For those of you who have a hard time figuring out why many on the right so vehemently oppose gay marriage, I found this comment to be very worthwhile:
Oh, c’mon. It’s perfectly obvious why the GOP views “homosexual marriage” as dangerous and undermining to the “traditional marriage” structure. It’s all about maintaining a certain set of social expectations. Sure, I’d say the majority of young people still grow up wanting and expecting to get married someday, in the traditional sense. But there is a minority of people who don’t. Some because they’re gay. Some because they’re too self-involved, or too picky, or whatever. Pick your reasons. But these GOP types really do think that society depends on MOST of these people going ahead and getting married anyway, whether it’s what they really want deep down or not.
I’m not saying this very well—which is a real bummer for a professional writer—but think about the “social expectations” that our grandparents grew up with. It was just understood that EVERYBODY would eventually “get married, settle down and have kids.” EVERYBODY. And if you didn’t—if you somehow made it to age 45 as a committed bachelor, or a spinster, then you were an object of mixed scorn and pity, with just a dollop of suspicion tossed in for spice.
THAT’S the world the religious right-wingers want back. I honestly don’t think that most of them want gays thrown in jail, necessarily—but they DO want them subjected to social pressure and ostracism. The kind of social pressure that used to result in gays living double lives, publicly “married,” keeping their true selves secret and hidden.
If gays are not just allowed to live openly among us, without fear of being thrown in jail, but also granted the same social benefits, so that society is “officially” welcoming them and accepting them—then where’s the social pressure going to come from? How are we going to maintain the overwhelming societal expectation that “getting married and having kids” is What One Must Do?
Anyway, they aren’t going to come right out and admit that they want to impose hypocritical, empty “marriages” on unwilling but socially obligated participants. But that’s what it means when they say that gay marriage “undermines” traditional marriage. It undermines the set of societal expectations that those people want to impose.
If you look at it through that prism, the hysteria from some quarters makes perfect sense. The world is changing, and some people need the set of ‘order’ and the system of ‘values’ that, despite the fact that they do not work for many people, are what they deem are ‘right’ for everyone. America if baseball, apple pie, hot dogs, and Chevrolet. We are supposed to live in a world where you go to school, go to college, get married, have kids, pay taxes, and die. And only recently, in the minds of some of these folks, have we decided that women get to go to college and go to work, and for some of the people on the cultural right, this is still a shock. If you look at it from that angle, you can get a better understanding where some of these people are coming from, and as I have stated before, their exasperation can explain a lot of their behavior. As I have said before during discussions of the cultural right’s views in the ID/Creationism debate:
This isn’t about science. This isn’t about education. At least it isn’t for the ID/Creationist proponents. This is just another Quixotic rear-guard action in the culture wars.
This really is not about gay rights or marriage ending- it is their world view ending as they know it. As an example, even though we know better now, and we know about childhood obesity and all the complications it can lead to, there are still people out there who believe everyone should belong to the ‘clean plate club.” Even though ‘traditional’ marriage is not right for anyone, and heterosexuality is not the ‘norm’ for everyone, certain people want to demand it for their world view, not for the actual good of the nation. They may honestly believe that the world will end if their way is not adhered to, but it won’t. But good luck telling them that.
Finally, I think this freak-out by Pat Buchanan last night while debating Bob Shrum on Hardball will crystallize hat I have been trying to say:
SHRUM: … Now come on, you’ve been talking for a while, let me say two things. Number one, a committed gay couple living in a relationship is not a sign of decadence.
Number two, Pat, when your ancestors and my ancestors and Chris’ ancestors got off the boat, the Yankees who ran the country said it was terrible, it was going to lead to the balkanization of America, it was going to change America in terrible ways. This has been going on for years and years and years. I mean, the same people from Georgia, for example, who are going wild on immigration right now and saying we have to keep Hispanics out were the same people who were saying we have to keep blacks down.
BUCHANAN: But you don’t understand your history. Now, let me talk about this. You don’t understand your history…
SHRUM: … I think I do.
BUCHANAN: Now let me talk a minute. You don’t understand your history. From 1890 to 1920 we had a huge immigration, 20 million people, or something. Then we had a 40-year time-out to assimilate, Americanize, teach them the language, the history, the culture.
