aeiou… What more needs to be said? You’ve stated your opinion and moved on. There’s nothing wrong with that.

CCC, show me where I’ve said a damned thing about the change in the name you used to post under. I have kept my comments strictly related to the piss-poor argument you’ve tried to put forth and rather than address the counter-points I’ve raised you’ve proceeded to avoid the issue by bitching about perceived insults to yourself both real and imaginary.

Do I consider my opinion superior to yours? Based on the reasons you’ve provided for your opinions I’d say absolutely and I have no problems with that. I’m arrogant for doing so? I can see where some might think so, but then I’ve never claimed that I wasn’t at least a little arrogant. You have to have a touch of arrogance and narcissim to put up a blog in the first place, let alone one that features your big ugly mug in the upper left hand corner. In addition to these two sins I’m also guilty of thinking myself above average in intelligence compared to my fellow Americans, I can sometimes be selfish, I’m often whiney, I am commonly sarcastic and given enough time I could probably come up with a few more aspects of my personality that could be considered negative.

What sets me apart from you is that I recognize these things about myself and I accept that they are a part of who I am whereas your only means of coping with your flaws seems to be to attack the flaws of others. Brandi’s bitter, Covie and I are narcisistic psuedo-intellectuals, etc. and so on.

OK, now tell us something we don’t already know. Or better yet, try addressing the counter-points we’ve raised to your rather stupid argument for your point of view.

Dammit, I want to be a narcisistic psuedo-intellectual. Now I know what I want to be when I grow up…

I’m always willing to contribute an “insider’s” opinion on this subject but seldom need to here. An encouraging number of readers and posters seem to get it when it comes to the subject of equal rights for same sex couples so that all I usually need to say is thanks for understanding.

But....

I still find myself torn over the concept of marriage for “my kind“. I realize it’s the word “marriage” itself that bothers people and have no problem calling it something else like a “civil union”, as long as all of the same rights are included. I think the reason we are seeing such a national backlash is because we’re calling it marriage and MARRIAGE has a whole host of images it can conjure up. For example, marriage lends acceptability and expectation that the joined couple will have sex. One saves one’s virginity for marriage! Can we really expect white bread or even wheat bread America to embrace the concept of same sex marriage when the concept includes explicit permission to mate sexually? Marriage is really about legally owning and being able to have use of the mate’s genitals for recreation, not about the reproductive ability or responsibility of the enjoined couple.

So even though marriage is supposed to be about legal unification and shared assets and responsibilities, in the doe-eyed view of most American parents and marriage wannabes it’s about the blessed sexual union. We’ve barely gotten past the idea that the missionary position is only one of many potential sexual techniques to engage in. How do we fit the image of butt sex into the blessed sex concept?

So let’s start calling it something antiseptic and vague like a “civil union”, “Risk” or “blind man’s bluff”, I don’t really care, as long as same gender couples get the basic rights every individual deserves.

Now excuse me while I go try and pretend I’m an equal citizen under the Constitution.

Oooh, Brock, I love it when you alliterate!

How do we fit the image of butt sex into the blessed sex concept

LOL!  Someone’s rollin over in their grave right now; I’m not sure who, but someone sure is!

OH, WAIT, WAIT

(I’ve got a better one!)

How do we fit the image of butt sex into the blessed sex concept?

Uhm.  Ask a priest?

Ok, that was low.

Everyone may have the right to pick the partner they choose but I don’t think it’s fair to their children that they adopt/surrigate/artificial insemnation to be raised by two parents of the same sex.  Gays shouldn’t have children.  How would you like to be raised that way?  I know that lots of kids have just one parent raising them in broken homes and you’ll say that two loving parents of the same sex is better than that but that messes with their minds.  Kids at school will make fun of them and that’s the least of their problems. It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Yep, I was wondering when the “Adam & Steve...” crap would pop up!
Strangley enough, there have been lots of happy families with 2 dads or 2 mums. How exactly does “it mess with their minds” ? Got any proof that shows kids raised by homosexual couples are in any way fucked up by their upbringing?

I watched a program about kids being raised by homosexuals and the kids spoke about their feelings and all of them said they feel very uncomfortable about how people perceive them and had to grow up defensive and take a lot of heat from kids at school and all of the stares.  I do not know how having homosexual parents influenced their sexuality.  I wouldn’t want two parents of the same sex, would you?  hehe, you didn’t particularly like hearing the Adam & Steve saying again?  Oh well.

