MSNBC’s Matthews on gay marriage: “At least Democrats believe in evolution”

posted at 12:41 pm on May 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Help me out here: can the Obama White House possibly boast of a more useful stooge than this guy? Of course, Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek. Upon closer examination, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case — I think the gentleman is in earnest.

Really? “Evolution” is just a handy-dandy term being used by President Obama’s messaging team, because it allows him to hold hard decisions on the issue at arm’s length while implying that gay-marriage advocates can readily hope for something better in the future — all without ever actually committing to anything. Matthews’ doesn’t seem to have been listening to what his own guest says earlier in the segment: there aren’t many who really believe that President Obama is personally undecided about gay marriage and that his hesitation is anything other than a practical political matter. It’s just another rhetorical tease from the Campaigner-in-Chief, but Matthews buys into the White House’s narrative perfectly. Oh, but you say that the president is open to new ideas and actively thinking about the issue? The joy! The rapture! What infallible conclusions will he come to next?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

People are not perfect and never will be. And I am much more interested in trying understand why divorce happens and figuring out ways to prevent it then I am in throwing my hands in the air and giving up on the institution as it is defined today.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

This issue goes beyond that. Gay marriage is not just a lifestyle choice, it is anti-social behavior that would destroy society as we know it for a vocal minority who can not make a compelling case for the destruction other than they are offended or something.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Have you ever had sex for fun or just to procreate??

Ever had sex before marriage?

Ever had a divorce?

Ever committed a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

A field of Strawmen …

Why did it take so long for you to admit that you are in favor of communal and polygamous marriage? Have you ever argued with anyone that polygamy needs to be legalized and communes recognized as marriages? Will you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Homosexuals are sinners. So are all the rest of us on this earth.

Opposition to gay “marriage” has absolutely nothing to do with how “worthy” gay people are. It has to do with the fact that gay marriage supporters (yourself included) plan on using government sanction to bludgeon Christians (and other religions) into granting the appearance of acceptance. This will be done through lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment. I don’t have to extrapolate because it is already happening in those countries where the homosexual lobby has achieved legislative power (for example, Canada.)

Your position is not a “live and let live” position. It is a “force those stupid bible-thumpers to act the way I want them to act!”

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I don’t believe in forcing ministers to marry gay couples or forcing adopting agencies to give kids to gay couples. While I think in both cases they should do so, I’m against using gov’t force or lawsuits.

My argument is that gay marriage should be legal on the basis is that individuals should do as they please and it really doesn’t affect you unless you think your version of morality should be forced down everyones throats.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Hey Chris…

… That stuff Obowma keeps feeding you isn’t tapioca pudding.

Just sayin’…

Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

A field of Strawmen …

Why did it take so long for you to admit that you are in favor of communal and polygamous marriage? Have you ever argued with anyone that polygamy needs to be legalized and communes recognized as marriages? Will you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Why did it take me so long? Look it’s the Hotair police? How much time do I have to respond to you? Sorry if watching my daughter got in the way of responding to you!!

Have you done any of those things?? Or do you live stricly by the Bible everyday and never sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

This issue goes beyond that. Gay marriage is not just a lifestyle choice, it is anti-social behavior that would destroy society as we know it for a vocal minority who can not make a compelling case for the destruction other than they are offended or something.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

How would it destroy society?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM

How do you go about finding out what causes divorce? And then how do you prevent it?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You label anyone who gets a divorce a homosexual and summarily execute them to send a message in order to prevent it. I am a bigot after all, so that should fit in nicely with your skewed view of myself and others.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

My argument is that gay marriage should be legal on the basis is that individuals should do as they please and it really doesn’t affect you unless you think your version of morality should be forced down everyones throats.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Except that’s completely disingenuous.

I note you say nothing about the baker or the photographer who have already been sued by homosexuals for not treating them how they want to be treated.

Do you also oppose that litigation? Or you believe that individuals should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs just for the “privelage” of earning a living?

AND, even if you are “opposed” to such effects (I very much doubt you are), do you live in the real world where these are very clearly the goal of the homosexual lobby?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Gay people can get married in every single state. They can exchange vows at a Unitarian/Episcopal/whatever church if they wish. They can open up a gift registry at Target. Order wedding cake, have a dance, co-habitate, create contracts, blah blah blah.

What gay people don’t get in every state is state recognition of their relationship. Marriage as most people think of it is defined by the relationship and it’s place in the community and/or church. Government got involved to make it easier to tax people and to regulate things like custody and property after the dissolution of the union or death of one of the members. Gay love is not illegal. But in most states some legal/entitlement perks are not available to gay people (where marriage is viewed as being the fundamental organization of society which is likely to produce and raise the next generation of citizens). I also don’t get to collect social security or use Medicare unless I qualify.

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

How would it destroy society?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I’m not sure exactly how, but it probably has something to do with throwing away all standards of personal behavior.

Go back and look at Rome, and pretty much all the great societies. Once limits on personal behavior were reduced (or eliminated), society inevitably crumbled.

But it’s probably just a bunch of crazy coincidences, right?

Squiggy on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

My argument is that gay marriage should be legal on the basis is that individuals should do as they please and it really doesn’t affect you unless you think your version of morality should be forced down everyones throats.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Gay unions should be legal. I’m not in favor of changing the definition of marriage, though, unless I also get to change the definition of “lesbian” to include heterosexual men. If the lesbian community can agree to that, then I’ll go for changing the definition of “marriage”, too.

The Rogue Tomato on May 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

What in hell happened to this guy? Seriously. How does someone go from Right to Left? It’s usually the other way around, as you age and become wiser. But to start thinking like a child again? At his age? I don’t get it.

RobertMN on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Why did it take me so long?

I love when you pretend you don’t understand something. “Long” wasn’t in reference to the last time I asked you. It’s a comment on HOW MANY TIMES I had to ask you before it spilled out. It was like pulling teeth. I assume you understand what that expression means.

I think you know that the minute you tell someone that you’re in favor of polygamy and communal marriages you’ll be laughed right out of the room and they’ll never get to hear your rants on gay pretend marriage.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Gay-marriage advocates simply need to find another term for the arrangement. (Why would you want to be associated with an institution with a 50% failure rate, anyway?)

skydaddy on May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Ah! skydaddy! Good to see you. Finally someone with whom a reasonable debate could likely be had without a bunch of ad hominems and silly ‘gotcha’ attacks!

As I know from prior experience, you are a learned man of history, thank you for debunking the oft spouted myth that no society has ever recognized homosexuality as normality (even if they did not endorse marriage on that basis).

I blocked off specifically the quote you noted above for one primary reason. That is to get your take on the issue I have with the “find another word” argument. I once held the same belief in terms of civil unions vs marriage, but then as I thought more about it I ran into a problem with the idea. I see it as a “separate but equal” problem (which we know from the civil rights movement is an idea that really doesnt work and SCOTUS reversed itself eventually to say is unconstitutional). If you call it something different, then it would be easy enough for the government to treat it differently. Laws could easily be written to say that civil unions can a set of benefits “X” while marriage gains a set of benefits “Y”, which then makes it unequal. In short, as long as they are called something different, they can at some point be defined differently, making them unequal. To follow on to that, even if a government never defines them differently, in the interest of keeping them equal all legislation would have to address it as “civil unions/marriage”. If the government never separates those two words in order to treat the terms equally, always addressing the institution as “civil unions/marriage”, then there seems little point to making any distinction at all in the first place.

Let me just add, that I am not in favor of forcing churches to recognize gay marriages. I think it should be up to each religion to determine if they wish to recognize it or not.

In light of those points, my solution would be to have the government only recognize civil unions (based on contract law, which means only between consenting adults, so as to avoid the children/animal/inanimate objects problem) rather than endorsing marriages. In return, the word marriage should be reserved for unions sanctified by religious organizations. Making the distinction at that level should allow for religious organizations to avoid any legal fallout for choosing not to sancitify a gay union, since in the eyes of the law there is no such thing as a “marriage”, only a legal civil union.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM

My argument is that gay marriage should be legal on the basis is that individuals should do as they please and it really doesn’t affect you unless you think your version of morality should be forced down everyones throats.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

No one’s morality is being forced on anyone – except to the extent that all laws have a moral basis. It’s not illegal for gay people to have a relationship. They are free to call it a marriage. They are free to go through all the cultural/social customs with family and friends, build a life together etc. No one is going to stop them. But they don’t get a piece of paper from the state giving them certain tax benefits and making certain legal structures automatically available to them (which are available via private contracts). If gay people want to add a level of legal formality to their relationship they are free to create a contract with each other.

Lets stop pretending gay people can’t get “married”. They don’t get state recognition of the fact in most states which is something else entirely.

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Except that’s completely disingenuous.

I note you say nothing about the baker or the photographer who have already been sued by homosexuals for not treating them how they want to be treated.

Do you also oppose that litigation? Or you believe that individuals should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs just for the “privelage” of earning a living?

AND, even if you are “opposed” to such effects (I very much doubt you are), do you live in the real world where these are very clearly the goal of the homosexual lobby?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Since you can’t read, I have to repeat myself. I’ve already said this once in this same thread:

I’m not for gov’t imposing it’s will or for lawsuits. Just like I don’t think it’s right for gov’t to require businesses to serve blacks for example. If a restaurant doesn’t want to serve a certain race, that’s their choice. The free market would sort itself out and many people wouldn’t go to the racist restaurant.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

In light of those points, my solution would be to have the government only recognize civil unions (based on contract law, which means only between consenting adults, so as to avoid the children/animal/inanimate objects problem) rather than endorsing marriages. In return, the word marriage should be reserved for unions sanctified by religious organizations. Making the distinction at that level should allow for religious organizations to avoid any legal fallout for choosing not to sancitify a gay union, since in the eyes of the law there is no such thing as a “marriage”, only a legal civil union.

gravityman

Thats about exactly what I proposed above too. Gets gov out of the marriage business, and social cons do not have to worry about .gov giving its blessing to something they disagree with.

And churches can give a nice shiny certificate to its whoever its members who enter into such a union, giving it a religious endorsement of marriage.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Is Obama “evolving” on abortion, too”

Pro-Choice White House Requires Registration of Unborn Children for Tours

http://freebeacon.com/no-birth-certificate-required/

Huh?

Resist We Much on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I love when you pretend you don’t understand something. “Long” wasn’t in reference to the last time I asked you. It’s a comment on HOW MANY TIMES I had to ask you before it spilled out. It was like pulling teeth. I assume you understand what that expression means.

I think you know that the minute you tell someone that you’re in favor of polygamy and communal marriages you’ll be laughed right out of the room and they’ll never get to hear your rants on gay pretend marriage.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

You mean like how I had to ask you 20 times if you were for gay adoption?

Hypocrite.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

In light of those points, my solution would be to have the government only recognize civil unions (based on contract law, which means only between consenting adults, so as to avoid the children/animal/inanimate objects problem) rather than endorsing marriages. In return, the word marriage should be reserved for unions sanctified by religious organizations. Making the distinction at that level should allow for religious organizations to avoid any legal fallout for choosing not to sancitify a gay union, since in the eyes of the law there is no such thing as a “marriage”, only a legal civil union.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Except religious organizations will still get sued if they run adoption agencies since one of their deeply held beliefs is that children can only be properly raised in a one mother, one father model.

At some point the pro-gay marriage folks will have to quit with their strawmen, ridiculous characterizations, and holier-than-thou-bigots moralizing. A gay relationship is unequal to a straight one as a basic biological fact. Just like it isn’t fair that humans can’t fly, it isn’t fair that all other things being equal, the healthiest and most productive relationships are between one man and one woman, specifically for raising children but also in a general visceral biological sense.

Let’s quit beating around the bush here. Seperate but unequal is completely valid. It’s up to the pro-gay marriage folks to make the case homosexual relationships are remotely equal in the parameters that matter here. If marriage is not fundamentally bound by the gender of its participants, why call it marriage at all?

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Have you ever had sex for fun or just to procreate??

Ever had sex before marriage?

Ever had a divorce?

Ever committed a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

A field of Strawmen …

Why did it take so long for you to admit that you are in favor of communal and polygamous marriage? Have you ever argued with anyone that polygamy needs to be legalized and communes recognized as marriages? Will you?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Those are no more of a strawman than those who claim “If we let gays marry, why not marriage between a man and animal, polygamy, etc etc.”

JetBoy on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’m not sure exactly how, but it probably has something to do with throwing away all standards of personal behavior.

Go back and look at Rome, and pretty much all the great societies. Once limits on personal behavior were reduced (or eliminated), society inevitably crumbled.

But it’s probably just a bunch of crazy coincidences, right?

Squiggy on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Standards of behavior. Well back in the 50′s and before blacks were 2nd class citizens.

Now divorce rates are through the roof. Maybe there should be a law that you can’t get married again after 2 divorces?

You know for the good of society.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Should be fun watching Obama attack Romney for being the etch-a-sketch candidate while Obama’s furiously shaking the heck out of his own views on gay marriage.

RightOFLeft on May 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I don’t think you know what “hypocrite” means. I don’t hide my views on adoption by gays, but that requires a bit more of a response than the simple “yes” in answer to supporting communal marriage and polygamy and when I had felt like writing it out, I did.

Again, you are comparing my “yes/no” question to you (which you finally answered with ‘yes’) to one you posed to me that required at least a couple of paragraphs of explanation that I really didn’t feel like typing … like this, which I’m tired of.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Huh?

Resist We Much on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Trying to pad the numbers. They should just estimate the number of eggs any one female is carrying and base their visitation numbers on that.

“Obama most popular president ever! 11ty billion visit White House just last year!”

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Those are no more of a strawman than those who claim “If we let gays marry, why not marriage between a man and animal, polygamy, etc etc.”

JetBoy on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Why is polygamy a straw man? On what rational basis can you argue for state-recognized gay marriage but deny state recognized polygamy?

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Those are no more of a strawman than those who claim “If we let gays marry, why not marriage between a man and animal, polygamy, etc etc.”

JetBoy on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I think those would be better described as “slippery slope” arguments.

forest on May 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Since you can’t read, I have to repeat myself. I’ve already said this once in this same thread:

I’m not for gov’t imposing it’s will or for lawsuits. Just like I don’t think it’s right for gov’t to require businesses to serve blacks for example. If a restaurant doesn’t want to serve a certain race, that’s their choice. The free market would sort itself out and many people wouldn’t go to the racist restaurant.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Since you can’t read, allow me to quote the relevant portion that you (purposely) ignored:

Do you also oppose that litigation? Or you believe that individuals should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs just for the “privelage” of earning a living?

AND, even if you are “opposed” to such effects (I very much doubt you are), do you live in the real world where these are very clearly the goal of the homosexual lobby?makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I both bolded and italicized the pertenant part of the quote, just in case you didn’t quite get it.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I highlighted that because however much you claim to be “opposed” to the use of government force on anyone, that will very cleary be the result of government recognition of homosexual “marriage”.

Thus, your revealed preference is to use government force against Christians (and other religions) that are opposed to gay marriage.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Watch out its The Gays they are coming to destroy our society! Run for the hill all true believers and purge yourselves of the unclean.

People who think this way are an eternal source of equal parts entertainment and astonishment. Crack open a book that isn’t written by uneducated goat hurders and go outside on occasion, the world really is a nice place.

wrath187 on May 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM

“…at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek”

Well, Chris had something of Obama’s in his cheek, alright. But it wasn’t just his tongue…

CoolCzech on May 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I’m not sure exactly how, but it probably has something to do with throwing away all standards of personal behavior.

Go back and look at Rome, and pretty much all the great societies. Once limits on personal behavior were reduced (or eliminated), society inevitably crumbled.

But it’s probably just a bunch of crazy coincidences, right?

Squiggy on May 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You mean the same Roman Empire that recognized and even institutionalized Christianity in the 4th Century?

Also, people didn’t have the same level of freedom back then that Americans have now. They weren’t as advanced in medical technology and disease control. You’d be hard pressed to find any kind of human-rights pact prior to the Magna Carta.

Americans are entitled to individual freedom, individual liberty and equal protection under the law. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you have to fully accept every radical facet of the so-called “gay agenda” as well. Let the same-sex couples get every marriage benefit of hetero married couples, let them call it “marriage” if their home state allows it, and we can still enforce laws against public lewd behavior (you know, the rectal-coitus-in-the-streets that some are afraid that acceptance of gay rights will lead to).

TMOverbeck on May 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

it really doesn’t affect you unless you think your version of morality should be forced down everyones throats.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

When society accepts immoral behavior as “right” it becomes difficult to teach one’s children that it is wrong. And ultimately, that is what this is really about – pulling yet another brick out from under the moral foundation of the next generation.

firegnome on May 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I don’t think you know what “hypocrite” means. I don’t hide my views on adoption by gays, but that requires a bit more of a response than the simple “yes” in answer to supporting communal marriage and polygamy and when I had felt like writing it out, I did.

Again, you are comparing my “yes/no” question to you (which you finally answered with ‘yes’) to one you posed to me that required at least a couple of paragraphs of explanation that I really didn’t feel like typing … like this, which I’m tired of.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

You’re leaving?? Don’t forget to take your Bible with you!!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM

you know either people are trying to pass amendments to their state constitutions because they desperately believe in the definition of a word, or they simply believe that their religious beliefs must be codified into law.
Lots of words change over time, should we make sure that Webster’s dictionary becomes a force of law and that anything that deviates from the chosen definitions are wrong? What if there was a dictionary that said marriage was a contract in which a man sold his daughter to another man in exchange for favors or money? You know the traditional definition of marriage. Should we then go back to that since that is the traditional DEFINITION? Or can we move past the concept that since we created the word we have the power and right to change and shape it if we find a better definition then what we had.
marriage is not magical or religious, religions have co-opted marriage as a way of controlling their followers and maintaining their flocks. Since no religion was at the start you cannot say that any of your gods created it since none of your religions are even that old.

These arguments are, as usual, little more then slander and dark bigotry. I’m going to marry my boyfriend and fight for equal rights regardless of what you say, and I know that I’ll win. Truth always wins, and I know that my marriage and relationship are every bit the equal to my peers.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM

You’d be hard pressed to find any kind of human-rights pact prior to the Magna Carta.

The Torah predated the Magna Carta by a few years.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM

When society accepts immoral behavior as “right” it becomes difficult to teach one’s children that it is wrong. And ultimately, that is what this is really about – pulling yet another brick out from under the moral foundation of the next generation.

firegnome on May 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Who are you to say homosexuality is immoral?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Evolving into Sodom and Gomorrah… So what is he bragging about?

SGinNC on May 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

@ThePrimordialOrderedPair the torah promotes human slavery and child brides.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Zeke,

I thought liberals like you always thought marriage was “just a piece of paper” and a “bourgoise institution” that is out of date.

I just find it so amusing that the ONLY sort of marriage Liberals find important is so-called gay “marriage.”

CoolCzech on May 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

How much clearer can I make it? I’m not for any lawsuits or forcing anyone to do anything against their free will!

If you accept that homosexuality is genetic, then they kind of do have a point though with their lawsuits. It’d be like a black person suing a restaurant that didn’t serve him b/c he’s black.

