Wash. Times defense of "traditional marriage" is full of distortions
A Washington Times editorial -- being promoted on the Fox Nation -- claimed that "[a] large number of studies show children raised in a family with a mother and a father perform much better in everything in life"; in fact, studies show that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development. Additionally, the editorial distorted the words of Chai Feldblum, President Obama's nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to suggest she did not support marriage, when, in fact, she said "marriage is a normatively 'good' framework for most people to aspire to."
Wash. Times: Kids "perform much better" in two-parent heterosexual households
Times: "Social science backs" the "value of marriage." In criticizing Sunstein and Feldblum, the editorial asserted that "[p]rotecting and nurturing the natural two-parent union is clearly important. Most people have seen the consequences when we fail -- most vividly in the problems that children with divorced parents face. ... The value of marriage hasn't just been proven by experience. Social science backs it as well. A large number of studies show children raised in a family with a mother and a father perform much better in everything in life, from school to staying away from a life of crime."
In fact, experts say children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development
Chicago Tribune: "[W]ithin the research community there are no empirical studies demonstrating adverse effects." A March 1 Chicago Tribune article reported that "[s]ociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz published an analysis in 2001 in the American Sociological Review of 21 studies of children raised by homosexual parents and found that, overall, they were no more likely to suffer from psychological problems than kids raised in conventional homes." The article added: "Ultimately, their findings were generally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and other mainstream organizations. ... [T]he bottom line is that within the research community there are no empirical studies demonstrating adverse effects, says Stacey, who is now at New York University."
American Psychological Association: "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged." The APA concluded in a 2005 report on studies of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
American Academy of Pediatrics: Children of gay parents "fare as well" as those of straight parents. In 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the psychosocial development of children raised by same-sex parents. The report noted that a "growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."
National Association of Social Workers: "compelling" evidence that parenting is equal. In a 2006 Boston Herald opinion column, NASW executive director Carol J. Trust wrote in support of same-sex parenting, noting: "Anyone who wishes to examine the 20 years of peer-reviewed studies on the emotional, cognitive and behavioral outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents will find not one shred of evidence that children are harmed by their parents' sexual orientation. The empirical and clinical evidence suggesting same-sex parents are equivalent to heterosexual parents in their ability to care for children and provide loving homes is so compelling that there is a growing consensus among legal and child welfare experts that there is no rational basis to deny adoption to gay and lesbian couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Child Welfare League of America: Children of gay parents are "just as likely to be healthy and well-adjusted." Child Welfare League of America president and CEO Shay Bilchik noted the organizations' support of gay and lesbian couples' adopting children in the foreword to "Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting":
It has now been established by the research that gay people are just as capable of being good parents as heterosexual or "straight" people, and that their children are just as likely to be healthy and well-adjusted. Not a single reputable study has found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents have been harmed because of their parents' sexual orientation in any way.
Because of this research and because exclusions based on traits other than one's ability to be a good parent are contrary to good child welfare policy and practice, the Child Welfare League of America has issued a public statement supporting the parenting of children by lesbians and gay men, and condemning attempts to restrict competent, caring adults from serving as foster and/or adoptive parents.
Times editorial, Fox Nation falsely suggest Obama nominee is against marriage
From the October 28 Washington Times editorial:
Mr. Holder and Miss Schmaler, however, are not the only powerful Obama administration officials who want to redefine one of our society's central institutions. Cass Sunstein, Mr. Obama's powerful "regulatory czar," is equally out of touch. In a new edition of his book "Nudge," coauthored with Richard Thaler, the authors call marriage an "anachronism" and its benefits "surprisingly low." The book goes on to complain that marriage, "produce[s] unnecessary polarization. ... the most obvious difficulty is that religious organizations insist that they should be permitted to define marriage as they like, while same-sex couples insist that they should be able to make long-term commitments without having a second-class status."
So, because the federal government does not recognize marriage of homosexuals, Mr. Sunstein's solution is that we shouldn't recognize traditional marriage. There's more. An Obama nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldblum, claimed in 2005: "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution."
Fox Nation hyped the Times editorial as "Obama Appointees" questioning marriage. The Fox Nation linked to the Times editorial with the headline, "Obama Appointees Question the Value of Marriage."
However, Feldblum said marriage is something to "aspire" to
Feldblum: "I currently believe that marriage is a normatively 'good' framework for most people to aspire to." In an essay titled, "Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More," from which the Times quotes, Feldblum wrote that "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others. I currently believe that marriage is a normatively 'good' framework for most people to aspire to (I think), because it serves some very deep and legitimate human needs. But I also believe all of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world."
They pull this out of the essay "I currently believe that marriage is a normatively 'good' framework for most people to aspire to", but leave out the (I think) addendum. Well the "I think" is a clear wavering of any milquetoast endorsement for marriage, obviously.
And this mish-mash of nonsense "But I also believe all of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world." LOL! We are all "harmed", and trying to "make sense of the world". That is the stupidest thing I have ever read in any context of marriage. These liberals need to spend a little less time in think tanks or somewhere to avoid embarassing themselves with stuff like this.
I don't know if I've ever before come across someone who was so proud of being content in his ignorance.
After all, that is what you said: "Go right ahead and bask in your superiority. I am happy for you."
She was saying that it's okay to value marriage, but not if that valuation comes at the expense of recognizing the value of other pathways that are right for other people. When we as a culture exclude the alternative options that some people gravitate towards as inferior, we are harmed as a culture. For some people, their life is not optimized by following a path that doesn't make sense to them or for them.
Her comment wasn't confusing to me at all.
Sorry Suzy, it's a no go.
Is it "stupidest thing I have ever read", or is it a "mish-mash of nonsense", or are you now sure of exactly what that stupid mishmashed nonsense meant after all?
This is hilarious. Please keep it making a fool of yourself - it's terrific entertainment.
I understand it frustrates you to be called on your inconsistencies. It has to hurt. But look at it this way - you don't have any credibility here anyway, so what have you got to lose?
We've known for some time that you think making sense of the world is "nonsense," but thanks for the acknowledgment. Perhaps if you put some effort into making sense of the world, you wouldn't have to be in the position of admitting others' superiority.
Generalization troll.
Elevating marriage to some unjustified, uniquely wondrous pedestal ignores the other choices that might be appropriate for other people.
Wow, I'm glad you're not arguing the liberal side of issues.
The issue, again, is that the Washington Times distorted what Feldman said. She never said that all choices should be equally valued - what she didn't say was that she didn't think that marriage was a bad idea.
"Marriage must be between a heterosexual man and woman" advocates elevate marriage to an unjustified pedestal. So do people who suggest that only traditional marriage is acceptable for raising children. It's not a uniquely wondrous platform upon which to raise children.
So, there was no "insipid mocking patronization" of heterosexual marriage whatsoever.
What's quite evident is that you're once again grasping at straws and you think that whining very loudly about anything and everything might eventually win you friends and influence people.
It doesn't. You still look frustrated and petty and your personal attacks at some phantom poster makes me think you must be really fun to prank at Halloween. You're so scared of ghosts, I almost feel sorry for you. Defend what you post for once instead of attacking some phantom poster - that seems to be your retreat position every time when you're backed into a corner! It's not a pleasant place, is it?
This is the same problem with FoxNews, et al. Sure, they have the right to distort and mislead. But they don't have the right to do it unchallenged, and the USA would be a better place if their nonsense stopped getting the airplay and the credibility it gets from others, and it stopped getting the power to sometimes direct the debate our nation needs to have about important issues. They taint that debate with their poisonous comments, including the one above from the Washington Times.
We tried ignoring jerks and jackasses like you for too long. Never again.
A tack that has failed every time he tries it. What's that called? Oh yeah, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
But it's always entertaining to drive him to such distraction, isn't it?
Not to worry, RightON - you only have about 2 hours until quitting time today.
"I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others. I currently believe that marriage is a normatively 'good' framework for most people to aspire to (I think), because it serves some very deep and legitimate human needs. But I also believe all of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world."
So when the Washington Times deceptively provides only this quote from this paragraph - "I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution" - they deceive their readers. They don't provide an accurate portrait of what she said. And after all, it is the Washington Times misleading info that is on trial here.
But your point about "(I think)" falls flat. Any high school English teacher will tell you that one needn't include "I think" when you are writing something, but this author did include it to emphasize that this is her personal opinion. However, the Times said that her opinion was 180 degrees different!
IT WAS HER ESSAY Sue, there was no need to emphasize that it was her personal opinion. What it was was her tepid support of the statement she just made, that is as obvious as anything. As if I made the statement "You are clueless, (I think)". Same thing, if I did that it would be because the conviction to which I stated that is soft.
Usually you have the most paltry arguments to make that never persuade me, but this time it's really bad.
Considering your lack of abilities demonstrated here and elsewhere, I am not surprised that you think that I am going to forget that the issue here is not her statement, but was and still is the allegation by the Times editorial and Fox Nation where they falsely suggest that this Obama nominee is against marriage. Her less than 100% endorsement of marriage for everyone is not equivalent to saying she is against marriage.
MMFA doesn't have to go to any lengths to rescue her from her own words to debunk that allegation using her own words. You're the one who continued distorting her own words to try to diminish the strength of their refutation, but you can't do that with the path you tried here. The only thing on display here that's paltry is your reason for existence, considering the fallacious arguments you've been trying to make.
I don't "say" that you have trouble understanding things. You said it. You told us.
I understand that it's frustrating to be held to account for things you say.
And yeah, sometimes it is necessary to reinforce what one says. In Spanish, for example, one can add the word "mismo" to reinforce that. All verbs are conjugated to let people know that you're talking about yourself, but you can add "mismo" to emphasize that thought.
You can add this to the list of things that you didn't understand until after you whined about it and then someone explained it to you! I bet that list is embarrassingly long. Too bad, so sad.
But what I want to know is why would you make fun of yourself when you know that we have such fun of making fun of you?
I never "left" the English language to justify the "I think" comment. I ADDED to the argument by giving another example in another language. If it were unnecessary to add "I think" in English to any comment someone says, it would not be in a language that uses verbs that are person-specific. It's there in Spanish because it is necessary. People who speak Spanish aren't a separate species, you know - they simply speak another language. It's in Spanish, where it would not exist were it not important to be able to add that emphasis at times.
You were trying to maintain that she had no good reason to add it. You were wrong. You were trying to maintain that it meant that she was qualifying her belief about the importance of marriage. She wasn't.
Caught again in a trap of your own making.
But it's time to go home, or almost, at least, so you can put your feet up and rest your weary mind, and come back again tomorrow and spew more nonsense, content (?) in the fadt that you once again made a fool of yourself!
But thanks for laughing at yourself above - it was a true moment of entertainment!
You must have forgotten that just a few short months ago, when you were LuLu and got banned, you obsessed about my "hours posting", as you are now doing. Same old virtiol. Phony.
by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 11:16 pm ET)
Of particular interest is the fact that JamesB didn't typically post on evenings or weekends - like a 40 hour workweek from 9-5 Pacific time was his job or something. And from what I've read, Tommy never posted on the weekends either. And funny, but RightOn doesn't post on the weekends either.
Coincidence? Right ON would have you believe that it is all just coincidence - the effort to derail the conversation, the WITH posts, all just common to what any poster might do!
Now, back to the topic.
Does the right and DC Times think that anyone other than the illiterate beer swillers and outright bigots of the fundy right would side against the AMA, the APA, the AAC, and the Child Welfare Leage?!?
I say let them keep being anti-intellectual bigots. They should do themselves in eventually, no?
I have seen one post by JamesB from a couple of days ago I think, but none from Tommy, and from what I read, you are Tommy with another screen name. But if you think this is the only site with paid trolls that I've seen in my years on the internet, you're wrong. Hmmm, you, wrong, who would have imagined that.
And how many behind the scenes assistants do you have to find old posts with which to threaten someone else? I've seen you do that twice before too, and it's pretty sick stalking behavior. You keep showing us all what a terrible person you are, as though it's a thing of pride.
Tommy did that to me once. It wasn't in any way threatening, but it was kinda creepy how quickly he found an old post of mine.
Of course, I haven't seen anyone besides RO dispute who RO used to be, primarily because the pattern of posting times and mannerisms are so obvious. It's hardly conclusive proof of identity that someone else besides Lulu notices one person disappearing and another popping up using the exact same time frames and behavioral style.
And his pattern of sticking around in a thread until the end of his shift or until he thinks he's sufficiently derailed a thread is very easy to detect. One would have to be blind to not have noticed it.
I would also say that noting inconsistencies, genuine or seemingly, is just another aspect of pattern recognition. If RO is on a thread where he starts arguing that it's unfair to extrapolate anything from some conservative's comments, then anyone familiar with his recent behavior could point out all the "read between the lines" arguments he's made against liberals (specifically you) in no time flat. You see the pattern, and realize when something doesn't fit, the same sort of way you recognize when everything fits.
The bottom line is that either Foghorn could defend himself or he couldn't. If he could, then RO was off-base. If he couldn't, then he was being inconsistent and that would be his responsibility to fix, not RO's fault for pointing it out.
I am not condoning Right ON's behavior either as he certainly has the same style as Tommy, perhaps they are one in the same - however Right ON made a good point about LuvLuLu and DellDolly's "obsessions" with the times of the day he posts and "quittin" time. No other poster that I have ever read has made such observations, except those two, in that style.
So like Right On or not, I believe his assessment of DellDolly's numerous screen names are correct.
And I noted on another thread that similar comments from other posters were ignored by you and others, but only mine were highlighted. That identifies you as being a hypocrite when it comes to my posts - that's an indictment of you, not me.
And if you haven't seen many other posters commenting on RightON's pattern of posting, it's not my fault. There have been plenty. At least two posters mentioned it before I ever even noticed it - it was their direction that led me to look for it myself!
And it is my business, as I believe it is the business of everyone here, when they allow troll posts to derail the conversation, as I explained in my post to you and to others who were out to protect RightON's right to derail the conversation. You can pretend that you are innocent here and are a victim, but the reason you got called out for your behavior was, wait for it, your behavior. I didn't seek out your post to make a personal attack. I attacked the content of a posting saying that derailing a conversation was okay, and that I shouldn't call it out. That's what a concern troll does. You weren't an innocent victim. Now you've stalked me twice to make a personal attack on me.
I'll help you here, since it was a rhetorical question. It's not there. If you disagree with people scolding other people for not ignoring a troll post, where's your comment there?
I will answer that one SuzyLuLu, in case westla chooses not to. The reason he or she probably did not criticize Grey Path for his "ingore" the poster is because there is no evidence that Grey Path was ever a vicious, thread-derailing troll in the past who has been yanked by the moderators of this website several times only to be born again with another phony identity, like you.
You have no business scolding anyone for anything on this website based on your behavior of nasty hideous personal attacks, which are the worst derailments any thread can endure. So you, my dear, are a hypocrite of the worst magnitude. Think about that next time you attack someone when they choose to freely respond to another poster.
You deserve it, Grey Path does not.
Which is what I said it was. A personal attack, and that's inappropriate.
It wasn't about my comment about derailing threads and ignoring troll posts. Supposedly it was, but it really wasn't. It was a concern troll who apparently supports you!
And I don't care about any previous poster who derailed threads or didn't. Past history is past history, and it's not my history. I don't have a pattern of vicious personal attacks. You, on the other hand, do have that history. Every time you get backed into a corner, you pull one out. Every time you can't sustain your argument any more, you pull one out.
Yes, but that's because it's clearly over your head.
What he wrote makes perfect sense for anyone who uses rational thinking.
When someone says 'I am proud to be stupid', ignore him.
John Kennedy defined how different liberals are from conservatives when he said the following:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
this is EXACTLY the type of "liberals" we have in the WH, and the congress. Most that I read on THIS site are THAT kind of liberal. If JFK were still with us you'd be calling him a conservative...
I'm TIRED of people claiming that they don't have the same rights as others. EVERY person in this country has the right to marry ONE and only ONE person of the opposite gender... SAME for EVERYONE...
If you choose a deviant lifestyle, regardless of what it is, that's up to YOU. Feel Free.
But, Republicans are no tax.... and still spend! That doesn't quite sound fiscally responsible, does it?
Thanks Georgie for giving us this huge war debt (I'm counting Iraq) while LOWERING taxes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
And Georgie, not Obama, got us into this path of the bailouts.
Bush and barney franks, dobbs and the rest of the crooked congress that legislated the sub-prime loan debacle... Oh don't forget clinton with the reinvestment garbage... You know, this is where congress (with Bills help) said the lenders can't use all of the information at their disposal to determine loan qualifications. I think they called it "red lining" DUH!
I am not for bigger gov't. But I am even more against the constant droning coming from the so-called fiscal-conservatives that it is "good for the economy" that we continue to cut gov't revenue, without cutting their pet projects. Americans have been dupped into thinking they can have it all, without paying for it.
We can have it if we want it, but it must be paid for - by all - citizens and corporations. THAT'S being fiscally conservative!
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/200511220007
Why do people who are so ignorant think they can come here and educate us?
And yes, Bush was stupid and shortsighted to cut taxes twice, once during a war in an unprecedented move. But Obama isn't clearly much worse. In fact, almost all of the deficit spending is due to the bad economy, not Obama. Remember, the spending this year was Bush's budget, not Obama's.
And sub-prime loans weren't even in the top 5 for the reasons for the financial collapse. That's been proven too. Get a clue, and learn facts, not talking points.
And yeah, lenders shouldn't discriminate. Using all the info available? Yes, we should not let them be bigots. I find that an honorable thing here in the USA. Unpatriotic person that you are, you would think that it's okay to be prejudiced against someone because of the color of their skin.
The sub-prime loan debacle happened due to a lack of regulation and oversight of the banking industry. It is just that simple. The banks were the ones who invented No Income No Asset loans - not the government. The banks invented the derivatives that collapsed. In short, the failure of the sub-prime mortgages happened because government was too corporate-friendly with the banks and too laissez-faire in their policies. This is a pretty obvious failure of right-wing policies in general. We would not have had such a problem if the government had followed policies to regulate the banking industry which have been traditionally pushed by liberals - whom you apparently mindlessly hate.
Kind of how back in the day, EVERY person in the country had the right to marry ONE person of the same race...after all, the same rules applied to everyone.
But, I believe in America you should be able to do whatever it is you want so long as you are an adult and you only hurt yourself. That is liberty. It can be scary at times, and it can be things I vehemently disagree with, but I believe in a free country you do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives just because of your own moral hangups. To me, that is conservative. Let the government pave the roads, police the streets, maintain the parks, provide the education and healthcare, and keep them out of its citizens' private lives. That is the conservatism that I was raised on.
Nobody needs those headaches, and there's no great injustice being perpetrated against people who choose to participate in such arrangements. There's no reason to give the same legal consideration as gay marriage deserves.
Why do you feel the need to specify "of the opposite gender"? That appears to be just discrimination. There is no apparently reasonable purpose for the exclusion other than to adhere to the tender sensibilities of bigots.
Lets further consider the Catholic Church that you folks seem to attack as evil because some priests are child molesters...
Seems to me you should be attacking the "gays" ("gay first if they are born that way") that infiltrated the Catholic Church under the FALSE pretense of being committed to the church, simply to molest little boys... which is it?
Why do you think that people insist on a "choice" that gets them beaten, mocked and disowned by family? I've never understood how that's supposed to work. If you lived in a society where you got beaten for eating a hamburger, at some point you'd probably opt for the chicken sandwich. If someone keeps doing it, that would seem to be something of a psychological issue anyway, not a matter of free will.Since when is pedophilia synonymous with homosexuality? I would also say that church policy is the culprit there. If you create a job that precludes marriage, then you're going to get people who aren't interested in being married, and that would include pedophiles. It's not about them being "evil" because of that, but their failure to remove such a person from their job entirely is definitely grounds for criticism.
Patently absurd. Anyone who has done the tiniest bit of research into the animal kingdom knows there is homosexuality in nature. The fact that you are afraid of boys kissing does not change reality. Perhaps it would be easier for you to deal with your childish, absurd, hangups than to ask the entire gay community to cease to exist.
"Seems to me you should be attacking the "gays" ("gay first if they are born that way") that infiltrated the Catholic Church under the FALSE pretense of being committed to the church, simply to molest little boys... which is it?" - oldmaninpoliticalwilderness
And yet another small-minded simpleton who believes there is some kind of correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Are you so scared of boys kissing because you think you may be tempted to kiss them as well? I am a heterosexual and I never chose this, I was always physically attracted to women. Naked men doing anything sexually is a huge turnoff to me. Therefore, boys kissing or holding hands or getting married has no bearing on my own sexual orientation. Do you understand that this is something most of us get beyond once we get past junior high school?
"Go ahead put marriage to the vote of the people in EACH and EVERY state and live by the results" - oldmaninpoliticalwilderness
Ah, the old states' rights versus civil liberties argument. I cannot believe there are still people trying this argument. If you really are an old man you can probably recall the last time this states' rights versus civil liberties argument was tried. I will give you a hint...it was in the South and it involved Jim Crow. Remember how that turned out for the states' rights? Denying another American their civil liberties is wrong no matter which state says it is not.
I always find that statement to be very interesting. Saying that homosexuality is a "choice" suggests quite obviously that at some point we all consider the two options. I don't remember ever looking at a naked man and considering having sex with him. When did you make your choice? How old were you when you thought about having sex with another man, but decided you would (presumably) go ahead and pick women instead?
Maybe I'm the weird one as I have exclusively been attracted to the female form for nearly as long as I can remember and do not feel that I have made a "choice" at all. Why would I assume anybody else is any different from me in that regard?
No need to beileve anything from this newspaper.
Marriage is an institution traditionally used by heterosexuals. However, in recent years, we have seen that marriage, as an institution, should be all about LOVE, not politics. If two men find happiness with each other, and wish to declare this love within the welcoming embrace of marriage, then that is all that matters. In our Declaration of Independance, we held Certain truths to be common Knowledge, and that we have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Although the Declaration does not create Law, the Laws do, and when laws deny couples of a homosexual nature certain rights that heterosexual couples enjoy simply because of the nature of their relationship, and when those rights are not protected by even the laws that are supposed to provide a "Marraige equivilancy", it is time to recognize these people not as the second-class citizens that we have been, but as equals whose rights we cherish and hold as dear as our own.
NO ONE is denied ANY rights... Every person regardless of gender has the RIGHT to marry ONE and only ONE person of the opposite gender... EVERY PERSON has exactly the same RIGHTS.
Why do such ignorant people come here and try to pretend that they can educate us?
If you don't know that consent is the big issue here, then you can't discuss this, dum-dum!
Two consenting humans of legal age can marry. We shouldn't restrict the ability of blacks to marry whites, and we shouldn't restrict the ability of male to marry male or female to marry female.
It doesn't matter if a few of the couples who get married can't have/won't have biological children together. That's not a criteria. It doesn't matter what they do or don't do in the bedroom at all! Two consenting humans of legal age.
Here's some cut and paste from Wikipedia, done to save time and typing. I already was aware of these facts, courtesy of Joseph Campbell.
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[24] Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.[25]
In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[26]
Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[25] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.[25] There were several types of marriages in Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[25] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband.[31]
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Marriage in sixth-century Europe has been characterized as political polygamy.
In fourteenth-century Europe, ordinary people could no longer choose whom to marry. The lord of one Black Forest manor decreed in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner had to pay a fee.
The Neocons believe god talks to them. They believe that god invented marriage, and that god said it is only between 1 man and 1 woman. Just leave out all that crazy stuff in the old testament.
On what basis then, do the "conservatives" oppose gay marriage? Isn't there some obscure religious justification for the opposition? Or are "conservatives" just against anything that makes them feel uncomfortable - which is pretty much anything that requires change?
Perhaps it is you who should read a bit more.
Irving Kristol himself said:
"since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
More info on religious influences inside the Bush Admin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201594.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19253-2001Dec23?language=printer
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5021673.shtml
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld-administration-peers-detractors
HOWEVER if the people of the United States of America, on a state by state basis change the existing law to include deviants, so be it I'll support whatever decision THE PEOPLE make.