Once again someone is justifying denying equal rights based on how society’s kids will treat other kids. Would it ever occur to you, “learning my vowels”, that the best way to deal with it is to teach children better than to make fun of someone they don’t understand, or are vowels the only things you’re learning?

I wonder if you even begin to see the irony in your stance. Children feel bad about homosexuality because they are taught to feel that way, and you’re saying the best way to be fair with them is to limit their perceptions.

How old are you anyway?

Thanks, Brock! You jumped in before I surfed back here!
I couldn’t have put it better myself. So I’ll just say “What he said!”
I won’t care if my mum met and fell in love with another woman, or my dad with another man. All that is important is that I would hope they love and cherish each other, exactly like any other relationship.
It wasn’t so much not liking the Adam & Steve comment, just boredom at hearing it again! Can we have something new and maybe funny?
So, how old are you “learning my vowels”?

I watched a program

(Ricki Lake as social scientist. . .)

LMV is right.  Kids with gay parents will be picked on at school.  Gay adoption should therefore be made illegal.

In accordance with this philosophy, children should also not be allowed

to be fat
to be smart
to wear non name-brand shoes
to have braces
to belong to an ethnic minority
to have a “non conforming” lunchbox
to remain seated during the pledge
to be unlike their peers in any way shape or form.

‘cause it’ll make ‘em uncomfortable, and children need to be sheltered

DO IT FOR TEH CHILDRUUN!

(on a side note, TMV, if you’re really worried about damage to children, social stigma, and the long term effects of same, you might want to look at the stats on how children who spend their entire lives in foster homes “turn out.” You could also look at stats on children raised in single-parent families, and draw some rather interesting comparisons.  If “saving” children from gay parents means the kids end up f(*ked up for life, you’re not really doing the best thing for them now, are you?)

Thanks nowiser and Tish, for being of those voices of reason I spoke of earlier. “learning my vowels” needs to decide whether s/he is against gay marriage based on psychological health considerations or on religious beliefs. While the psychological concern for adopted children is perfectly valid and needs to be considered in any adoption process, somehow I don’t think that’s really why s/he is against the concept; (e.g. the Adam and Steve worn out remark). 

Your point nowiser, about asking a priest, was even funnier to me because I had a discussion on another blog concerning this issue. Someone there said “What people do sexually is no one else’s’ business. Anyone obsessed with someone else’s sexual habits is the one who has the problem.”

My response was to agree in spirit by saying:
“What people do sexually should be no one else’s business, but try telling the Catholic priests that....wait, that doesn’t quite work. Er...well, try telling the ‘moral majority’ and the religious right that.”

Of course I think there are limits and expectations and the decision to have a legal relationship should be between two consenting adults, but right now the decision is between two consenting adults and Lady Liberty. I hope she’s still an idealist. 

I think same-sexed marriage should be allowed. Have yet to formulate a 10 myth of same-sex marriage type of argument. Perhaps if I had time to reformat this argument around. But anywho.

1) Vote: “Will of the people argument”
Opponents of the same-sex marriage state that both in polls and actual votes the majority of the population are against same-sex marriage. The response is that just because the majority supports a position does not mean that it can ignore the needs of the minority or discriminate against them.

a) Parallels with Interracial marriage:
In 1967, the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia struck down laws that banned interracial marriage stating “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.” Do the words of the Supreme Court no longer make sense just because we substitute the words “another race” for “same gender?” This decision and the earlier decision of Perez v Sharp (1948) came at a time where public opposition to interracial marriage was extremely high.

While the laws against interracial marriage were not enforced, they were not completely repeals until 2000. It was not until 1998 that South Carolina repealed their laws against interracial marriage and in 2000 Alabama. It should be noted that in South Carolina 38% of the votes were against the repeal and in Alabama 41%.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/ballots/interracial.marriage/index.html

b) “Activist Judges”:
So it seems that without the acts of these “activist judges” the ban against interracial marriage would have carried on until 2000. The fact is that often in civil rights cases it is these “activist judges” that are protecting the rights of the people especially those in the minority. If you think about it, these judges are not “activists” but merely people who are upholding the constitution.

c) Tyranny of the majority:
A society where majority rules and the rights and interests of the minority are not protected is not democracy in action but that of failure. What is more insidious than having laws that discriminate, teaching people to discriminate then turning around and saying that the majority supports such discrimination hence it is valid.