Again I don’t believe in suing for that, but you understand why they’re suing.

Repeat after me, gay marriage will not affect my life in anyway.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM

SOMEONE is being slanderous and bigoted, but it is clearly not those opposed to gay marriage. I will allow someone far more eloquent than myself to explain:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

-G.K. Chesterton

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

@ThePrimordialOrderedPair the torah promotes human slavery and child brides.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Slaves in the Torah are not the slaves you are thinking of. And, so what?
The Magna Carta singles out Jews for rules on debts and I believe that slaves were around at that time it was written (real slaves, not the sort described in the torah). Does that make the Magna Carta any less significant or important? No.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

How much clearer can I make it? I’m not for any lawsuits or forcing anyone to do anything against their free will!

If you accept that homosexuality is genetic, then they kind of do have a point though with their lawsuits. It’d be like a black person suing a restaurant that didn’t serve him b/c he’s black.

Again I don’t believe in suing for that, but you understand why they’re suing.

Repeat after me, gay marriage will not affect my life in anyway.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

And now you are lying. I have asked you numerous times to answer this question, even after I answer all of yours and every time you ignore it:

do you live in the real world where these (lawsuits/laws/fines) are very clearly the goal of the homosexual lobby?

It’s great that you are “opposed” to them. Do you recognize that they are the necessary (and intended) result of your allies in this fight?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

While we all discuss this issue, the Obamites are laughing. Another successful misdirection. These guys are real magicians.

jan3 on May 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Oh and I have to respond to the other stupid cliche: “Gay marriage won’t affect your life(marriage) in any way!!!”

Of course my marriage is not affected by homosexual marriage. What a stupid idea. My marriage is also not affected by bank robberies or abortion or raids on Gibson guitars, either, but I’m opposed to all of those as well. Does something have to affect me personally before I can have a preference?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Except religious organizations will still get sued if they run adoption agencies since one of their deeply held beliefs is that children can only be properly raised in a one mother, one father model.

Actually, I offer a simple proposal under which they would not. Or perhaps more accurately, any judge could and should throw the case out. If a particular adoption agency is religiously organized, it is more than welcome to establish it’s guidelines as being for “married” couples, which would mean only church sanctified marriages.

I did not say I was in agreement with all of the lawsuits against adoption agencies, bakers, photographers, or whoever else who hold religious beliefs against the practice. They should not be litigated against, and any judge should throw the case out on it’s ear as frivilous. As with any business, if a person does not like the practices of a particular business, they are free to not engage in commerce with that business.

At some point the pro-gay marriage folks will have to quit with their strawmen, ridiculous characterizations, and holier-than-thou-bigots moralizing. A gay relationship is unequal to a straight one as a basic biological fact. Just like it isn’t fair that humans can’t fly, it isn’t fair that all other things being equal, the healthiest and most productive relationships are between one man and one woman, specifically for raising children but also in a general visceral biological sense.

This is why I asked skydaddy specifically. Despite our wide differences with each other on religious matters, I know he can actually have an adult debate with someone of an opposing view. You’ll note that I called no one a “holier-than-thou-bigot”, and I don’t appreciate being accused of such, even in a round-about manner.

Let’s quit beating around the bush here. Seperate but unequal is completely valid. It’s up to the pro-gay marriage folks to make the case homosexual relationships are remotely equal in the parameters that matter here. If marriage is not fundamentally bound by the gender of its participants, why call it marriage at all?

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Separate but unequal is valid? I can’t even begin to address that. You may as well argue for the return of racism and slavery. Afterall, who gets to determine which humans are equal and which are unequal? I suppose it’s all well and good until someone decides that for whatever reason… maybe because you have brown hair or blonde hair… that you are the one who is “unequal”.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

SG cuts to the chase:

Evolving into Sodom and Gomorrah… So what is he bragging about?

Those evolution believing dems may want to take a few minutes to check this story out – and how it ends.

sdbatboy on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Repeat after me, gay marriage will not affect my life in anyway.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Unless you are a photographer. A relationship counselor. Or a church.

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

And now you are lying. I have asked you numerous times to answer this question, even after I answer all of yours and every time you ignore it:

do you live in the real world where these (lawsuits/laws/fines) are very clearly the goal of the homosexual lobby?

It’s great that you are “opposed” to them. Do you recognize that they are the necessary (and intended) result of your allies in this fight?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The main reason those lawsuits occur is from you and your allies opposing gay marriage on moral grounds. You think of homosexuals and inferior. That they shouldn’t be rewarded for their bad moral behavior. If you simply allowed gays to get married instead of opposing it just b/c you don’t like it, we wouldn’t have any lawsuits now would we?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Oh and I have to respond to the other stupid cliche: “Gay marriage won’t affect your life(marriage) in any way!!!”

Of course my marriage is not affected by homosexual marriage. What a stupid idea. My marriage is also not affected by bank robberies or abortion or raids on Gibson guitars, either, but I’m opposed to all of those as well. Does something have to affect me personally before I can have a preference?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

You’re hurting the conservative cause by equating gay marriage to legitimate crimes.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The main reason those lawsuits occur is from you and your allies opposing gay marriage on moral grounds. You think of homosexuals and inferior. That they shouldn’t be rewarded for their bad moral behavior. If you simply allowed gays to get married instead of opposing it just b/c you don’t like it, we wouldn’t have any lawsuits now would we?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

In other words, if I’d just change my religious beliefs, I wouldn’t get sued. Here I thought there was something in the First Amendment about that…

I also note you are still avoiding the question, even though you are in a round-about way conceding my point.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You’re hurting the conservative cause by equating gay marriage to legitimate crimes.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I’m also opposed to Obama funding Solyndra and that has no effect on my marriage, either.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Now divorce rates are through the roof. Maybe there should be a law that you can’t get married again after 2 divorces?

You know for the good of society.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Bummer for Newt and Calista.

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Actually, I offer a simple proposal under which they would not. Or perhaps more accurately, any judge could and should throw the case out. If a particular adoption agency is religiously organized, it is more than welcome to establish it’s guidelines as being for “married” couples, which would mean only church sanctified marriages.

I did not say I was in agreement with all of the lawsuits against adoption agencies, bakers, photographers, or whoever else who hold religious beliefs against the practice. They should not be litigated against, and any judge should throw the case out on it’s ear as frivilous. As with any business, if a person does not like the practices of a particular business, they are free to not engage in commerce with that business.

That’s really great that you feel that way. You can argue what you want to have happen just like the gun control fanactics can argue what they want to have happen.

The problem with both arguments is that they are not based in reality. The reality is those lawsuits will be the necessary result of homosexual “marriage” and are the intended consequence of most gay “marriage” supporters.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Matthews is proof-positive that the theory of Evolution is true; each time that Matthews speaks about obama, he evolves from a 66 year old man into a sixteen year old school girl with Mandingo fantasies.

Pork-Chop on May 8, 2012 at 4:02 PM

@CoolCzech who says I’m a liberal? marriage for gays is the conservative argument

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The main reason those lawsuits occur is from you and your allies opposing gay marriage on moral grounds. You think of homosexuals and inferior. That they shouldn’t be rewarded for their bad moral behavior. If you simply allowed gays to get married instead of opposing it just b/c you don’t like it, we wouldn’t have any lawsuits now would we?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Now you’re being naive. Look at Canada and Great Britain for examples of the pro-gay marriage lobby not stopping until they criminalized having and voicing an opinion contrary to theirs.

The pro-gay marriage lobby caused the Catholic church to shut down adoption services in MA. The pro-gay marriage lobby would rather see fewer kids adopted than allow someone with an opposing opinion in the public square. If – as you seem to be claiming – they are so emotionally immature that they are taking this stance simply to spite those opposing them why will suddenly get mature enough to just move on when they get just one part of what they are lobbying for?

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Good, let the democrat party be the same sex “marriage” party, and let the GOP be the traditional marriage/family values party.

They’ll get no net new votes, and we’ll be able to split off large chunks of black and hispanic voters from them.

Sounds like a win to me.

Or how about we let the GOP be about small government and fiscal conservatism, and not some social values party.

So you think you don’t need the votes of people who care about social values?

There aren’t enough people who only care about small government and fiscal conservatism to win elections.

There are, however, a bunch of people on the opposite side of those social values trying to use the government to reshape society. It just so happens those same people love to spend money on social programs. There goes your small government and fiscal conservatism.

This does nothing to help the country economically, or getting our financial house in order. It does nothing to reverse the creep of ever increasing government in our lives. Spending time on this does nothing to reduce the debt, or reduce taxation.

You seem to believe the “social conservatives” are the activists demanding government intervention. That is exactly backwards. It is the progressives who are driving this issue constantly. You should be addressing this heartfelt initiative to them, and asking them how same-sex marriage will get our financial house in order or reduce the debt or reduce taxation. Instead, you’re just demanding that all social conservatives shut up and give in to the progressives so you can focus on fiscal conservatism.

I would rather the GOP be known for pragmatism, good ideals for the future and about being a party that wants to get back to being a party about individual freedom like it used to be. Not a party that is looking for any way to get government in our lives

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

If you’re wanting less government intervention, talk to the progressives.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

@makattak human kind has redesigned marriage countless times. nor is saying that if we do not keep the current version then the primordial forces of the universe will rain down destruction. Saying your invisible good will be unhappy didn’t stop us from getting away from women as property, child brides and arranged marriages, or even polygamy. Now I know you’re really tied to the “traditional idea” of marriage but it’s really only about 90 to 100 years old and was invented in the West.

Saying that love should be the central core of a marriage gave us the world we have today, involving gays will just keep them from marrying your sister or daughter and then dumping them for a man later in life.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM

In other words, if I’d just change my religious beliefs, I wouldn’t get sued. Here I thought there was something in the First Amendment about that…

I also note you are still avoiding the question, even though you are in a round-about way conceding my point.

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

How about to each their own?

Gays can get married. They will need to find a minister or preacher who wants to marry them and is not forced to do so.

This way no one is forced to do anything they don’t want to do except that your definition of marriage is compromised.

Get over it.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I respect the way our gov’t is supposed to work. Even though I’m for gay marriage, if the voters of the state vote against it then that’s the way it is. I’m against some activist judge in CA going against the votes of the people.

LevinFan

I will have to disagree with you here. Judges are not supposed to at all consider the votes of the people. They are only supposed to look at the constitutionality of an issue.

To disregard constitutionality in favor of referendum vote, would be activist. There could be a referendum to take away rights from people, and it would be unconstitutional.

A finger in the wind approach to laws, is not at all what we need, regardless of how many people feel a certain way on an issue.

Besides, look at in the 1970s when California almost had a referendum to be able to fire anyone from the school systems who was gay, or who supported gay rights. It narrowly failed, and one of the biggest voices against it, was none other than Ronald Reagan.

That part there, tends to rile up both social libs and social cons.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM

If you say you believe in evolution, then you might not be getting the whole science thingy.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The pro-gay marriage lobby caused the Catholic church to shut down adoption services in MA. The pro-gay marriage lobby would rather see fewer kids adopted than allow someone with an opposing opinion in the public square. If – as you seem to be claiming – they are so emotionally immature that they are taking this stance simply to spite those opposing them why will suddenly get mature enough to just move on when they get just one part of what they are lobbying for?

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

That’s terrible and the Catholic Church shouldn’t be forced to do gay adoptions.

However there are many Bible thumpers who’d rather see fewer kids adopted then go to gay parents.

It goes both ways.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Gay people can already get married in every state. They just don’t get official state recognition for it as a “marriage”.

It doesn’t get any more “small government” than that.

gwelf on May 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

@tom you say that progressives are driving this but DOMA was the catalyst that started all of this when the federal government was used to over ride a traditional State prerogative. Who therefore involved the government into people’s lives? Just as the repeal of DADT was a relaxation of a government policy the over ride of DOMA will return rights to the citizens that were unfairly stolen by people blatantly lying and fear mongering.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

The main reason those lawsuits occur is from you and your allies opposing gay marriage on moral grounds. You think of homosexuals and inferior. That they shouldn’t be rewarded for their bad moral behavior. If you simply allowed gays to get married instead of opposing it just b/c you don’t like it, we wouldn’t have any lawsuits now would we?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

This is unbelievably stupid.

The lawsuits occur because the litigants want them to, and will accept no placation. This already happened in Massachusetts and Illinois. In Massachusetts the Catholic Adoption Services even offered to refer them to an adoption service that would allow them to apply. Not good enough. There are only two options with the Gaystapo: submit totally or be punished.

Nobody thinks homosexuals are inferior as people. We think engaging in the specific relevant behavior is inferior. Chain smoking is an inferior behavior, it doesn’t make chain smokers inferior. Binge drinking is an inferior behavior, it doesn’t make binge drinkers inferior. Gossiping behind your friend’s back is inferior, it doesn’t make gossippers inferior. All of those activities are ostensibly legal.

If you cannot grasp the difference between individuals and behaviors, and more important in this case, the difference between individuals and a specific relational arrangement (marriage) then discussing the matter with you further is a waste of time for both of us.

Even if you were right and I thought homosexuals were dirt-encrusted hellspawn, it wouldn’t change the efficacy of either my argument or yours. It would be easier for you to brag, but I won’t offer you that solace.

Separate but unequal is valid? I can’t even begin to address that. You may as well argue for the return of racism and slavery. Afterall, who gets to determine which humans are equal and which are unequal? I suppose it’s all well and good until someone decides that for whatever reason… maybe because you have brown hair or blonde hair… that you are the one who is “unequal”.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Again you miss the point as LevinFan above does, that we are not discussing individual people, we are discussion the paramaters of a societal institution with a finite definition, one in which currently both gender and number are fundamental factors.

Blunty stated, the heterosexual relationship writ large has an empirically discernable and justifiable function (bearing and raising future well-adjusted taxpayers) a civilized society would find desirable and would thus endorse, support, and encourage.

The homosexual relationship lacks that empirically discernable and justifiable function, and thus is objectively inferior for the societal purpose of the institution.

Which means since the relationships are unequal, two courses of action present themselves: 1) keep the institution as it exists and perfect the parameters it is intended to justify, or 2) destroy the institution because the function it serves is actually unnecessary to society.

There is no legitimate option 3), which would be keep the institution, but deprive it of all effective meaning by deforming its standard into incoherence.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I will have to disagree with you here. Judges are not supposed to at all consider the votes of the people. They are only supposed to look at the constitutionality of an issue.

To disregard constitutionality in favor of referendum vote, would be activist. There could be a referendum to take away rights from people, and it would be unconstitutional.

A finger in the wind approach to laws, is not at all what we need, regardless of how many people feel a certain way on an issue.

Besides, look at in the 1970s when California almost had a referendum to be able to fire anyone from the school systems who was gay, or who supported gay rights. It narrowly failed, and one of the biggest voices against it, was none other than Ronald Reagan.

That part there, tends to rile up both social libs and social cons.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You make several good points.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Blunty stated, the heterosexual relationship writ large has an empirically discernable and justifiable function (bearing and raising future well-adjusted taxpayers) a civilized society would find desirable and would thus endorse, support, and encourage.

The homosexual relationship lacks that empirically discernable and justifiable function, and thus is objectively inferior for the societal purpose of the institution.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM

By your logic, only straight couples that pledge to have kids should be allowed to get married. If they don’t have kids, the marriage contract should be null and void.

The marriage needs to have valid societal purpose right?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

@Blkennedy you contradict yourself,

“Blunty stated, the heterosexual relationship writ large has an empirically discernable and justifiable function (bearing and raising future well-adjusted taxpayers) a civilized society would find desirable and would thus endorse, support, and encourage.

The homosexual relationship lacks that empirically discernable and justifiable function, and thus is objectively inferior for the societal purpose of the institution.”

after all if it is marriage that helps stabilize and civilize a culture as well as produce more stable platforms for rearing children, then you should be promoting it for gays rather then encouraging them to have less stable relationships.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Separate but unequal is valid? I can’t even begin to address that.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

“Separate but equal” is a phrase from lawsuits about racial segregation between people. The implied moral principle is that skin color does not make people different.

Things which are actually different things are supposed to be separate. That’s what the word “discrimination” means and it is part of rationality and intelligence. A tuna and a tuba are different things, “separate” and “unequal” and there is no reason why we are obligated to treat them as the same.

Two dudes sodomizing each other, and a marriage, are two distinct and different things. There is no moral argument for why we must pretend that they are the same. That would be an offense against truth and God-given reason.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM

then you should be promoting it for gays rather then encouraging them to have less stable relationships.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I would encourage gays to “sin no more” and get married. Married, as in, to someone of the opposite sex. To start a family.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM

My marriage is also not affected by bank robberies or abortion or raids on Gibson guitars, either, but I’m opposed to all of those as well. Does something have to affect me personally before I can have a preference?

makattak on May 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Two of your three examples hurt the economy, which does affect your marriage. Financial distress is the number one strain on marriages.

It’s probably true that abortion doesn’t affect your marriage, although it might affect you and your spouse just to have the option of terminating a pregnancy. But I think you would argue that abortion harms innocent children, wouldn’t you? The point isn’t just that gay marriage doesn’t affect your marriage, it’s that gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone except its participants. And not only is gay marriage harmless, it would significantly improve the lives of millions of gay couples. How many government policy changes can say that?

The whole point of living in a free country is to let each other do what we want as long as it doesn’t needlessly do harm to anybody; i.e. to let people decide for themselves the best way to live happy, prosperous lives.

RightOFLeft on May 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM

@joe_doufu how do you feel about mixed gender sodomy? does that destroy a marriage too?

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM

If you say you believe in evolution, then you might not be getting the whole science thingy.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Oh no, don’t bring that up. A gay marriage/evolution thread on Hotair might break the internet. :)

RightOFLeft on May 8, 2012 at 4:35 PM

By your logic, only straight couples that pledge to have kids should be allowed to get married. If they don’t have kids, the marriage contract should be null and void.

The marriage needs to have valid societal purpose right?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

That would fall under option 1) as perfecting the parameters. Abolishing no-fault divorce would be a good start, and I’m more than willing to move hospital and prison visitation rights, as well as inheritance matters to individual rights since they belong there. Otherwise if they want more stringent requirements for fertility or withhold full benefits until after the first child that would be entirely reasonable under my logic, yes.

@Bkennedy you contradict yourself,

after all if it is marriage that helps stabilize and civilize a culture as well as produce more stable platforms for rearing children, then you should be promoting it for gays rather then encouraging them to have less stable relationships.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM

As soon as I get around to that edict barring scorpions from stinging. True monogamy (as opposed to serial monogamy) is anathema to the gay culture at large, and is the exception rather than the rule. Moreover they view marriage largely as something to be mocked and scorned and ridiculed rather than something to be valued. Ultimately the only thing that ties them together is sexual attraction and emotional sentiment. They cannot actually create something wholy separate from themselves, the entire relationship is based on whatever they are feeling at the moment.

The end good for society (and what actually civilizes and socializes) is children, and the homosexual relationship by definition is a barren one. Every child deserves a mother and a father. It’s how they were made, it is the only proper way to raise them. It is not fair to thrust a child into the middle of a homosexual relationship as if they were a validation trophy or a token or a status symbol. They simply cannot explain the fullness of a normal healthy relationship the way having a mother and father can.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM

@joe_doufu how do you feel about mixed gender sodomy? does that destroy a marriage too?

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Doesn’t sound like fun to me. It’s obviously not going to reinforce a marriage. Whether it destroys one depends on how much sin/imperfection each partner is willing to tolerate in the other. (This is what they used to call a virtue called “patience”.)

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Often claimed, never proven. So why do homosexual advocates always claim that homosexuality is genetic if that is not actually a known fact?

That’s right, so they can claim it’s not a choice, and anyone who doesn’t like it is just a bigot.

Yet strangely, the same people will believe that a man who wants to be a woman can just have a little surgery and take a few hormones, and is now female.

You know what actually IS genetic? Being male or female. Always fun to read how sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, but sex itself is subject to “gender reassignment.”

tom on May 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Wow. If you simply read the pro-gay marriage posters on this thread, you would believe that the entire country’s pro-gay marriage.

But, how could that be, when the majority of states have voted against it?

…even California.

Reality…what a concept.

kingsjester on May 8, 2012 at 4:40 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I have been reading your comments with great interest and I agree with your points. The bottom line is that if we are to believe in liberty then it must be liberty for all of us, not just those who are like me. I have a problem with the government involved with legally defining the word “marriage”. I have no problem with the government recognising a civil union contract for tax purposes or whatever as long as it is the same for everyone. Why do we need to call it marriage? Leave the definition of the word up to individuals and the church they belong to.

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM

@BlKennedy

True monogamy (as opposed to serial monogamy) is anathema to the gay culture at large, and is the exception rather than the rule.

that’s a bs stereotype and since I’m gay and monogamous and all my gay friends are as well. Yes there are gays that are not, but since all my straight friends have all been divoriced at least once this is a pointless strawman meant to denigrate, and slander. If men keeping it in their pants is the yardstick then straights shouldn’t get to marry. Every watch Jersey Shore? no gays there…

the end good for society is children but since our foster care centers are teeming with abandoned and mistreated children I think our straight brethren might need some help sorting out their mess. Are you saying reduce the number of stable households, and the number of monogamous households and let more children suffer?

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM

That would fall under option 1) as perfecting the parameters. Abolishing no-fault divorce would be a good start, and I’m more than willing to move hospital and prison visitation rights, as well as inheritance matters to individual rights since they belong there. Otherwise if they want more stringent requirements for fertility or withhold full benefits until after the first child that would be entirely reasonable under my logic, yes.
BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Wow, sounds like something a dictator would do!

How about let people do as they please?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:50 PM

that’s a bs stereotype and since I’m gay and monogamous and all my gay friends are as well. Yes there are gays that are not, but since all my straight friends have all been divoriced at least once this is a pointless strawman meant to denigrate, and slander. If men keeping it in their pants is the yardstick then straights shouldn’t get to marry. Every watch Jersey Shore? no gays there…

the end good for society is children but since our foster care centers are teeming with abandoned and mistreated children I think our straight brethren might need some help sorting out their mess. Are you saying reduce the number of stable households, and the number of monogamous households and let more children suffer?

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Very well said, I think you just ripped BK’s and many others arguments to shreds!

Don’t know if you’ve read some of my arguments throughout this thread but I must ask you since you are gay:

Is it genetic or a choice?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Well, Chrissy, guess you are NOT CATHOLIC AT ALL.

chai on May 8, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Otherwise if they want more stringent requirements for fertility or withhold full benefits until after the first child that would be entirely reasonable under my logic, yes.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So, it isn’t really the gender of the members of said marriage that is important to you (except in so far as both genders are required for the physical act of procreation), but only that those who participate in the institution of marriage provide children? And not just intend to do so, but actually succeed in the entire process?

If a couple has a child who through some tragedy becomes deceased, should they cease to get benefits? Do they cease to get benefits once the child reaches 18 years old? Is their marriage no longer needed once their children become adults, and therefore can be deemed superfluous?

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Thomas Jefferson once said “If it niether picks my pocket nor breaks my bones, what difference is it to me. He wasn’t talking about gay marriage when he said this but the same principal applies. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide what that is as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. For the life of me I can’t understand why a consevative (which I am) would want to limit the personal liberty of another.

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Is it genetic or a choice?

LevinFan

Yeah I’ve noticed your comments, I think you make some good points and thanks for your support! I’m always overwhelmed on at Gay Pride events the sheer number and enthusiasm of our straight friends.

As for your question it’s not even difinitive that there is only one reason for a child to be gay, and you have to add onto that female sexuality is separate from male sexuality. However given that the gay population of every human population is nearly identical, it would point towards a biological reason. Whether that’s genetic or some hormonal, there really isn’t enough data to prove which or both. But it does seem to run in families sometimes.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Thomas Jefferson once said “If it niether picks my pocket nor breaks my bones, what difference is it to me. He wasn’t talking about gay marriage when he said this but the same principal applies. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide what that is as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. For the life of me I can’t understand why a consevative (which I am) would want to limit the personal liberty of another.

steel guy

well said to you both

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Thomas Jefferson once said “If it niether picks my pocket nor breaks my bones, what difference is it to me. He wasn’t talking about gay marriage when he said this but the same principal applies. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide what that is as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. For the life of me I can’t understand why a consevative (which I am) would want to limit the personal liberty of another.

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Excellent post. Quoting Thomas Jefferson really wraps it up quite nicely.

I have the same questions as you, about why conservatives want gov’t to step in and legislate what marriage is.

Then again it’s the Bible Thumpers who want to impose their morality and views, they can’t handle the thought of the gheys, those sinners getting married!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 5:07 PM

@Levin the problem is they’ve drunk the koolaid that makes them think the church is marrying them and it’s not, it’s still the state. Then they get confused about what they are fighting for and make my case for me.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Where do you stand politically?

On the left, moderate, libertarian, conservative?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Now that I consider BKennedy’s line of thinking in terms of marriages solely for the purpose of raising children, there seems to be no point to the institution at all. Why not simply have “procreation contracts” recognized by the government? Obviously, the only people who could engage in such a contract would be those required for natural procreation (incidentally, as he noted, to create “new taxpayers”… food for thought) which means by definition only a man and a woman. Conveniently, by it’s very nature, that ensures the institution itself is maintained for the purpose to which we are told it was designed, the procreation of children in a proper environment. Said “procreation contract” would also require the equal participation by the two parties until the child is of legal age of consent, and dereliction of those duties would be punishable under law. And if anything were to happen to the child, the contract would become null and void, relieving the government of any further obligation of subsidation through tax code of the parties to the contract. The contract is also mutually exclusive, in so far as neither party may enter into another procreation contract with another individual while the current contract is in effect, which solves the polygamy problem.

That makes it a very unambiguous government recognized institution between only a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, and tax codes would be easy to write based on simple contract law surrounding the process.

But that seems awfully totalitarian to me. Ever seen the movie “Gattaca”?

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Wow, sounds like something a dictator would do!

How about let people do as they please?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I don’t think you get that what I’m talking about is the public benefits associated with marriage.

Which would be in effect the spending of other people’s money. So yeah, I’m pretty uptight about how we manage that. I’m going to assume you don’t think welfare recipients should be able to spend their public benefits as they please as well, do you?

But I won’t expect you to start operating in good faith now.

that’s a bs stereotype and since I’m gay and monogamous and all my gay friends are as well. Yes there are gays that are not, but since all my straight friends have all been divoriced at least once this is a pointless strawman meant to denigrate, and slander. If men keeping it in their pants is the yardstick then straights shouldn’t get to marry. Every watch Jersey Shore? no gays there…

the end good for society is children but since our foster care centers are teeming with abandoned and mistreated children I think our straight brethren might need some help sorting out their mess. Are you saying reduce the number of stable households, and the number of monogamous households and let more children suffer?

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Argument by anecdote is wonderful.

Too bad empirical research happens to disagree with the people you supposedly know personally. Nevermind the actions of the activist gay left which are clearly opposed to any form of sexual restraint.

Whether the data specifically applies to you or not is irrelevant to most important point: You and your boyfriend by definition are not and cannot be a mother and father to a child. At most you can be surrogate fathers, but that arrangement is not good enough. Children deserve better. You do not have a marriage, you simply have a deep, disordered lust and perhaps if you are lucky that lust will never wane, and you will not expose yourself to further injury. It is my sincere hope that you repent, change your ways, and find a good woman to share your life with. Failing that I wish you protection from disease and injury, since both are endemic to the lifestyle you have chosen to live.

I don’t want you to “sort out our mess.” You and your boyfriend wouldn’t be doing it for the kids, you’d be doing it to take a jab at the breeders. It would be irresponsible to let you get access to children. You just admitted your entire approach is to view them as abandoned property. Your entire rhetoric demands I abandon empirical data and judge you as the standard for what tends to happen in homosexual relationships. That is ridiculous and I will not do it.

You aren’t a stable household. You’re two guys practicing lust happily with each other. I wouldn’t put a child in a cohabiting house no matter the means of the cohabitators, I certainly wouldn’t put them in one dedicated to normalizing a disgusting and fleeting perversion. You might claim to “love” each other now. Add the stress of caring for a child and your bonds could easily break apart. Your relationship creates nothing but a service to the pleasure of yourselves. There is no “there” there, no driving biological urge or sense of urgency to care for a child that might have in another circumstances be yours. Psychologically you have no connection to children outside whatever you would feel at a given moment. This is harsh, but it’s true. It’s a matter of biology.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

@gravityman it’s a direct assault on the idea that people should get to choose their mates, written as if the earth wasn’t overflowing with children, that are dying from a lack of resources.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM

There is no “there” there, no driving biological urge or sense of urgency to care for a child that might have in another circumstances be yours. Psychologically you have no connection to children outside whatever you would feel at a given moment. This is harsh, but it’s true. It’s a matter of biology.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Straight couples share many of the same challenges when dealing with kids and their lust life. Love is certainly something more than mere biology.

dedalus on May 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Whether the data specifically applies to you or not is irrelevant to most important point: You and your boyfriend by definition are not and cannot be a mother and father to a child. At most you can be surrogate fathers, but that arrangement is not good enough. Children deserve better. You do not have a marriage, you simply have a deep, disordered lust and perhaps if you are lucky that lust will never wane, and you will not expose yourself to further injury. It is my sincere hope that you repent, change your ways, and find a good woman to share your life with. Failing that I wish you protection from disease and injury, since both are endemic to the lifestyle you have chosen to live.

I don’t want you to “sort out our mess.” You and your boyfriend wouldn’t be doing it for the kids, you’d be doing it to take a jab at the breeders. It would be irresponsible to let you get access to children. You just admitted your entire approach is to view them as abandoned property. Your entire rhetoric demands I abandon empirical data and judge you as the standard for what tends to happen in homosexual relationships. That is ridiculous and I will not do it.

You aren’t a stable household. You’re two guys practicing lust happily with each other. I wouldn’t put a child in a cohabiting house no matter the means of the cohabitators, I certainly wouldn’t put them in one dedicated to normalizing a disgusting and fleeting perversion. You might claim to “love” each other now. Add the stress of caring for a child and your bonds could easily break apart. Your relationship creates nothing but a service to the pleasure of yourselves. There is no “there” there, no driving biological urge or sense of urgency to care for a child that might have in another circumstances be yours. Psychologically you have no connection to children outside whatever you would feel at a given moment. This is harsh, but it’s true. It’s a matter of biology.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Pat Robertson is that you???

Again how many kids are in abusive homes with a mother AND father or stuck in foster homes without prospective parents to adopt them?

Wouldn’t they be better with two loving gay parents? Oh noesss…. the Bible forbids it !!!!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 5:23 PM

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

That is an exceedingly revealing argument. I sense some personal conflict somewhere in your life with someone who was gay which has seeded a very deep mistrust of the gay community as a whole.

I could be wrong, and my intent is not to offend, but that argument sounded very personal.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 5:24 PM

@gravityman it’s a direct assault on the idea that people should get to choose their mates…

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Define the word “should”, please.

This thread is an excellent example of what happens when you get libertarians and Ayn Randians trying to boil down the sum total of three thousand years of human wisdom into slogans like “personal liberty” and “choice” without comprehending what those words even mean. Conservatism does not eschew the lessons of history, the truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe for a cheap slogan of “whatever feels good to me, society should endorse”. Love the Chesterton passage somebody quoted before.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I have the same questions as you, about why conservatives want gov’t to step in and legislate what marriage is.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Perhaps the word conservative has come to mean somthing other than what I always thought it meant. To me it was the belief in less government that bound us conservatives which on the flip side means more liberty. This principle ought to be our guide. The government is overreaching when it attempts to define of redefine the meaning of the word marriage. I wish they would just call it something else and move on.

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4