So by the time Chris and I went to school or me even in the 1940s and 1950s, they were Americans. I didn’t know where they came from. We didn’t know where any of us came from. You don’t have that. You’re importing parts of nations.
SHRUM: Pat, I don’t know where you went to school, but when I went to school they knew I was Irish. We knew the kid across the aisle was Italian.
BUCHANAN: What did he speak? Did he speak Italian or did he speak Gaelic or Italian or what?
SHRUM: Well, actually, you would have fit in just fine with the people who, during World War I banned the teaching of the German language. What we had between 1924 and 1964 was 40 years of…
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: … If I recall this meeting 20 years from now, will we have the same argument? Will there be a fight over gay rights or will we have accepted, Pat, for better or worse, the right of gay people or at least the opportunity of gay people to get married? Will that be behind us?
BUCHANAN: Listen, I think culturally and socially this country is headed downhill. I think you’re probably right there, Chris, but I do believe ethnically, culturally, linguistically, if we don’t get control of the borders, America is gone and we’re going to be a completely Balkanized nation.
I tend to agree that in some regard, assimilation is a vital part of any viable immigration plan, but given the context of the entire debate, it is easy to see that what really upsets Buchanan and those like him is that the whole world is changing, and they can’t cope with it.
While you are at it, if you have read this much, you should also read this excellent piece about the Christian Right movement by Ezra Klein.
The Other Steve
Then what we need to be doing, as right thinking people, is helping him to learn how to accept change.
Davebo
A staunch conservative who’s resistant to change? Who’d have thunk it?
ppGaz
Good post.
Immediately before the Buchanan segment you quoted, Buchanan had made a soliloquy about how America was in moral decline, and that’s why the Defense of Marriage Amendment was essential. It was good old classic Buchanan the demagogue, saying with that patented frown and signature vocal pressure that we had to stop this moral slide before it’s too late.
I imagine that the rednecks were lapping it up. I also imagine that an army of us who don’t believe that crap are looking forward to kicking these bonesmokers in the ass come November, because this poorly-disguised bigotry is going to backfire on these assholes.
Doctor Gonzo
Since I’m not a conservative, I can only wonder why these people are so afraid of change. I really don’t think the reason is that they are too stupid to learn how to deal with new things; it’s probably an issue of not wanting to. But why would anybody not want to learn new things and change? Stubbornness, ego, what?
Mr Furious
Coincidentally I started* watching “Brokeback Mountain” with my wife last night and two things jumped out at me…
One. If these guys weren’t forced to suppress themselves, Michelle Williams wouldn’t have to have been devastated by what she saw from her front door, and Ledger’s character wouldn’t have had to release his pent-up rage in such volent fashion…
Two. Heath Ledger tells Jake that it isn’t safe to be gay in Wyoming in the ’60s and recounts a horrific story of locals gruesomely killing a couple of gay ranchers. Fast forward thirty years and enter reality and it still isn’t safe to be gay and not grusomely murdered for it in Wyoming.
Yeah those were/are the good old days…keep those fags in the closet.
(* We have like forty minutes left to watch, so I don’t no how it ends yet…)
RSA
I really liked that comment as well. It brought the realization that for many people, “conservative” is a less descriptive label than “conformist.”
Jack Roy
Whoa, John, you are definitely in serious danger of losing your conservative credentials—this is the central leftist critique of conservatism, and has been for something like 150 years. I believe it was the motivating sentiment behind John Stuart Mill’s line about most stupid people being conservative.
srv
Insecurity. They are people comfortable with their blanket of ignorance.
dagon
a hearty agreement with much of what you posted above john.
–but this begs an even greater question, you are a proud member of this party/movement WHY?
peace
DJAnyReason
Not quite:
But close ;)
Jack Roy
DJ Any—
Yeah, too lazy to Google; thanks for the assist. But if memory serves, that’s not the only formulation of that phrase by Mill, and I believe there’s another (using “most” rather than “generally”). I may be mistaken, though. I’ll do the research after lunch.
