I'm tired of fighting idiots...I say we cede ground and just make EVERYTHING available to Civil Unions. Yeah I know and we can keep fighting if we want but I want to have a civil union with some ladies...multiple!

I doubt VERY much that is what 'they' believe... but then they are your friends. I'm really ok with his personal believe in marriage being between a man and a woman because i believe he makes it fairly clear that it's simply his personal belief... I have a hard time seeing him doing anything to preventing Gay or Lesbian couples from marrying or obtaining a civil union.

When it comes to Ron Paul what always really turns me off is the idea that regulation is the cause of all our woes... and that the free market cures all.

For everything i love to hear him say... ending wars... foreign occupations... basses overseas... etc... there is something that just makes me go... Yikes... really?...

His stance on marriage tends to rattle my Democratic friends. They believe the monolithic Federal Government should really be the only law of the land... except when California legalize medical marijuana and the Feds stepped in, then it was all "state's rights!" but I digress.

I personally think the problem is that government gives too much legitimization to marriage and incentivizes people to seek it out with the benefits they offer to married couples. If you're single, you pay a lot more taxes. If you're married, you pay less. That's the incentive.

So when the G&L community wants these benefits (sure they want to also marry for love, but a lot of this is about equality as well!), the government creates civil unions. They have the same benefits but just without the title of "marriage". It's just not equal. It's just not fair.

>> ^jmzero:

If I was representing "organized religion"s interests in this debate, my position would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let government oversee civil unions as a matter of contract and civil law. Let people then define marriage however they see fit. Churches would thus be in the clear to think of gays as unmarried (even if they had a civil union) or as still married even if a civil union was ended (if that church doesn't recognize divorce). Some churches would do gay marriages, some wouldn't. Similarly, some churches currently recognize a baptism performed by some other subset of churches or denominations, and some don't. And yet there isn't big fights about this or something, because there's no single government standard that everyone can't agree on.
Now, certainly, for practicality sakes there's no reason that they couldn't still do the civil union stuff in association with whatever kind of marriage ceremony is preferred - but either could also proceed without the other. Marriage is a word loaded with baggage, and is tied to personal issues and relationships that government needn't concern itself with. At the same time, the concept of a civil union is still useful in helping to protect people in a relationship - and there's perfectly good reason for the government to manage that.


That would be logical if their goal was to be allowed to freely practice their religion. Unfortunately their real goal is to make society conform to their religion. They are trying to justify their opinions, marriage between a man and woman, be having it legislated and enforced on everyone. If everyone is made to do it, it must be right.

The other thing I'd be interested in is how the study controlled for economic status. It's very difficult to disentangle these things and the correlation is going to be high in most parts of the States. And it'd be even harder to do with gay couples - there's far fewer, and I'd bet there's very, very few poor gay couples (married or not) that manage to adopt children. That's going to make it very hard to isolate any sort of causal effect.

The other problem in using a statistic like this (even if it had been correct) is that society is currently going to be less accepting of the children of gay couples, and this will leak into the data. However, that's also a very bad starting point for reasoning about gay marriage. For example, compare it with a debate on interracial marriages in the 1950s. Their children probably were less happy, and they were probably less successful overall because a lot of people would have treated them (parents and children) poorly due to prejudices at the time. But that doesn't mean that interracial marriages should have been disallowed. Sometimes things are right even if the transition isn't easy for those involved.

If I was representing "organized religion"s interests in this debate, my position would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let government oversee civil unions as a matter of contract and civil law. Let people then define marriage however they see fit. Churches would thus be in the clear to think of gays as unmarried (even if they had a civil union) or as still married even if a civil union was ended (if that church doesn't recognize divorce). Some churches would do gay marriages, some wouldn't. Similarly, some churches currently recognize a baptism performed by some other subset of churches or denominations, and some don't. And yet there isn't big fights about this or something, because there's no single government standard that everyone can't agree on.

Now, certainly, for practicality sakes there's no reason that they couldn't still do the civil union stuff in association with whatever kind of marriage ceremony is preferred - but either could also proceed without the other. Marriage is a word loaded with baggage, and is tied to personal issues and relationships that government needn't concern itself with. At the same time, the concept of a civil union is still useful in helping to protect people in a relationship - and there's perfectly good reason for the government to manage that.

In any case, good on Franken for examining source data, and for making his point in a clear, calm, and effective manner. Good politicianing!

Ah yes, the "unbiased" brain story. http://rockinconservative.com/2011/04/12/a-tale-of-two-brains/

I"m too lazy to formulate my own words at this time, so I found someone with words that match my sentiments:

I believe people have rights to legally designate in contract law who can visit them in hospitals, who can be named as insurance beneficiaries and the raft of other considerations sought for gay and lesbian couples. Call the arrangement civil unions if you wish.

But that's not the same as defining any union a marriage.

My fear — based on secular, more than religious precepts — is that watering down marriage could eventually rob society of the stabilizing and other beneficial effects of an institution now relentlessly under attack. Perhaps this argument is too ethereal to be grasped or accepted in an age of radical individualism. But it's an argument that is understood by plenty of Americans willing to state it, although it puts them in danger of being painted as haters.

--Dennis Byrne


Where I disagree with Byrne is that this nightmare world is wrought by "radical individualism". It's the herd, the mob, the petty tyrants, behind these farcical ideas.


>> ^bareboards2:

“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior Cingulate Cortex – a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger Amygdala, an almond shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.”
So @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom, next time you feel a strongly conservative stance coming on, you might consider teasing out what is irrational fear versus a well-founded fear. And maybe, just maybe, try some critical and thoughtful analysis of the situation.
You know, like, considering science.
Why ARE you so afraid of gays and lesbians? And please don't say you aren't -- every time you trot out that 4% number, you are broadcasting "fear of the other."

I find something inherently masochistic about gay people wanting to be married in an institution that loathes them.

Unless it's secular, but then it might as well be a civil union/partnership. I guess I'm missing something.

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

>>> What is conservatism at its core? A system of traditions and laws formed in the fires of trial and error, over decades, over centuries. 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. I'm tired of liberals skipping the part where their ideas are challenged and going right to activist judges circumventing the will of the people.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

>>> A unified society does thrive on a universal moral code. Everywhere it is wrong to murder, everywhere it is wrong to steal (unless you're in government). If you believe your freedom ends where it wrongfully infringes on others' freedom, that's a root of morality.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

The issue is a lot more complex than you're making it sound. Families of all religions consist of one man/one woman. Most atheists families are probably the same. Without technology, there is no reproduction among 'faithful' gays.

If we have a socialist health care system, then irresponsible sexual practices among gay men are everyone's problem. Are you going to choose between a child dying of cancer and a gay man whose 'peccadilloes' landed him in the hospital? Ideally, a child should have a father and mother. It's not improbable that the adopted child of two gay fathers views one as more motherly, or in fact seeks a mother figure.

I do support gays in most endeavors, but when 3% of the population wishes to overthrow the traditional definition of what marriage is for the other 97%, that's not something to take lightly.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

I'm not against polygamy nor some type of gay civil union which can be self-defined as "marriage", but understand in both cases moral, social and legal upheavals would follow. There are all kinds of unforeseen consequences lurking out there. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Homosexuality is genetic. The brains of gay men are similar to those of straight women. It will likely be something that can be 'cured' in the womb in a few decades. There is no need to glorify it.

Obama is conservative as fuck. He's worse then Bush.

"Fact" and opinion. Both wrong.

More warrantless wiretapping.

Same if not a minor decrease in torture.

Sold us out to Big Pharma Banks & Military Complex.

For fuck sake, he cutting community organization budgets and heating assistance for low income groups.

Just proves my point about the leftmedia. If they'd done their job you would've known he'd turn out this way. It's too bad this Obamian "conservatism" you speak of stops well before low taxes, free markets and the rule of law. And not bowing like a serf to foreign kings and the mayor of Tampa, Florida for fk's sake.

What the fuck else do you want to happen to prove that Obama is in no way liberal or progressive or whatever pejorative label you have for left leaning ideology?

How bout that whole POS unaffordable socialized medicine scheme 26 states have now filed lawsuits against? Remember that? Remember the failed scamulus? TARP? Bailouts? And yes Bush is also to blame, but only for starting crap that a "conservative" Obama would've tried to stop. But as we all know, NO ONE outspends taxocrats and by gosh, they'll prove it! Ever stop and wonder why crony capitalism looks so much like socialism?

The entirety of United States politics has shifted more and more to this crazy neo-conservative free-market less government-but-we-still-want-govern-who-you-marry-&-force-you-to-have-babies mentality since 2000.

Really? Abortion is still legal. Civil unions are recognized by many states. Government is an ever-bigger gorilla with a machine gun. Taxes will go up and the 'crats know it: "someone" has to pay for all this indolence and the 50-fucking-percent of Americans who pay NO federal income tax but suck up plenty of government entitlements.

The entire world is owned my wealthy bankers and war profiteers. They all favor the "conservative" mentality you hold because it makes them more money.

Wrong and wrong. You're prejudiced against the wealthy because you believe that life is a zero-sum game. In other words, someone has to "lose" at economics so someone else can "win". You believe that life is a lottery and those who have money have simply been "fortunate" without doing anything to earn it. If the liberal phantasy of giving everyone an equal share of $$$ (by force) were to come true, as long as markets were allowed to work, by the end of the week the poor would be poor again. You've been brainwashed by 12 years of government schooling followed by indoctrination at 'kollij'. Where do you think all those otherwise unemployable 1960s marxist dinosaurs are hiding from reality? The universities. No one busting their ass in the real world to survive only to hand over 40% to the federal mafia believes this BS. Yeah, life is unfair and freedom is hard. And BTW, no, I am not rich, and I don't believe I have a "right" to plunder my neighbor's wealth.

You're too narrow-minded and indoctrinated to understand that.

I hope you don't have kids. I would feel sorry for them.


You undermine your "devastating" talking points with personal attacks. I would hope you own a library card. And use it.

p.s. - Obama is Political Science Major who taught Constitutional Law.

Palin majored in journalism.. yet can't name any newpaper or magazine she reads regularly.

The "scholar" who doesn't understand America and is a total ingrate for the opportunities he received, now reviled as a clueless idiot by all except the diehards and the leftmedia VERSUS the "dumb" beauty queen who loves America and recognizes American Exceptionalism, and thus so terrifies the left they're still attacking her.

Now you can continue your point about who is more qualified as a president.

It's done. I would vote for this over the dangerous crypto-marxist who believes in unlimited federal power.

government... not involved...

I agree. Government really has no role in this, and should not be involved. "Marriage" is a ceremony with religious origins. If religions don't want to adminster 'marriage' to gay couples, then I don't see any problem with that. However, the issue is that marriage has become tied into specific legal and social benefits as a result of government promotion. I don't have a problem with that coming to an end. Let's get the government out of it. Make it so marriage is a purely religious ceremony, which also gains the societal and legal benefits of a 'civil union'. Then make it so gay couples, polygamists, or whatever can get their civil unions which will give them all their benefits. There. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science. Make 'marriage' a thing that churches can choose to administer (or limit) to whomever they wish, and let the civil union be the thing that confers the legal rights. It's ridiculously simple.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.
Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?
You are very wrong.
Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.
Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.


I never suggested that civil unions have the same rights as marriages now do. I suggested that is what should be fought for by those wanting the same rights given to same-sex unions as are given currently to marriages. I argued for that over fighting to have marriage redefined, once again for the reason that redefining marriage implies that sexual orientation is a trait like race and not a choice.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.

From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.

It appears to me the definition that was used more than 100 years ago still is remarkably unchanged, save for the very loud and demanding cry from some today that want to remove the reference to "a man and a woman". Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.


Though I would argue several points of your response, this is the fundamental position that I find patently ridiculous. Gays are already living together in loving, committed, long-term relationships. They are already raising children. They already have some of the same rights as marriage through "civil unions". And there is not one shred, not one single iota of data to suggest that anyone is being harmed by this except for thick-headed conservatives who can't get over their "ewwww" reaction. Allowing gays to apply the word "marriage" to their relationships would do nothing except give them a few more of the privileges that heterosexual couples have and, more importantly, bring an end to the legally sanctioned classification of second-class citizen.

I challenge you or any other homophobe to explain one single concrete harm that would befall society by allowing gays full marriage rights. You can't, because all opposition arguments are based on religion and fear of the unknown, combined with a fundamental distaste for anything that is categorized as "different than me".