I do have a single concern that I'm sure can be addressed. What about the deviants that like little kids, or polygamy, or bestiality name the deviation. Call it "natural attration" or whatever you like. HOW do we handle that?
Legalized polygamy is unnecessary. A man can be married to one woman and have others living in the house, and that arrangement works the same. Sanctioning multiple marriage would open up a can of worms as to spousal rights, and either a)set up a system of second- and third-class citizens based on order of marriage or b)potentially clog the court system with contentions between multiple spouses seeking estate rights/guardianship, etc.
Okay, I'll bite.
It's really, really easy. Civil marriage is a contract between two legally consenting adults. Children cannot enter into contracts; ergo, they cannot get married. Animals cannot enter into contracts; therefore, they cannot get married.
It is possible that at some point, the legal nature of marriage could be changed to accommodate more than two adults who all mutually consent together to enter into the contract of marriage. However, as the law is now, it's just not practical for polygamous marriage.
(And to clarify, by "polygamous" I don't mean the crazy people down in Utah/Arizona who have one 50-year-old man with ten teenage wives who didn't have any say in the matter. I mean three or more adults who all fully and freely consent to be in a legal relationship with every other adult in the contract.)
Totally agree.
Amazing that these right-wing wackos push for a narrow definition of marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, but have never conceived of the idea that marriage can be defined as a union between 2 consenting adults.
But, the latter definition is too open to interpretation, I guess. It still permits gays to marry. ;-)
That's not how it should work. Rights aren't up to a vote. That is tyranny of the majority. Rights are equally shared. This really should not be up to the courts either, because it is an open and shut case. However court is the likely place this will end up, because some folks apparently don't know when they are beat. Gay marriage is inevitable, because there is no valid reason for the state to discriminate against homosexuals in the matter PERIOD.
Other than that, "normative" is not a word that is going to make any friends with the common folk who have every right to listen, but that doesn't change the point of the MM post. Her words are NOT "nonsense." Feldblum WAS misquoted by omission in a nefarious way. Now, everyone go post on a conservative blog so that they waste THEIR time!
Let's break that down into liberal translation to what it really means;
It IS in the interest of any society to make everyone feel like they belong - it certainly is not, it is society's obligation to remove barriers and discrimination that impedes opportunity. Society is not obligated to make me feel like I belong to anything.
and their truly valuable contributions are appreciated and encouraged, and they SHOULD feel good about it, so they contribute more, to everyone's benefit - in other words, take from the rich with ever increasing taxes and give to those who haven't earned it, for their benefit because they can live off of the government.
Moon is a huge homophobe and his "family values" is a huge fraud. He didn't even raise his own kids, who admit they were frightened of him. His members who slave away for him raised his kids. When both his daughter and daughter in law came to Moon and his wife and told them their husbands beat them, Moon told them it was their fault and that they needed to be better wives.
The UC has swindled hundreds of millions of dollars from widows in Japan, how's that for "family values"? Most people are well aware of how the Moon organization deceptively recruited the base of followers he now has. He swindles people out of their lives. They targeted backpackers years ago for their adventurous spirit because they saw them as "prepared people."
This Moon propaganda is an example of how he does not have to give orders, just hire people who will say what you want said. For instance, Moon did not have to tell someone like Wes Pruden what he wanted in the paper. Pruden was on auto-pilot if your goal was a right wing America.
But Moon claims everyone has to be married to get into heaven. He even married his dead son and Jesus Christ to living women to allow them to enter heaven. The "wife" of his dead son was given a child by one of Moon's other sons to raise because he has also said you won't make if you don't have kids. Moon's daughter in law says members hand out their own kids to childless members without legal paperwork. She said they lend out their own children to be raised by others, they lend them out like most people lend out a garden hose, she said.
Homophobe? Moon has called for people with aids to be quarantined and be made to wear a big "A" on their backs, he says they should not be allowed to have a good life. He has said that the one sin God will not forgive is being gay.
The WT is once again ratcheting up the gay hate for their Messiah.