Doctor Gonzo
Maybe that’s true, but that still seems to be an odd reason. Especially for things like homosexuality that really don’t affect people in any way.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that some percentage of homophobia is attributed to closet cases themselves. After all, if they see homosexual couples in public being more or less accepted, it’s a reminder of the identity that these closet cases are actively trying to supress, which can’t be too pleasant. That’s part of the reason why some people insist that it is a “choice”: since they are choosing not to engage in homosexual activity, they assume that everybody else deals with the same demons, while the vast majority of people don’t see homosexual behavior as representing “the choice they did not make”.
But aside from the closet cases, how does it affect a person to see gay people in public? How does that make people feel insecure? What are they worried about?
demimondian
I largely agree with the original commentator, but I think it’s more complicated than she makes it out to be.
Whenever I think about the passion of the gay rights movement, I’m reminded of a line from _Gone With the Wind_: Every white, no matter how poor and uneducated, had higher status than even the richest and best educated african slave. Nowadays, you don’t get free status relative to African-Americans, but so if you want free status, you need to find another crowd. You can’t really get it relative to immigrants, since there are too many of them, and, besides, their kids aren’t immigrants. So, what are you left with?
Well, right now, it’s gays.
The Other Steve
Punchy – I have to agree that Coulter long since abandoned American values. I don’t know why the right continues to lap up her vile crap, but they do.
But I think it’s better that we shine a light on it, and allow the world to know that she represents what Republicans stand for today. That is much better than trying to hide it.
Eural
In general the conservative trend is a world wide phenomenom that goes waaaaay back in history. I call it the “old fart” disease and you find it in the works of Confucius and Plato (to name just a few) – “back in my day/the good ole days…” etc. etc. Every culture has its version and if you boil the rhetoric down you get the same fears, warnings, etc.
Same thing for the threat of “balkanization” – it is true that all failed civilizations collapsed due to a failure to assimilate invading/immigrating cultures. But what can you do? History is demographics and demographics support the iron law of inevitable change…and an inevitable (though futile) conservative backlash.
By the way, we call the conservatives in the Middle East the Taliban. Again, boil down the specifics of their rhetoric and (some) of the extremism and you would will find a lot of similiarities between our fundies and theirs. Ours just believe in the rule of law and civil liberties due to US traditions (or at least they used to although Bush and Robertson are working to change all that…)
Krista
Fear.
You have a group of people who are absolutely overwhelmed by the changes that have taken place in our society. Just since I was born (1975), we have had huge changes in gender equality, racial equality, and acceptance of homosexuality. Those who are overwhelmed by these changes, realize that they cannot control what changes occur within our society as a whole. That scares the piss out of them — that loss of control.
So, they try desperately to re-assert that control. That’s what they’re doing now. And they are very aware that their view is the minority one, and it’s making them even louder and more desperate.
The way that their thinking goes is “I love my country. I think that X is bad for my country. You say you don’t care about X or that you support X. Therefore, you don’t love my country, and you are to be antagonized and feared.”
That’s my armchair analysis, anyhoo.
Punchy
Oh, they’ll be some light shone on this. I know she’s written some nasty shit before, but this is incredibly off-the-charts obscene (implying the widows of 9-11 are happy their husbands are dead) that she’ll be excoriated for this.
Eural
Just like the time she said she wished Timothy McVeigh had attacked the NYT building instead of Oklahoma City? Don’t bet on it…
Eural
BTY, I just tried to post a lengthy and brilliant response to the whole conservative thing but mis-typed my email log-in so I don’t know what happened to it, nor do I feel like retyping the whole thing. Just be suitably impressed by my flowing rhetoric and analysis and you’ll get the point. Maybe next time you’ll even get to read it!
Darrell
I love how you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side. Interesting assertions except for the facts. California, arguably 1 of the most liberal states in the country, passed a bill called Proposition 22, by an large majority (61%), the purpose of which was to define marriage as between a man and a woman and to prevent the state legislature from changing that law without a vote. Very strong, very clear language in that bill.. and it passed in a big way in a very liberal Democrat dominated state.
So in order to attribute your wild-eyed ‘fear of gays’ theories to paint Republicans, how about first honestly admitting the truth – the truth that MANY Dems clearly oppose same sex marriage, including the last Dem presidential candidates who made a public statement against same sex marriage.
Let us know when you libs are capable of honest discussion on this topic and we’ll get back to you.
fwiffo
I think what’s been identified here is the most fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism (on the social axis, at least).
The historical alignment of libertarian-leaning types (like Mr. Cole) with conservatives seems stranger and stranger every day.
mrmobi
Buchanan can be pretty silly, especially when he goes off on these “values” jags. But I do like his take with regard to never-ending war and nation-building. (He writes irregularly for AntiWar.com)
I submit that the right is really afraid of sex, not cultural decline. We spend billions on abstinence-only sex education (here and abroad) despite compelling evidence that it doesn’t work, and, in fact causes higher rates of STDs among those who pledge abstinence and fall off the wagon, because they tend to not use condoms, never having been given information about them.
The America that these righties want to preserve doesn’t exist anymore. I suspect lots of folks want to have family, home, children, etc. (the “complete disaster”, as Zorba put it), but there’s too much to do, re-educating ourselves every few years to keep up with the global economy. How is anyone supposed to do that and have this fictional traditional life with mom at home and dad at work, when American workers have been forced into a “race to the bottom” of stagnant wages and/or lower and lower-paying jobs?
Case in point: this week the Senate will (probably) vote to repeal the estate tax. Cost: 1 trillion. The 18 or so families who purchased this legislation will have won, consolidating their wealth for future generations of their families, while making it more difficult for anyone born into poverty to escape it. And some future administration will have to raise taxes to re-coup those lost funds. If that future administration is Democrats, the whole cut-taxes/drown the government in a bathtub cycle starts again, wheeeee, ain’t it fun?
Pooh
To continue the meta-discussion, isn’t part of the appeal of Burkian ‘conservatism’ pragmatic, in that if things are largely working, why throw the baby out with the bathwater (Party of Death, bitches…) in the course of minor tweaks?
Of course, the problem is is that the ‘pragmatism’ is based on a time when, unless you where an upper-middle class, male WASP, life was not so good…
Krista
Re-read my post.
Read it well.
Please tell me where I used the words “Republicans”, or “Democrats”, or “left” or “right”, or any other word that would indicate that my comments were indicative of party politics.
Please tell me how my comments were about anything other than unnamed, uncategorized people who are opposed to societal change.
Please let me know when you find anything in my comments that could be considered partisan, and get back to me when you’re capable of an honest discussion on this topic, okey-dokey?
Darrell
Interesting comment on pragmatism Pooh… if it ain’t broke, why the rush to ‘fix’ it? That one is worth chewing over. But this one, defintely not
Except non-white Asian americans earn more money than white Americans. I believe black immigrants from the Carribean earn more than whites as well. Non-Wasp Jewish americans do better for themselves thatn Wasps. Like I said before, you lefties love your caricatures.. until they collide with facts. carry on
ppGaz
Welp, here’s Darrell to queer the thread.
Pun intended.
Pooh
Darrell, I’m referring of course to the 1950’s.
Darrell
Oh I’m sorry, the topic of the thread started with this
SeesThroughIt
Great response, Krista. You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth (or keyboard, as it were).
Krista
Oh, and just to save you a bit of time, don’t bother writing, asking me to confirm or deny whether there are Dems opposed to gay marriage. And don’t try to say that you were talking about the other “self-righteous leftists” on this site are embracing caricatures. You blockquoted from my post, peckerhead, and are therefore accusing me of being dishonest and partisan, when I’ve done no such thing. So either produce the proof from my post that validates your assertions, or admit that you were wrong.
Krista
Nuh-uh. Nice try, sweetpea. John wrote that, not me. So unless you think that I’m John or John’s me, you have yet to produce the reason why you blockquoted my post as an example of how the left supposedly caricatures the right.
I don’t expect you to admit you were wrong, anyway, you know. You obviously don’t have the ‘nads.
Steve
Wait… there are conservative Democrats? No way! Wow, that really does change everything.
Pooh
Wow, there’s a cetain Tyson-McNeely element to what just happened…
Tim F.
Punchy, you’re really walking the line with comments like this. If you don’t care what I think, keep in mind that you are reacting precisely how Coulter wants you to react.