2) Social Collapse Argument:
It is claimed that if same-sex marriage is allowed, society will be split apart, culture will crumble and the moral fabric of the nation will be ripped asunder. If that claim was true then they would have made a very strong argument. But merely repeating a conclusion over and over again without proof or even an explanation as to how society will decay and collapse does not make one’s conclusion correct. Countries which have granted same-sex marriages have yet collapse.

a) Parallels with women’s rights and interracial marriage”
It would seem that the arguments against same-sex marriage are very similar to the arguments made against women’s rights and interracial marriage. One of the opponents against interracial marriage in Alabama stated that “Interracial marriage is bad for our Southern culture.” (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/)
It should be noted that some members of the House panel in Alabama reportedly balked at approving the interracial marriage bill until they were assured it would not open the door for homosexual marriages in the state. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/12/interracial.marriage/index.html)

Christian fundamentalist oppose and defeated the introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution as that would go against the ‘traditional family’ structure of obedience and submission which would result in the further decline of Western Society.

b) Bad influence on Children argument
The argument that same-sex marriage would be a detriment on children betrays a sense that the person still operates on the notion that homosexuality is a disease that can be spread. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sexed parents are not maladjusted nor do they automatically become a homosexual. In fact same-sexed parents adopts children with disability at a higher rate and giving them a loving home, which detracts from the idea that somehow or other same-sex couples or marriage will result in the collapse of society.

c) Fine with Homosexuality but against same sex marriage argument
There are more “moderate” people who claim that they have no objections against homosexuality but are against same sex marriage. One must question whether have these people thought out their position or do they harbour thoughts against homosexuality. After all, if homosexuality is not a crime and there is nothing wrong with it then what is wrong with same-sexed marriage?

d) Same sexed marriage today, polygamy and incest tomorrow argument
Unlike same-sexed marriage, polygamy or other forms of more extreme examples such as incest can be shown to be actually detrimental. For example children of people who are closely related have a high chance of deformity.

3) Civil Union v Marriage
Marriage is not simply a nice ceremony and bouquet throwing but brings with a bag of legal rights.

a) “What is in a name?”
Some opponents of same-sex marriage are willing to grant same-sex couples all the legal rights in a marriage but that it is to be considered as a civil union instead of a marriage. The Massachusetts court stated recently that “the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.” If asking certain racial groups to move to the back of the bus is discriminatory despite the fact that all are offered public transport why is this any different.

b) “Sacred and Special”
It has been argued that marriage is sacred and special and that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy that. Again, such statements offer conclusions and no reasoning other than repeating the conclusion over and over again. How does allowing same-sex couple marry affect one’s marriage? If something such as same-sex marriage of another person can destroy one’s own marriage then that couple is facing a whole lot of other problems.

4) Religious rights does not act as a trump
As much as one should protect one’s freedom to religion, that right does not trump all other rights. The preamble of the Human Rights Charter promotes among other things equality but makes no specific reference to religion, thus suggesting that the dignity of each individual human being and their rights are of paramount importance and should not be abrogated.

a) Parallels with apartheid, gender and slavery:
In the past when South Africa was under apartheid, their government tried to justify their position based on their religious belief. Religion has also been used to discriminate against women.

Also slavery has been justified through the use of religion but that does not mean that religious rights should take precedence.
Genesis 9:24-25 Noah awakens from drunkenness and curses Ham that Canaan shall be a “servant of servants”
Leviticus 25:44-46 God tell Moses that Hebrews should not sell their own brethren but should buy slaves “of the nations that are around you.”
Alabama Senator argued that those bitter about slavery “are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery” (Alabama House Candidate Quits After Slavery Defence, Washington Post, May 12, 1996)

The point is not whether such interpretation is ‘correct’ but rather the danger of promoting one set of religious belief over every single citizen.

Conclusion:
After all if there is same-sexed marriage, it does not mean that every one must be forced to enter into same-sex marriage. No rights of the individual are lost if same-sex marriage came into being yet on the contrary a lot of people are affected not just in a theoretical “sacred and special” way but in a real way if same-sex marriage is banned.

I am old enough to vote.  I will vote for what I believe is right and you may do the same.  Is that the reason you want to know my age?  If same sex marraiges become legalized in this nation then you can adopt your children since you can’t have them the God-given natural way and teach them all about how homosexuality is normal.  Sure, we’ll all get used to the new law because every living thing adapts.  Maybe this is what the future has in store for humankind??: