You want to protect their ability to fuck a woman, and you don’t give a shit about women. You are a chauvinist, a sexist, and a paranoid busybody.

        • Marvin Edwards

          We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You clearly have a number of issues about men that you want to address. There is nothing I am doing that prevents you from expressing your opinion about your own issues.

        • Kodie

          No, you clearly have a number of issues with men, and a glaring ignorance about history.

        • adam

          For example, I’m heterosexual. I’m more attracted to females than males. But I find myself also charismatically drawn to some males.

          Actual bisexuals, who are always equally attracted to either sex are ALSO a minority.

          Not what Kinsey says:
          ” Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes).” The rest are bisexual, just not fully.

          ‘more’ attracted to females than males….
          So you are REALLY bi-sexual on the Kinsey scale, NOT hetero.

        • adam

          Marvin says “But to be seduced into believing”

          You mean like YOU got seduced into believing that a ‘straight’ guy can be seduced into a homosexual relationship?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam, the Wikipedia article on sexual orientation has several things to say on this:

          1) “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.”

          2) “Kinsey reported that when the individuals’ behavior as well as their identity are analyzed, most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual — i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5–10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.” (Section on Demographics).

          3) And they quote Kinsey saying, “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.—Kinsey et al. (1948) pp. 639.”

        • adam

          Dont see how this counters what I wrote.

          You mean like YOU got seduced into believing that a ‘straight’ guy can be seduced into a homosexual relationship?

          I mean THIS is the ‘harm’ you are claiming.

          If most people are bisexual as you post, then it appears that you have no problem with bisexual guys being seduced by homosexual guys, as by YOUR claims, would be a fairly NORMAL expectation.

        • Marvin Edwards

          There is moral value to mating and having children. To lose something morally valuable unnecessarily is a moral harm.

          All moral judgments reduce to matters of benefits and harms. One choice is morally better than another if there is more benefit and/or less harm than another.

          So it comes down to specific cases. In some cases, the happiness of the person is dependent upon a same-sex relationship. So that would be the better choice.

          But if someone convinces themselves that they are homosexual, when in fact they are not, and loses the benefit unnecessarily, then that is not the better choice for them.

          There is no rule that can be consistently applied in every situation except the rule to find the best possible good (and least harm) for everyone.

        • Kodie

          Why would someone convince themselves they are homosexual when they are not, and (b) what the fuck is it to you if that is what they want? Why are you up in everyone’s business playing morality police, when who the fuck are you anyway. You’re wrong and you’ve been wrong about a lot of stuff, but there’s no positive moral value to raising children to hate or fear people according to your personal neuroses and paranoia. You should cut off your balls.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Why would someone convince themselves they are homosexual when they are not? I don’t know. Maybe because someone makes them feel good about themselves. Maybe because someone gives them emotional support. Maybe because someone gets them off sexually, and a few days later you’d like that again.

          Why am I playing morality police? I’m not. Certainly not any more than you or anyone else. Your comment is more “up in my face” than any comment I’ve made to you.

          But, like any other human being, including you and everyone else here, I have concerns about the benefits and harms that result from our choices. I’m also concerned about Ferguson, and I think that affirmative action is not over until their police force is racially proportionate.

          That’s what people do. They think about issues, learn what they can, and they form opinions.

        • Kodie

          Yes, you are playing morality police. You seem to be deluded into thinking other people are harmed by their own choices and need you to steer them out of the danger of being mistaken that they are gay, in particular. So what? You want to force people to stay straight because they should have children. Fuck you! I said that before and you didn’t respond to it. You are a nosy biatch, pearl-clutching morality police, end of story. Some people make choices they later wish they hadn’t, like the string of male chauvinist pigs I’ve been engaged to, who measured me against their mothers. Do you worry about that sort of shit, while you ogle girls gone wild with your dick out in your hand?

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’m pretty sure that no one is forcing anyone to do anything. And all of your name-calling is nothing but meaningless static. Sorry about the problem with your fiances, but don’t take it out on me.

        • Kodie

          You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth and your ass besides. I’m not taking anything out on you, I’m trying to draw you a fucking diagram, sir. You have a disturbing paranoia for things that are none of your business, and a blatant prejudice against things that have nothing to do with you in favor of a bias against women that actually exists, historically AND STILL, that you admit to being accomplice to.

          But you go on thinking it’s all about the “mating” and everything’s equal. You ignorant blowhard.

        • adam

          How is this an answer to my question?

          But now that you mention it.

          What does mating have to do with sex intended NOT to product children?

          If, as you claim, most people are bi-capable, then MOST PEOPLE, according to you ,would NEVER have to convince themselves that they are homosexual, they would be bi-sexual in a homosexual relationship.

          So almost no one convinces themselves that they are homosexual. And certainly heterssexuals are heterosexuals and couldnt convince themselves by definition.

          So, it seems as though you are battling windminds in your own imagination.

        • Marvin Edwards

          It is not my claim that most people are bi-capable. It’s Kinsey and other researchers in that article from Wikipedia that I quoted from earlier. You are the one operating under the myth of exclusivity.

        • adam

          I am not operating under a myth of exclusivity, but you seem to be.

        • Kodie

          No, you’re the one operating under the delusion that you’re telling people something they don’t know about the continuum of sexuality. But you’re also the one worried that men who are too close to the center won’t realize they are straight when some muscular gay guy gives them a backrub.

        • Dez

          Your moral judgment is irrelevant to the rights of other Americans. You sound just like the racists that opposed my interracial marriage decades ago. They used the same idiotic arguments about children to ban interracial couples from marrying. Get a new script and stop discriminating against Americans. It is very unpatriotic.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Glad you had the opportunity to vent, Dez, but since nearly everything you’ve said applies to people who are NOT me, I see no point in responding.

        • Kodie

          Marvin, what’s actually happening is people are telling you what you sound like, and you don’t like being told you’re a bigot, because you want a scientific reason to back your bigotry. What you really have is an ignorance of history, a lot of hot air and tunnel vision, but also fear, hate, and dishonesty.

        • Marvin Edwards

          And what I am hearing is the fear that I may be right.

        • Dez

          No that is called Americans defending other Americans from unconstitutional viewpoints like yours.

        • MNb

          I feel discriminated. I’m a non-American defending other peoples basic rights.
          (Please don’t take this seriously)

        • Dez

          lol. sorry. Of course discrimination of non-americans is awful. Our secular nation needs to be defended for all people American or not.

        • Kodie

          Your fear is that men will explore homosexuality because there aren’t any social obstacles and be deprived of being fathers of children with a wife. You are actually a bigot, and you blame gay people for making this an attractive and available option, i.e. “the gay agenda” is what you fear – you fear they are coming after your sons and grandsons and humans will go extinct, be selfish, and not care about others or generations that come after. YOU ABSOLUTELY EQUATE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH PREDATION, HEDONISM, LUST, AND SELFISHNESS. YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE CRYING OUT FOR “FAMILY VALUES”, ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN MARRIAGES THAT FOCUS ON PROCREATION. You’re a bigot, you are steeped in ignorance of history and sociology, you found one study you distort to prove your fears are not paranoid nonsense, and support some of your morality police, pearl-clutching busybody bullshit, while ignoring input in this discussion that disputes you and calls you what you clearly are!

        • adam

          So far you have NOT demonstrated that your are right about anything except your own irrational fear.

          You have demonstrated no harm or potential damage from gay marriage, ONLY your fears that there somehow MIGHT be some unspecified damage that you are unwilling or unable to express.

        • Kodie

          It’s not unspecified damage – Marvin has said that if marriage is made available and acceptable for gay couples, some little children (boys) who aren’t gay might be tricked by the predatory gay men agenda into thinking they are gay and being deprived of their natural obligation to “mate” with any lucky woman of their choosing. In not having children, a man will not care about anyone but himself and not perform his duty of procreating, and humans will go extinct, if not from not being born, then devastating selfishness that occurs when people cannot envision a future beyond their own death.

          He considers himself lucky to grow up in a time when he would never have dared to entertain his homosexual side for fear of prejudice, and he got to stay on course and marry a woman and have children, and so he cares so much for humans and the future of our world, he feels pretty good about himself that he’s done a superb job at raising his family “right”, so humanity can proliferate infinitely. But he just fears social norms are changing and it’s all for naught.

        • adam

          “Marvin has said that if marriage is made available and acceptable for gay couples, some little children (boys) who aren’t gay might be tricked by the predatory gay men agenda into thinking they are gay and being deprived of their natural obligation to “mate” with any lucky woman of
          their choosing. ”

          He admits this doesnt happen.
          His fear is someone who is bi will hook up in a long term relationship.

          However he ignored the reality that these people still CAN have children and those who want to DO.

          He ignores too the reality, that population growth is more about economics and poor health care so he really should be advocating poverty and poor health care to make his point.

          “He considers himself lucky to grow up in a time when he would never have dared to entertain his homosexual side for fear of prejudice, and he got to stay on course and marry a woman and have children,”

          Agreed.

          You have been pretty spot on about Marvin so far, but I am still going out on a limb to claim that his REAL reason is some Wrath of God bullshit and that Jesus saved him from a life of being homosexual or at least acting on it.

        • Kodie

          He admits this doesnt happen.
          His fear is someone who is bi will hook up in a long term relationship.

          I don’t remember him saying that it doesn’t happen. I remember him saying over and over again that all the straight people are on a continuum with at least a little gay, most of them, so they’ll mistake an attraction for their sexuality, since society isn’t telling them to beat themselves up and suppress it, and homosexuality will be a fad and little children will dream of growing up and getting married to someone of the same sex since they see it out in the open. They won’t know they’re supposed to be straight-married and obligated to spawn for their own moral value, and will just do whatever they see others doing with no idea that there’s anything handicapped about it.

          Basically, he is saying nobody can justify living if they’re not here to do their part to proliferate the species, i.e., they’ll not only be missing out on life’s true purpose, but they will weaken our communal outcome by not giving a shit because you can’t take care of the future without your own biological children to concretize the notion of a future you don’t live in.

          I hear him loud and clear. He also only cares about men’s prospects, which I have repeatedly told him that men cannot do it alone, and are as handicapped alone as a gay couple. He is a caveman.

        • Dez

          None of what you said applies to the right of marriage for gay americans, it is actually anti american. Unless you can show a legal reason, your personal views on marriage are meaningless. The constitutional rights of gays are trump your opinions. Your morals and judgment are not necessary, nor wanted in the lives of other americans. Sorry if I take constitutional rights seriously than personal of gays. Stop talking about procreation like it has any relevance. Your cowardice is showing in fact you can not refute anything I said. It is clear you think your bigotry should trump the rights of gay americans. That will never happen!!

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”???

        • Wait–a gay man years ago getting into a straight marriage is your example of a good thing? If something positive came out of it, great. But primarily, this is an example of what we’ll have less of once gay marriage is available.

        • Dez

          Your claim that homosexuality is immoral is incorrect. Please show evidence for your assertions.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Dez, I never said that. Your claiming that I said that is a lie. Knock it off.

        • Dez

          The only one lying is you by stating that marriage is about children. I’ve given you a link with the rules of marriage. Nothing about children. SO why are you insisting on forcing your genital based marriage lifestyle on other Americans? You have shown no proof for any of your assertions. I have backed up my claims, why cant you?

        • Marvin Edwards

          No. I did not say that marriage is about children. I said that marriage is an ethical structure imposed upon mating. One of the results of mating is children. That’s why you have to settle child custody and child support issues before you can divorce. If you have no children, then you would not have those issues.

          Mating happens. It was happening long before anyone came up with the idea of marriage. As Buffy’s Xander once said, “I’m a teenager. I get turned on by a linoleum floor”.

          The male tendency to spread it around would lead to many unplanned children and would spread sexual diseases. (Stop me if you’ve already heard all this in Sex Ed).

          So, long time ago, someone said, “Stop! Enough! You will be with this girl and this girl only”. And that would have been the first marriage.

          Now, that, like Adam and Eve, is just a story. But the facts about marriage, that it has always implied a man and a woman (or multiples of one but one of the other), and that annulment requires no mating, and that divorce requires resolving custody and support, all imply that marriage was originally an ethical structure imposed upon mating.

          But don’t take my words for it. Check the article in Wikipedia or the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

        • Dez

          Personal opinions is not an excuse to violate the rights of other Americans. Procreation and children are not legally relevant. We’re not a theocracy either so your religious beliefs are irrelevant since you can not force your views on other Americans. What part of that do you not understand? Do you have any real argument that does not violate the rights of other americans?

        • Marvin Edwards

          And again, Dez, you are having a conversation with an imaginary being of your own creation.

          I support equal treatment for gay couples. I’d prefer a different name for the relationship (I’ve supported domestic partnerships since I was in college ages ago). But I do appreciate the simplicity of just opening up “marriage” to gay couples.

          We just need to manage the unintended consequences in a realistic and honest way.

        • MNb

          Yes. Now only if you would begin to be realistic and honest and tell us what that unintended consequences are but imaginary fear bubbling up in your twisted mind we might actually get somewhere. Until then don’t expect anyone here to take you seriously.

        • adam

          WHAT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

        • Kodie

          “Unintended consequences” like people can accept and find acceptance for who they are and what they want, make their own choices, and accept the consequences of their own choices without your permission.

        • Dez

          Nope unacceptable. Separate but equality didn’t work 50 years ago and doesn’t work now. You can have a non legal religious marriage based on genitals and the rest of us will have legal and civil marriage. The government can not treat gay Americans differently as second class citizens. It violates their rights. There is no valid reason to discriminate against gays. There are no unintended consequences unless you can show any credible evidence to support that. The consequences right now are gay ameericans being denited their constitutional right to marriage. Again procreation and religious belief are not legitimate reasons to deny americans the right to marriage.

        • Dez

          Please stop lying. It is a complete lie that there will be unintended consequences. The fact is that children do just as well in families headed by gay parents as children in families headed by straight parents. Every study that has come out supports that and rejects your claims. Reality does not change because you dislike gays.

        • Marvin Edwards

          No, Dez, you’re the one that needs to stop lying. You keep asserting that I’ve said things that I’ve never said. You are totally on a personal attack mission based upon what can at best be called a bunch of wild assumption and at worst a pack of deliberate lies. Clean up your act.

        • Dez

          Yes you have lied. There has not been any consequences from treating gay americans as equal. No I have actual research studies and experts in the field of marriage and family to lean on. You have your bigotry which seems to grant you the right to lie. If you actually had any evidence to support your assertions then you would have brought it up. It is clear you are a bigot that wants government endorsement for it. Never going to happen. Civil rights trump your lies and bigotry.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Okay, if you sincerely believe that I have lied, quote one lie that I have told in this blog. And don’t give me a list of your false accusations, because it is pretty much impossible for anyone to keep up with someone’s deliberate false accusations. If you have more than one lie, I will deal with each in turn. And if I agree with you that I have lied, then I will apologize here in this blog. Fair enough?

        • Dez

          No problem.

          A family is a group of living relatives. People become relatives by birth (or adoption) and by marriage. That is normally what is called a ‘family’.

          An ideal family would be grandparents, parents, and children, all living and maintaining a relationship with each other. Many families are less than ideal, due to death or divorce or separation, but still morally valuable.

          You say you value families yet call the families of children with gay parents as immoral and inferior.

          There is moral value in becoming a parent. Besides the normal joy and satisfaction of raising children, a child links a person’s decisions and choices to the welfare of future generations. To lose these moral goods unnecessarily would be a harm.

          You seem to act like you care about children yet are causing psychological and emotional harm to the children of gay parents. Do they not count as children? So you lie when you say you care about the welfare of children and marriage or else you would not be implying that their families are inferior and morally wrong.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Dez, (1a) Here’s an example of why I insisted on a quote. I never, ever called “the families of children with gay parents as immoral…”. That is a totally false accusation from you. So rather than backing up your claim that I ever told a lie, you told one.

          (1b) Please note in my description of an “ideal family” (which you did quote correctly, but interpreted incorrectly) that I did not once mention gender or sexual orientation. Any or all of the members could be male, female, straight, or gay. (Surprised?)

          (2) In the second paragraph that you quote from me (it would help if you would at least put quotes around my text) I am pointing out that being a parent has moral value (again, orientation is irrelevant).

          If you’ve followed the discussion, you’ll notice I use Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson as an example of a gay man who married a woman and had two daughters before choosing to come out to the rest of the world. My claim is that this was morally beneficial to him.

          The other side of the problem is the bi-capable heterosexual who discovers he has feelings for someone of the same sex, is drawn into a long-term same-sex relation, and convinces himself he must be gay. He does this because of the mistaken presumption that everyone must be either gay or straight. (I use “he” because I read someplace that men are more likely to self-identify as gay or straight and women less likely to nail themselves down that way).

          In any case, every child is of equal moral value, always.

          But you simply repeat the false accusation once more, saying, “or else you would not be implying that their families are inferior and morally wrong.” Again, I’ve never said anything like that.

        • Dez

          So did not dispute my claims. You try to hide your bigotry, but it obvious.

          Another lie.
          “The other side of the problem is the bi-capable heterosexual who discovers he has feelings for someone of the same sex, is drawn into a long-term same-sex relation, and convinces himself he must be gay. He does this because of the mistaken presumption that everyone must be either gay or straight. (I use “he” because I read someplace that men are more likely to self-identify as gay or straight and women less likely to nail themselves down that way).”

          “(1b) Please note in my description of an “ideal family” (which you did quote correctly, but interpreted incorrectly) that I did not once mention gender or sexual orientation. Any or all of the members could be male, female, straight, or gay. (Surprised?)”

          “If you’ve followed the discussion, you’ll notice I use Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson as an example of a gay man who married a woman and had two daughters before choosing to come out to the rest of the world. My claim is that this was morally beneficial to him.”
          More lies and bigotry. You can not claim that a hetero family is more morally beneficial unless you can back up your claims. You’re stated personal opinion as facts. Since the facts say otherwise, you are lying.

          LOL. You are saying that gay families are not ideal. Where is your proof of that? Yet you want the families of gay parents to not have the same legal or social equality. You refuse to understand that you are insulting the families of gay parents by making false and unsupported claims. The medical and scientific community disagree with your so called “facts”. I only can conclude that you are lying because you are perfectly capable to google the research and studies that disputes your claims.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Dez: “So did not dispute my claims.”

          I showed your claim that I called gay families immoral to be a bald face lie. How much more dispute do you want? And why carelessly start off with another lie?

          Dez: “More lies and bigotry.”

          What is the lie? Put up or shut up, Dez.

          Dez: “You can not claim that a hetero family is more morally beneficial …”

          And I did not make that claim, so you’re still piling on more false accusations. Show the quote or shut up.

        • Dez

          WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association hailed Wednesday’s ruling overturning Proposition 8, in which voters had taken away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

          “The U.S. District Court ruling today affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry in California is a victory for both science and basic human dignity,” said APA President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD. “The American Psychological Association is gratified that the court agreed that there is no justification for denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. The research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits.”

          American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)[1]

          American Academy of Nursing (AAN)[2]

          American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)[3]

          American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)

          American Bar Association (ABA)[4]

          American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
          American Medical Association (AMA)[6]
          American Psychiatric Association[7]
          American Psychological Association (APA)[8]
          National Association of Social Workers (NASW)[9]
          National Fire Protection Association[10]

          hmm I think I would rather trust those who have done their research, got their degrees, and produced studies than your personal opinions. I’m out.

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”?

        • adam

          “If you’ve followed the discussion, you’ll notice I use Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson as an example of a gay man who married a woman and had two daughters before choosing to come out to the rest of the world. My claim is that this was morally beneficial to him.”

          Yes, you CLAIM this, where is the evidence to support that claim.

          “The other side of the problem is the bi-capable heterosexual who discovers he has feelings for someone of the same sex, is drawn into a long-term same-sex relation, and convinces himself he must be gay.”

          Why is this a problem?
          Let’s assume for the sake of argument that on the spectrum of WANTING vs NOT WANTING children/family, that he is on WANTING side and has children while in this long-term same sex relation and they as a couple HAVE CHILDREN.

          Where is your problem with this?

          And since he is REALLY bi-sexual why would he convince himself that he ‘must’ be gay?
          What if even later on, he convinces himself that he ‘must’ be gay, or finally realizes that he is just bi.
          So WHAT?

          You’ve still FAILED to even describe the ‘unintended consequences’ of your irrational fear.
          When are we going to hear about THIS?

        • Kodie

          What you have is anecdotal. You are trying to distort reality to support your bleak visions of the future, but they are just your fears and paranoia and hate and prejudice. You have one scientific study that does not make the conclusions you are making. You are playing morality police based on a bare shred of experience and zero science. Don’t lie and tell us what you didn’t say.

        • adam

          ‘I support equal treatment for gay couples.’

          But you dont support allowing them participate in the legalities of marriage.

          So you are LYING.

          Why not just come clean and give your REAL reasons you oppose gay marriage.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Wrong! I DO support equal treatment for gay couples. And by that I mean equal treatment under the law. Every legal benefit that is accorded to a married spouse must also be accorded to the partner in a same-sex union.

          My issue was whether it was correct to call the same-sex union “marriage” or to call the partner a “spouse”. That is not a question of treatment, but of the definition of terms.

          So, no lie there. Try again.

          (By the way, Adam, when are you going to tell me this mysterious REAL reason I have for preferring to call a same-sex union by a different name than “marriage”?)

        • adam

          “Wrong! I DO support equal treatment for gay couples. And by that I mean equal treatment under the law. Every legal benefit that is accorded to a married spouse must also be accorded to the partner in a same-sex union.”

          WRONG, you keep saying you do not want them to be allowed to be married. Or be called spouse THAT is NOT equal treatment.

          So it is AGAIN a LIE from YOU.

          “(By the way, Adam, when are you going to tell me this mysterious REAL reason I have for preferring to call a same-sex union by a different name than “marriage”?)”

          I am waiting for YOU to tell us, as all the reasons you keep CLAIMING dont hold water.

          And STILL you have yet to declare the ‘unintended consequences’ that you keep CLAIMING.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam: “you keep saying you do not want them to be allowed to be married.”

          And that is a lie. I’d rather call it something else, but whatever it is called it must be treated like marriage. And the same-sex partner in such a union would be treated just like a spouse. And I’ve clearly said this many times, now.

          And yet you have the balls to say “you keep saying you do not want them to be allowed to be married”. Why aren’t you telling the truth, Adam?

          Adam: “I am waiting for YOU to tell us, as all the reasons you keep CLAIMING dont hold water.And STILL you have yet to declare the ‘unintended consequences’ that you keep CLAIMING.”

          So, either I have declared reasons and they make no sense to you, or I still haven’t declared reasons. Which is it, Adam? You can say or the other. But you can’t say both.

        • adam

          “And that is a lie. I’d rather call it something else, but whatever it is called it must be treated like marriage.”

          But you dont want them to be in a marriage.
          So you dont want them married.

          Apparently you CANT see the contradiction.

          Your ‘reasons’ are for some vague, mysterious undeclared ‘unintended consequences’.

          Not only do they not make sense to me, no one else here seems to be able to make sense of them either. (Although I think Kodie and Lew pretty much have you pegged).

          And your presentation of your FEARS just seems to emotional propaganda without any facts to back them up. Which leads ME to believe that you are being purposely DECEPTIVE.

        • Kodie

          You continue to be ignorant about history, and then also unable to catch up with the times. Marriage to you is a solution to one problem, so why can’t it be the solution to another problem? Marriage was created to solve the problem of a man needing to create a stable homestead for his heirs and a mate to create them with because he can’t jerk off those babies into existence. All in all, he might rather go rogue and settle down with nobody, and for fuck’s sake, he still can and many do. Marriage doesn’t solve that problem unless you got a young maiden’s father with a shotgun pointed at your kidney. Marriage doesn’t have any power to keep people from having a lot of sex with a lot of other people, i.e. pilots with 4 families or whatever. Laws against bigamy and polygamy may catch up, but there is nothing holding against him to have only one family with one woman in one location. It’s a general system but it doesn’t fence people in. You don’t even have to be married to be fenced in such a way as to be held responsible for any children you help to create. So marriage is not any kind of solution, it is merely a formal agreement to make a household together and be responsible for one another.

          Are you saying gay couples are incapable of that?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie: “Are you saying …”

          Let me be clear about what I am saying:

          Getting Straight About Gay Marriage

          A handicap impairs someone’s ability to do what people are normally able to do. People can normally see colors, but some are born colorblind. People can normally hear, but some are born deaf.

          A person is normally attracted to the opposite sex. This is nature’s way to encourage mating and offspring.

          But the gay person’s mating attraction is to someone of the same sex. This impairs, but does not necessarily prevent, normal mating. Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson married, had two daughters with his wife, and only later chose to follow his natural desire. He was honest with his wife from the beginning and his new life partner is loved by his ex-wife and daughters.

          Like any other handicap, being gay is limited and specific. You probably would not know someone is gay until they tell you.

          A caring community normally supports individuals with handicaps. We reject prejudices that some people may have about them. We try to imagine what it would be like to walk in their shoes. We admonish our children to not make fun of someone who is different from themselves. And, to the degree possible, we accommodate that person’s special needs.

          I have long resisted using the term “marriage” for same-sex couples, preferring a different name, like “domestic partnership”. My concern is that, in the same fashion that Bishop Robinson was able to sustain a relationship that seemed unnatural to him, it is also possible for a heterosexual to find himself or herself in a long-term, same-sex relationship.

          Emotional bonds are easily established with someone of either sex. The sex act itself requires little more than physical stimulation. The presumption that only homosexuals can be drawn into a same-sex relationship is likely false. So I still worry about the moral harm to a person drawn into a relationship that unnecessarily prevents him from having a normal family. Hopefully, that fear can be addressed in other ways.

          It seems the time has come to call the commitment of two people to love and care for each other “marriage”, whether of the same or opposite sex.

          Marriage arose in society as an ethical structure for mating, insuring that someone was responsible for the children and, historically, the dependent spouse. That’s why it always assumed an opposite-sex couple.

          But marriage is also a pledge of sexual fidelity, emotional support, and sharing a home. These are the same for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.

        • adam

          ” My concern is that, in the same fashion that Bishop Robinson was able to sustain a relationship that seemed unnatural to him, it is also possible for a heterosexual to find himself or herself in a long-term, same-sex relationship.”

          Please demonstrate that a heterosexual can find themselves in a long-term same sex sexual relationship.
          Bi-sexuals yes, heterosexuals not without force, which would be illegal.

          “And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.”

          And yet you do NOT want them to be married, so you DO want them treated differently.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam: “Please demonstrate that a heterosexual can find themselves in a long-term same sex sexual relationship.”

          About 20 or so years ago when I was discussing this on-line there was this guy advertising a religious cure for homosexuality, and claimed that he had been cured. At least one of the gay guys in the discussion said the guy was probably heterosexual to begin with.

          Another older gay guy confirmed that he had sex with a heterosexual.

          And I told you about my pre-school experiences. I had no aversion to providing an oral service in the first case, which was not an unpleasant experience. Nor to the other older boy, before he turned on me. And I had warm feelings for Howard, the other Christian guy in high school, although it never occurred to me to have sex with him, and he never propositioned me even though he was gay.

          And then you have the Kinsey reports, that found that the vast majority of people leaned toward the heterosexual but that did not prevent them from having homosexual feelings or even homosexual experiences.

          So I believe you are deluding yourself a bit about heterosexuality providing immunity to same-sex feelings or relations.

        • adam

          Of course heterosexuality provides immunity to same-sex feelings and sexual relations BY DEFINITION.

          Bisexuals can go either way as your own experience confirms.

          “Another older gay guy confirmed that he had sex with a heterosexual.”
          So he raped a heterosexual?
          Or did he have mutual satisfaction with a bi-sexual?

          “And then you have the Kinsey reports, that found that the vast majority of people leaned toward the heterosexual but that did not prevent them from having homosexual feelings or even homosexual experiences.”

          This is where you keep contradicting yourself with your own evidence.

          Bi-sexuals who ‘lean’ toward heterosexual are OBVIOUSLY not heterosexual but are BI SEXUAL as Kinsey reports.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam, the Wikipedia article on sexual orientation has several things to say on this:

          1) “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.”

          2) “Kinsey reported that when the individuals’ behavior as well as their identity are analyzed, most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual — i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5–10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.” (Section on Demographics).

          3) And they quote Kinsey saying, “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.—Kinsey et al. (1948) pp. 639.”

        • adam

          We’ve covered this
          There are heterosexuals at one end of this spectrum
          There are homosexuals at the other end of this spectrum
          And everyone else is bi-sexuals.
          Or can you not understand what you are posting

          The same spectrum applies to those who WANT/DONT WANT to have children.

          SO, you didnt answer ANY of my questions.

          Let’s bypass all of your BULLSHIIT and get to the heart of the matter.

          Wrong! I DO support equal treatment for gay couples. And by that I mean equal treatment under the law. Every legal benefit that is accorded to a married spouse must also be accorded to the partner in a same-sex union.

          My issue was whether it was correct to call the same-sex
          union “marriage” or to call the partner a “spouse”. That is not a question of treatment, but of the definition of terms.

          So you DO support what you claim is the moral failure here, that is:

          Believe it or not, the straight guy being seduced into a homosexual relationship is the specific moral harm that I am concerned about. And this is the one that everyone writes off, because they cannot yet imagine a world in which the taboo is completely gone.

          Because as you SAY, you want same sex couples to be EQUAL to opposite sex couple in everything but name.

          This means acceptance and respect by society as normal, with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, JUST WITH A DIFFERENT NAME.

          Even though no heterosexual is EVER going to be seduced by a homosexual. But of course bi-sexuals might be.

          See how you make NO SENSE at all.
          The only way it makes sense is that you are lying about one of these claims, spreading propaganda in a effort to do harm to others, an act of EVIL…

          Why not just come clean and give your REAL reason for opposing same sex marriage?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Adam: “There are heterosexuals at one end of this spectrum There are homosexuals at the other end of this spectrum And everyone else is bi-sexuals.”

          No! Someone who claims to be equally attracted to either sex would be bisexual. They too are in a small minority, just like the exclusively heterosexuals and the exclusively homosexuals.

          Here’s the quote from Wikipedia (in the section “Kinsey Data”): “According to Kinsey, only a minority (5–10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.[citation needed] Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes).”

          I’m talking about people who identify themselves as “heterosexual” but who have also self-reported having some same-sex attractions or homosexual experiences. These are the majority.

          Adam: “Because as you SAY, you want same sex couples to be EQUAL to opposite sex couple in
          everything but name.”

          No, I said equal treatment under the law. Obviously a same-sex marriage is not equal/identical to an opposite sex marriage. A same-sex marriage faces special challenges if the couple wishes to have children. In an opposite sex marriage the special challenges are in postponing and planning childbirth.

          Adam: “Even though no heterosexual is EVER going to be seduced by a homosexual. But of course bi-sexuals might be.”

          And your misunderstanding of bisexuality versus bi-capable heterosexuality continues. I’m trying to describe a reality that you keep denying.

        • adam

          No! Someone who claims to be equally attracted to either sex would be bisexual

          No! Claims have nothing to do with it.
          You are either hetero, bi or homo

          As CONTRADICTED by your own post.

          Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes).”

          Therefore those who are NOT homo, not hetero, and not FULLY bi-sexual are STILL bi-sexual, just not FULLY.

          I’m talking about people who identify themselves as “heterosexual” but who have also self-reported having some same-sex attractions or homosexual experiences. These are the majority.

          Doesnt matter how they ‘identify themselves’ they are bi,

          No, I said equal treatment under the law.

          So ‘separate but equal’ under the law, like bigots always seem to want to be able to DIVIDE people.

          And your misunderstanding of bisexuality versus bi-capable heterosexuality continues. I’m trying to describe a reality that you keep denying.

          Then you are being HORRENDOUSLY ineffective or else deceptive because you contradict yourself with your own evidence.

          If a person is bi-capable they are NOT heterosexual, on the Kinsey scale, they are bi-sexual

          Why not come clean and state your ‘UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES’ and your REAL objection to same sex marriage.

        • Kodie

          So what? You are making a conclusion based on some obsession you have with the kid who gave you shit for offering a blowjob.

        • Kodie

          Marriage arose in society as an ethical structure for mating, insuring that someone was responsible for the children and, historically, the dependent spouse. That’s why it always assumed an opposite-sex couple.

          THIS IS WRONG.

          AND I’VE ALREADY TOLD YOU HOW.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Obviously I disagree with you. The evidence as I see it strongly suggests that marriage was created to impose rules on mating. 1) With very rare exceptions, marriage has always presumed at least one man and at least one woman. 2) Even in ancient times, adultery was considered a violation of marriage. 3) Even in modern times, divorce requires resolution of custody and child support issues.

          When people could easily have been bought and sold as property to satisfy your claim, they were instead married. Why? What is unique about marriage that is different from a sale of property? Answer: the presumption of mating.

        • adam

          “2) Even in ancient times, adultery was considered a violation of
          marriage. 3) Even in modern times, divorce requires resolution of
          custody and child support issues.”‘

          2 because of unauthorized use of property

          3 again property RIGHTS.

        • Kodie

          Where is your source of information, your butt? The evidence as you see it is based on very little to do with historical reality of the situations. Marriage has been presumed to be at least one man and at least one woman? Men can’t create offspring without a woman. Women’s wants are irrelevant historically. Adultery was a violation against a man, and of course if you two have children, divorce laws concern goddamned custody – just like it decides who gets to keep the house and how much money one party owes the other. Traditionally, a man divorcing a woman owed her damages, else how is she supposed to support herself, since she has no skills and her father is dead, and she’s considered damaged goods. YOUR CHILDREN WITH HER ARE STILL YOURS HOWEVER. Custody is custody, it’s not ownership. They have to live with someone! You idiot.

        • MNb

          “And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.”
          So you accept same sex marriage. End of debate.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Indeed.

        • adam

          “And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.”
          So you accept same sex marriage. End of debate.-MNB

          “Indeed” says Marvin.

          But…..
          butt……..
          butt…….

          ”’The ‘gays’ are going to turn straight men and have long term relationships….”’

          Or are you just having more trouble keeping your story ‘straight’….

          So what turned you around on this issue.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Excuse me, Adam, but who made the statement that you have in quotes? I know I didn’t. So please stop being deceptive.

          I haven’t turned around on anything. Redefining marriage to include gay couples is the simplest way to implement the change. I would prefer we call it something else, but I recognize the practical problem of defining two institutions when you already have one in place.

          I still believe there are unintended consequences. But they can be dealt with separately and are not a bar to implementing gay marriage.

          Somehow, we need to keep it straight that gay marriage is an accommodation to people who are handicapped in a way that makes it difficult to find happiness in an opposite sex relationship.

          And the reason we need to keep this straight is to avoid people who are not handicapped from presuming that same-sex marriage is equally good for them.

        • adam

          They are attributed in the post.

          YOU agreed to MNb’s post.

          “I haven’t turned around on anything. Redefining marriage to include gay couples is the simplest way to implement the change.”
          What redefining is needed?
          36 states already include gay couples.

          “I still believe there are unintended consequences.”
          WHAT are they?
          And where is the evidence to support that?

          “And the reason we need to keep this straight is to avoid people who are not handicapped from presuming that same-sex marriage is equally good for them.”

          So it is REALLY is STRAIGHT people who are handicapped and need accomodation from gays for their irrational beliefs.

          AGAIN, looking at your Kinsey spectrum.
          “Straights” will have ABSOLUTELY no interest in same-sex marriage.

          So dont you really mean BI-SEXUALS, and what says that same sex marriage is NOT equally good for them?

        • Kodie

          What do you mean by “equal treatment”? All the laws about marriage have to do with property and medical care. Making someone legally your next of kin, etc. There are no laws forcing couples to make babies, and there are no laws that even say they have to have sex. These are issues between the married couple, and if someone has a disagreement with the other, they might not get married, they might and regret it, they might get counseling, they might divorce, etc.

          It’s the social norm for people to seek a mate, to try out several until they find one that agrees to live with them forever, and then join finances and live in the same residence, and fuck until they make a few copies of themselves. It’s not the law. It’s not even close to the law. Marriage was not created for the express purpose of keeping men and women together for the sake of their children. Marriage is an economic agreement for the sake of the man to procure a daughter from her father to spawn his heirs and keep his home, and in return, she doesn’t have to be a burden to her father until he dies.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie:There are no laws forcing couples to make babies, and there are no laws that even say they have to have sex.”

          Correct. Except that a marriage that is not consummated may be annulled in some societies. But no one is ever forced to actually mate. It is more like an underlying presumption.

          Kodie: “Marriage is an economic agreement for the sake of the man to procure a daughter from her father to spawn his heirs … ”

          I’m confused. Are you arguing for same-sex marriage or against it? Because I can’t imagine any couple in love buying into that definition of marriage.

        • adam

          “Because I can’t imagine any couple in love buying into that definition of marriage.”

          So are you NOW claiming marriage is about love and not mating?

          You keep dancing around like water on a hot skillet, why not just get to the REAL reason you oppose same-sex marriage.

        • Kodie

          Yes, you are really really really confused. Because marriage was never created for love.

          YOU ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY.

          YOU ARE IGNORANT OF CULTURE.

          “Romantic” love leading to marriage is a modern innovation that you don’t seem to be aware didn’t always exist and still isn’t the norm many places in the world. Marriage is an economic agreement, and in modern times, it helps a lot if you feel content with your partner, feel close, and want to build a life with them.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, humans, like many other mammals and primates, tend to form long term or semi long term monogamous relationships. I rather think the pairings came before the formalization of it. you are getting the cart before the horse.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Pofarmer, if there were no problems caused by mating then there would be no laws creating marriage. You may be right about most relationships being monogamous, but I believe you are idealistic to imagine no adultery.

          I remember when we could board an airplane without being searched. Then some Cubans hijacked a plane. Then some Palestinians hijacked a plane. Then people were searched. And it wasn’t until the guy showed up with a bomb in his shoes that everyone had to take their shoes off for x-ray.

          There are no rules where there are no problems.

        • Pofarmer

          Adultery is a religious term. The level of monogamy in relationships varies from society to society and time to time.

        • Marvin Edwards

          No. Adultery is when you have sex with someone other than your spouse. It’s one of the legal and ethical rules of marriage that civil society has imposed upon mating. When you marry, you promise to be faithful to your spouse. Failing to keep that promise is grounds for civil, secular divorce.

        • Pofarmer

          You need to widen your horizons a tad.

        • adam

          I did NOT promise to be faithful to my spouse and adultery is NOT grounds for divorce where I got married.

          So why not quit LYING and tell us the REAL reason?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Excuse me, but do you mind telling me WHERE you got married? I’d like to check your claim that adultery is not a grounds for a divorce in your marriage.

          By the way, if you look up “grounds for divorce” in Wikipedia, it says, “Adultery is the most common grounds for divorce. However, there are countries that view male adultery differently than female adultery as grounds for divorce.”

          So your suggestion that I am lying is clearly a FALSE accusation.

        • adam

          I tried to get a divorce on grounds of adultery and was denied.

          I was finally granted a divorce for “irreconsilible differences”

          And I never promised to be faithful to my spouse or had to for the civil contract of marriage.

          So you ARE LYING.

        • Marvin Edwards

          No. If you did not have to promise to be faithful to your spouse in your particular ceremony, then I was mistaken about that. To make an honest mistake is not lying. (By the way, I was an honor court chairman in college).

          You still have not told me the country or state in which you committed adultery or your wife committed adultery, and yet your divorce was denied.

          What I told you about adultery being grounds for divorce is true. And I even posted the Wikipedia quote, “Adultery is the most common grounds for divorce. However, there are countries that view male adultery differently than female adultery as grounds for divorce.”

          So, not only am I not lying, but I am factually accurate in pointing out that adultery is grounds for divorce. And it is fair to say that this is evidence that the point of marriage is to impose legal or ethical rules upon mating.

        • Kodie

          You’re lying or ignorant! According to another site that’s not wikipedia but specifically on law. fault divorce isn’t even allowed in many states, and ALL OF THEM offer no-fault as an option. So NOPE, adultery is not “grounds for divorce”. It might be a complaint of the person who initially files for a divorce, but the state issues no-fault divorces, and that’s that.

          http://info.legalzoom.com/states-nofault-divorce-states-20400.html

          “True” No-Fault States

          At the time of publication, in 17 states and the District of
          Columbia, you can only file for divorce on no-fault grounds; the laws don’t give you the option of casting blame. These states, which include Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Hawaii, Florida, Colorado and California, offer no traditional grounds, such as adultery, abandonment or cruelty.

        • Marvin Edwards

          I’ll plead ignorance. My own divorce in 1979 was no-fault, but that was a relatively new option at the time. According to Wikipedia the first state offering a no-fault option was in California starting in 1970. And please note the following quote from your own source:

          “In the remaining 33 states, you can choose no-fault grounds if you desire, but you also have the option of filing on traditional fault grounds.”

          So, once again I am still correct that adultery is grounds for divorce, at least in most of the United States.

          And, again, this means that sexual fidelity is implied in the marriage contract. And that is further evidence that marriage is an ethical and legal structure imposed upon mating.

        • adam

          “. And that is further evidence that marriage is an ethical and legal structure imposed upon mating”

          So why isnt mating outside of marriage illegal?.

        • Kodie

          Marriage is simply a legal contract between two people to share resources and household tasks, and probably have sexual relations. It is the social norm to also provide for children, but that is debatable whether that is a biological urge as far as I’m concerned or more of a social obligation to fit in. I’m saying that because people who don’t have children by a certain age tend to be harassed or treated like second-class citizens or labeled selfish. I’m sure too many people had children because they were supposed to and not because they wanted to, or were and are raised in a world where children are celebrated and nobody shares the sheer difficulty of that project. Remember when you might have wanted to get a dog, and your parents warned you that you’d have to feed and walk it all the time and you didn’t listen? Nobody talks a whole lot about that about having kids, and it’s more expensive and time-consuming than anything else. I bet Marvin didn’t even help raise his kids. Marvin is old-fashioned and probably had a catch with his son a few times and found this to be a wholly rewarding experience that he’s so glad he didn’t miss out on because of that predatory gay kid from high school he would have fallen in love with and married if it was legitimate at the time.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Actually, cohabitation used to be illegal in the U.S. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia: “Before the mid-20th century, laws against cohabitation, fornication, adultery and other such behaviors were common in the US (especially in Southern and Northeastern states), but these laws have been gradually abolished or struck down by courts as unconstitutional.”

        • Kodie

          I.e. impossible to enforce. Are you in favor of sharia law?

        • adam

          Dont you mean Old Testament law?
          Because that is where they got sharia from….

        • Kodie

          Good point, but sharia law is current and obviously barbaric and they can point to those barbaric Muslims. Good Christians tend to excuse OT law as something that happened so long ago as was the style at the time, and we all learned better from it not to go back there, and besides, all those people would be dead by now anyway, so that makes it ok. Divorce on grounds of adultery was not created for the benefit of women, and is not even a leading reason women file for divorce.

        • adam

          USED to be.

          These of course were RELIGIOUS intrusions to reinforce the power structure of the Church.

          Of course BEFORE that, it were not illegal.

          So why ISN’T mating outside of marriage illegal?

        • Kodie

          So you are saying that gay guys can’t cheat on their husbands because what they do together can’t be considered “mating” do I have that correct?

        • adam

          “And, again, this means that sexual fidelity is implied in the marriage contract.”

          So why doesnt sexual infidelity automatically make a marriage null and void?

        • Marvin Edwards

          Because it is up to the couple to decide whether to seek divorce or not due to infidelity (using either adultery or the no-fault option).

        • adam

          Then THAT negates your claim.

          The reasons for marriage and therefore divorce is up to the couple not the word marriage or the contract of marriage.

          So what is your REAL reason for opposing same sex marriage.

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”?

          .

        • Kodie

          Who gives a shit what is grounds for divorce? What does that have to do with anything? Many couples prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, and the law does provide for a grievance process if either partner fails their agreement, but it does not dictate to them their agreement or advise they get divorced over literally anything. Getting married to someone or getting divorced from them is entirely up to them. Most if not all states grant no-fault divorces for either party.

          Fault divorces are not as common, and in fact, many states no longer even recognize them. In the states that do recognize them, one of the spouses requests that a divorce be granted based on some fault of the other spouse.

          The state can’t force any couple that doesn’t want to to part over adultery any more than they can force them to stay together because they can’t agree on which direction to spin the toilet paper.

        • Marvin Edwards

          The fact that infidelity can be used to terminate a marriage implies that fidelity is implied in the contract. If exclusive mating is implied then mating is implied.

        • Kodie

          Did you read the fucking article or even my comment? Many states DO NOT RECOGNIZE adultery as grounds for divorce. IT IS A MATTER BETWEEN THE COUPLE and MANY COUPLES DO NOT IN FACT DIVORCE OVER IT, DESPITE HAVING INITIALLY EXPECTED FIDELITY AS PART OF THE CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE.

          YOU DUNCE!!!!!!!!!

        • adam

          The fact that infidelity can be used to terminate a marriage implies that fidelity is implied in the contract. If exclusive mating is implied then mating is implied.

          IF so, then why doesnt infidelity automatically dissolve a marriage?

          AGAIN, this is grounded in PROPERTY RIGHTS as historically the woman was PROPERTY. And infidelity was considered DAMAGE or improper use of said PROPERTY.

        • Kodie

          This is interesting, re property.

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”??

        • Kodie

          And yet millions of adulterers manage to stay married, because it’s between the two. The state can’t force people apart because they broke a vow or have grounds to divorce if they wanted to. It’s not the only factor, and for many people, it’s not even an important factor, because it’s between the couple.

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”?
          .

        • adam

          “There are no rules where there are no problems.”

          BULLSHIT

          A prime example is SIN

        • MNb

          Great. You totally have failed to bring up any problem with gay marriage, besides an imagined fear that doesn’t even support your viewpoint.
          So there is no need for special rules regarding same sex relationships. Let lesbians and gays get married if they like.

        • Marvin Edwards

          MNb, Absolutely! But, like I said when I first arrived, I have some concerns about redefining “marriage” to accomplish what we all desire. I think there are unintended consequences for people for whom the accommodation was not intended. So, while the simplest solution seems to be to extend the definition of “marriage” to remove the opposite sex restriction, it will be important to keep in mind that it is an accommodation to a handicap.

          If there were no handicap, then everyone would mate with someone of the opposite sex, and there never would have been any issue in the first place. But the right to marry has been won by insisting that gays and lesbians have no choice in their sexual orientation. So we just need to remember that we did not intend for bi-capable heterosexuals to end up in same-sex relationships. (Or two guys who just prefer to live together without sex because they both like to watch football, drink beer, leave the seat up, and they want the tax advantages and other economic benefits of “marriage”).

        • Kodie

          So we just need to remember that we did not intend for bi-capable heterosexuals to end up in same-sex relationships.

          What do you mean “we”? Did anyone ask you? If they like it, it’s none of your fucking business.

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”?

        • adam

          What “unintended consequences”?

        • adam

          There are no rules where there are no problems.

          Of course there are, there are rules created out of deception, the desire for power, and sometimes just entertainment.

          The Texas Constitution
          Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
          Section 4 – RELIGIOUS TESTS
          No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

          You can find more here online.

          But probably the worst is:

        • MNb

          “the straight guy being seduced into a homosexual relationship is the specific moral harm”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I do believe you. It just doesn’t make any sense. Like I wrote, I’m straight as an arrow, but if it happened to me that I were seduced by for instance Lew I wouldn’t want you around to prevent me. I can hold up my own trousers, thank you. The idea that I need your concern is nothing but laughable.
          Moreover it’s remarkable that you aren’t concerned about the gay being seduced into a heterosexual relationship. That says a lot about your prejudices.

        • 90Lew90

          Making homosexuality an “abomination” is as arbitrary as making circumcision compulsory. It has as much to do with morality as tattooing, piercing or foot-binding, or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, or eating shellfish. It’s just more established.

        • If he’s straight, how would he be seduced into a homosexual relationship? And if he just has a little fling, who cares? Where’s the “moral harm”?

        • Kodie

          I see your problem – you are stuck on gender roles.

        • adam

          Stuck on something…..

        • Kodie

          He’s afraid that a man will come on to him and he might not be able to resist, and the moral harm comes from him being disgusted with himself, and possibly destroying his happy home. He’d blame the gay man just like he would a sexy woman making advances, and because he’s only a man, he can’t be responsible for his weaknesses.

        • adam

          That seems pretty obvious from his posts.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Kodie, I don’t think I have anything to fear. I know myself and my feelings. I can choose what I do about them. If you’re really that curious about me, I find I’m attracted to two different archetypes from my childhood: Kathy and Patsy. Kathy was skinny and a “put on a pedestal type”, worshipped from afar. Patsy’s mother was very large such that Patsy was well rounded early. Kathy is why I get a little homosexual panic from David Bowie. I also love musicals. But I’m generally heterosexual and get off to GGW. Oh, and I’ve found myself attracted twice to one person in a gay couple but not the partner. Any questions?

        • Kodie

          You don’t seem to have the same concern for women being sexually objectified that you do for men who may be susceptible to seduction from a gay guy. That answers all my questions.

        • Marvin Edwards

          You mean this is the point where you started jumping to the wrong conclusions. Let me be clear. Every woman is just as valuable as a person as every man. Every woman should have the right to choose her own course, and reject any social conventions for gender roles that she wishes. There is no requirement than anyone, male or female, must mate or have children.

          All I’ve said is that the experience of having and raising children is of value to the parent. In my opinion, it makes them a better person to have a personal stake in the future, where their decisions affect not just themselves, but people they love.

          But raising kids is a personal choice. It takes time and a considerable amount of patience and endurance. So it may not be the choice that everyone makes.

          My concern was that a bi-capable heterosexual may form a homosexual relationship under the delusion that he (or she) is homosexual, because of feelings of attraction for a specific person of the same-sex. The probability of this happening increases as society loses track of the reason for extending marriage to same-sex couples.

          Marriage is being redefined to include same-sex couples specifically because their ability to mate with someone of the opposite sex is impaired by their sexual orientation. If this were not the case, then there would be no rationale to change how marriage works.

        • Kodie

          NO, this is the point where you start back-pedaling.

        • Marvin Edwards

          And you invite me to continue this dance. Sorry. My card is full.

        • Marvin Edwards

          An odd claim since I specified no genders at all.

        • Kodie

          When you talk about the “moral harm” and “handicap” of being gay.

        • Adopted counts as normal to you? Sounds pretty artificial to me. Divorced? Remarried? Seems like you pull in a lot of exceptional cases.

          Sure, they’re all morally valuable. But a same-sex marriage sounds like just another not-quite-perfect-but-good-nonetheless situation.

        • Dez

          Yes and gays have families too unless you think gays are not human. Do you have any proof that gays are incapable of being good parents? Can you verify any of your claims or is it all personal opinion you should keep in your own life?

        • Kodie
        • Dez

          Children are irrelevant to civil marriage. There is no legal requirement that you have to have children or the ability to do so to get married. You are the only one coming up with strange ideas about marriage. Please show where procreation is a factor in whether a person can get married or not. You keep making up stuff that has no legal basis and just are irrelevant personal opinions.

        • adam

          There is moral value in becoming a parent.

          There is ALSO moral value in NOT becoming a parent.

    • smrnda

      “A handicap impairs someone’s ability to do what people are normally able to do. People can normally see colors, but some are born colorblind. People can normally hear, but some are born deaf.”

      Just because something is different does not make it a handicap. Being left-handed is different. It is not a handicap. There are some problems with tools and such being designed in a way that assumes right-handedness, but we also have issues with chairs, tables, beds fitting people who are outside of a certain size poorly, but we don’t necessarily call those differences handicaps.

      “But marriage is also a pledge of sexual fidelity, emotional support, and sharing a home. These are the same for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. And people in such similar situations should not be treated so differently.”

      I’d agree totally. Except for the type of sex that happens, there is no meaningful difference between same sex and opposite sex couples.

      • Marvin Edwards

        “Except for the type of sex that happens, there is no meaningful difference between same sex and opposite sex couples.”

        Agreed.

        And there was irrational prejudice against left-handedness as well.

        However, I do not believe it is a prejudice to say that an impairment to something people are normally able to do is a “handicap” to doing that thing.

        And the importance of objectivity may be demonstrated with a challenging question: “Suppose it were medically possible to correct condition X? Would it be right to seek such a cure?”

        This might seem obvious in the case of congenital blindness. It may be less obvious in the case of color blindness. It has been argued both for and against in the case of the cochlear implant to cure deafness.

        So, suppose one day a doctor tells an expectant mother something like this: “This is your third son and you have the genetic predisposition and a hormonal balance that we calculate the likelihood that he will be gay at about 85%. There is a single dose medication that you can take in the 7th week that will reduce this probability to 25%.”

        What do you do? We presume, for objectivity, that either choice is perfectly acceptable, and will be supported by society, of course.

        • smrnda

          Most people like chocolate. Would not liking chocolate be a handicap or just a difference in preference? I mean, there is nothing physically stopping me from having heterosexual sex. I’m a woman and I could just lie there. But I know I wouldn’t enjoy it.

          I actually am disabled. My disabilities actually impair my ability to do normal things. Being a lesbian is just a difference that, as long as I’m not really exposed to prejudice, is no impairment at all.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Right. Prejudice and discrimination are probably the more significant issues for LGBT. And because they are not the result of being LGBT, but rather the result of the irrational behavior of society, the APA dropped homosexuality from their diagnostic manual. The condition is only a diagnostic problem if it is the cause of disruption in your life. But that is seldom the case today. It’s putting up with the jerks that’s a strain.

          A deaf person raised in a deaf community will not experience deafness as a problem. The same may be said for the child with Down’s syndrome or the person who is left-handed. The problem is not internal, but how they are treated by others.

          Still, to the objective, outside observer, there is a deficit in normal function. If a lesbian wants a child, she may need a sperm donor, just like the heterosexual woman whose husband is infertile or who doesn’t want to put up with a husband.

          The impairment is slight, and easily overcome. And if you are with someone you truly love, and both of you decide to have a child, then the handicap is pretty insignificant.

        • Kodie

          Why are you considering it a handicap instead of maybe an obstacle? As a left-handed person, I’ve certainly noticed at times the world is built for right-handed people. But it is a matter of adapting to it and still finding things aren’t really that bad. Imagine if you grew up in a house where the toilet paper is on the right side of the toilet, and then you need to go in a bathroom where the toilet paper is on the left side. By rote, you turn to the right, but you still find the toilet paper eventually without creating a disaster.

          To the outside observer who is thinking whether someone is fulfilling their sexual biological function or not, then they might just be a bigot, fixated too much on what’s wrong and not on what’s right. What a shame, they’re gay, they have to do things the hard way… but who made it so hard? You also seem to be fixated on whether people get married to “mate” as you call it, while yes, what is it that gay people do behind closed doors, it’s called having sex. In your mind, marriage was created to burden people down with children because they’re going to have sex anyway, might as well force them to be responsible co-parents, and your confusion about what could gay couples possibly need to be officially and legally defined as married for?????? Because the law favors married people, especially if you’re in a committed relationship already, just having that legal bond is a big benefit. Children need two responsible adults, whether that be the working single woman and her daycare provider, or the abandoned dad and his cleaning service.

        • Dez

          Procreation and the ability to is not relevant to civil marriage. I was not asked about children at all when I got married. The only issues were if I was over 18 and if I was currently married. It would be illegal to base laws on whether someone has the ability to reproduce or not.

        • Marvin Edwards

          Well, we can’t say it is irrelevant, Dez. The relationship is in the fact that mating without any rules at all produces children without responsible parents and spreads venereal diseases. Therefore, a civil society has a valid interest in creating rules for mating. Marriage imposes an ethical or legal structure upon mating.

          But you are certainly correct that there is no guarantee that children will result and it would be cruel to make that a requirement. And that’s why it never is a requirement.

          Mating, on the other hand, is sometimes a requirement. A marriage can be annulled under some rules if it is not “consummated” by the sexual act. So, mating is a presumption.

        • Dez

          Baseless claims. Show where children are even mentioned. Your personal views on marriage are irrelevant to everyone but you. No one is stopping you on basing your marriage on genitals and mating. Just don’t stop those who want to marry someone they actually love.

          http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/TypesofMarriageLicenses.aspx

        • adam

          “The relationship is in the fact that mating without any rules at all produces children without responsible parents and spreads venereal
          diseases. ”

          Not a fact at all.

          And CERTAINLY marriage does not HANDICAP against irresponsible parents or venereal diseases.

          What is YOUR REAL reason?

        • Screwing is a requirement for marriage? Is that your final answer?

        • adam

          He seems to have GREAT difficulty presenting any evidence for his claims….

          Can he phone a friend?

          And does that mean that most of us are married to the government?

        • Marvin Edwards

          “Final answer” to what, Bob? Would you like a few paragraphs describing the many social and personal benefits of marriage? Would you like an essay on love?

          Do you understand how you are being deceptive by implying that I am saying marriage is nothing but screwing?

          That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that marriage LAW was created to impose an ethical structure upon mating.

          Would you like the law to involve itself in people’s love life? I don’t think so. No one would. Laws are made to solve social issues. Mating irresponsibly creates social issues. Therefore marriage imposes rules upon mating. Simple as that.

        • Kodie

          Since mating irresponsibly creates social issues, then homosexuality should have been the solution.

        • adam

          As well as poverty, sickness, disease and lack of healthcare would be the solution for more breeding.

        • adam

          “That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that marriage LAW was created to impose an ethical structure upon mating.”

          Obviously NOT.

          Mating was going on a long time before marriage,.
          And mating outside of marriage is not illegal.

          ” Laws are made to solve social issues. ”
          Not always

          Prime example is the Elbow Deodorant called ‘sin’.

        • You said, “mating is a presumption.” I was just trying to make sense of that. I don’t think I was being all that deceptive.

          Seems to me that sexless or sex-a-plenty marriages are both just fine from the standpoint of the government.

    • Dez

      Yeah your marriage can be about genitals and mating. My marriage will be based on love. I prefer to marry for love than to marry someone just based on whether they have a penis or vagina. You are devaluing marriage to just sex.

      • Marvin Edwards

        Dez, Your question was about society’s interest in marriage. The answer is that it marriage provides rules for mating so that we don’t have orphans in the street and so that sexual diseases don’t become plagues. But that does not mean that marriage is only about mating. Society has no legitimate interest in your personal feelings, only your behavior. So stop trying to spin my answer down another path. That’s dishonest.

        • adam

          The answer is that it marriage provides rules for mating so that we don’t have orphans in the street and so that sexual diseases don’t become plagues.

          But those rules dont work in reality.

          So what is your REAL fear?

        • Dez

          That is your personal opinion and as such can be dismissed. It is not the governments responsibility to make sure all marriages are procreative. Procreation is not a legal requirement. The only one being dishonest is you when you think procreation or children are even relevant to marriage. Do you not understand that the constitutional right to marriage does not involve children?

        • 90Lew90

          You’re still banging on that “marriage provides rules for mating” and you’ve been told repeatedly why that’s just bullshit. Scratched record.

        • MNb

          “marriage provides rules for mating so that we don’t have orphans in the street”
          And again you show your incoherence. Two married men who don’t reproduce won’t produce orphans in the street by definition. So this is an argument pro same sex marriage.

          “and so that sexual diseases don’t become plagues.”
          Once again this is an argument pro same sex marriage. Two men or two women marrying each other are expected to remain faithful to each other and hence not to spread sexual diseases.
          Man, are you stupid. Not only are your arguments bad – these two are, as pointed out below – they don’t even back your conclusion. And no matter how often we point this out to you, you stick to it.

  • Turek and others like him just want being gay to be penalized by society. They want to make it as inconvenient as possible so that there’s fewer openly gay people and therefore he feels more comfortable, in an America that feels like a great big church. That’s the same reason some Christians are opposed to atheists speaking out in public about their atheism. They want to be able to disparage atheists, other religions, and LGBTQ people without any consequences or opposition.

  • that1irishmate

    I find it kind of depressing that we STILL have to argue about this. Its sad, honestly.

    • IMO, it’s politics. Conservative politicians find this useful, and Christians are being led around by the nose.

  • hazel

    You should be ashamed of yourself. As a white straight person, you are beyond unqualified to compare homophobia to racism. STOP USING RACISM AS A RHETORICAL TOOL. I am a white nonbinary bisexual. Either all queer people (hint: that includes Black queers) get free, or none of us do.

    You are no ally of mine.

    • You’ve lost me. What mistake am I making?

      • MNb

        Your mistake was that you opened your mouth.

    • thatguy88

      Wrong. Homophobia and racism fall into the same category of discrimination. Both are based on internal prejudices. Don’t be absurd. Just because Bob identifies as straight doesn’t mean he’s not at liberty to hold and voice an opinion on the matter. It’s that kind of dissonance (let alone, cognitive cognitive dissonance) that distances people away from supporting and helping others. Also, we’re all aware that there are black people that are also gay or bi. This in no way upsets or undoes Bob position.

    • Dom Saunders

      You seem to have jumped far ahead and let your emotions do the talking. He is very much your ally and you need to find a seat so you can settle yourself and get your head out your ass long enough to realize that.

    • Hazel: Do you want to explain what you’re saying more fully? Or was that a drive-by?

  • potato king

    The argument for point two was just poorly done. You provided two not obviously connected pieces of evidence, expected us to find the farfetched connection, then explained only the one you provided. I literally did not understand what you were even trying to say. a MUCH more solid argument would have been showing how civil unions were not equal to marriages in the regard of how many rights they gave.this argument would be actually coherent and connected and could be easily backed with facts rather than opinions designed to attack the guy

    • Thanks for the feedback. I can try again, though I think it’s pretty clear. Frank’s argument was that things are fair. The same constraint applies to everyone. It doesn’t bother him that the “constraint” is no constraint to heterosexuals but is to homosexuals.

      Does Frank really think that that constraint is fair? OK, then, I wonder how he sees a constraint that is structurally the same but is now racially structured.