Darrell
Ok Krista, in the context of a thread which singles out “the right” as being the ones so vehemently opposed to gay marriage and every other post attributing that sentiment to “conservatives”, I’m sure in that context you were merely referring to ‘unnamed, uncategorized’ people. Makes perfect sense
Krista
Nope. Try again. That’s just how you chose to interpret my remarks, because you love to caricature anybody who disagrees with your worldview as being “leftist.”
It’s who you are.
Once again, provide the proof that my post was partisan. The post wasn’t that long ago, and is there for everybody to see. Surely a smart fellow like you, a fellow who only a day or so ago shrieked “I NEVER said that!”, would not be so imprudent as to deliberately and dishonestly misinterpret another’s words….would you?
Blue Neponset
It seems to me the simplist explanation to all this “gay marriage is wicked bad” talk is that the people saying these things don’t like gay people. That is all the psychoanalysis of them that I need. In my mind, it is just bigoted people acting like bigots. Democrat, Republican, Yankees fan, it doesn’t matter, if you don’t support gay marriage it is probably because you don’t like the basic idea of two gay men getting married. Otherwise why would you oppose it? It doesn’t affect your life in any way, shape or form.
Darrell
Since you’re being dishonestly coy, I’ll respond in kind that I never said YOUR particular post was partisan. Show me where I said it or STFU.
See how much fun this is Krista.. you obsessive whackjob
chopper
Darrell saysI love how you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side.
now i know for sure that you’re a spoof. it just doesn’t get any spoofier than that.
Brian
Oh, give me a break. You can’t really believe this, can you? Is it the murder of Matt Shepard you’re referring to, holding it over Wyoming as Exhibit A in its rampant and murderous homophobic population?
Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage? I am not against gay marriage as much as I’ve yet to see a good argument for it. If it’s not procreative, maybe the government shouldn’t be getting into the business of endorsing it. Marriage has certain protections in order to protect the offspring of those marriages. Yes, some married couples don’t have children, but that’s their choice, not the government’s. Marriage is a means of assigning responsibility for children.
So, can someone give me a good reason FOR gay marriage? Don’t make an argument against marriage. That’s a separate issue.
Steve
Let’s try actually reading for a change.
What’s that word? “Vehemently”? Why, it’s too big and complicated to understand!
John did not claim that you have to be a wingnut to oppose gay marriage. But he did refer to the fact that virtually everyone who VEHEMENTLY opposes gay marriage, the people who scream about how it’s the greatest threat facing American society today, the people advocating that we must drop everything and make it a constitutional amendment today, virtually all come from the extreme right wing.
Eural
So…I state that the rightwing fundies are akin to the Taliban and Darrell gets into it with Krista over his interpretations of her not so specific references?
Where’s the love Darrell?
Here’s another to chew on – if all rightwing affiliated people are anti-gay how does that explain the towering influence of the Log Cabin Republicans?
Krista
Your hands must hurt from grasping at straws.
So, then…if my post WASN’T an example of “self-righteous leftists embracing ignorant caricatures of the other side”, then why did you blockquote it?
C’mon Darrell…it’s not that hard. Just six little syllables: “I’m…sor…ry…I…was…wrong.” I’m sure you can do it.
Or are you so dishonest that you actually believe that you’re infallible?
chopper
I’ll respond in kind that I never said YOUR particular post was partisan.
you used her post as an example of how “you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side”.
seems pretty cut-and-dry.
chopper
so some people shouldn’t have the same basic rights as everyone else until someone proves that they deserve them? that isn’t the way this country is supposed to work.
if you want to deny a group of people the same rights as the rest of us, you need to come up with a persuasive reason to do so, not wait until someone else convinces you that they should have them.
Blue Neponset
Becasue gay people want to have the same marriage rights and priviledges that straight people now enjoy. It is that simple. If that isn’t persuasive enough for you then there is no argument that will be persuasive enough, IMO anyway.
Pooh
Yeah, it’s not like you quoted it at length or anything…
Krista
BRB. Must run errands. While I’m gone, Darrell…try practicing typing out the phrase, “I was wrong, I’m sorry.” You might get a cramp, due to not typed that particular series of keys before, but I have faith that a strong fellow like you can assert mind over matter.
Darrell
How about you Krista, a person who regularly slams the conservatives, in the middle of a thread which specifically singled out conservatives and the right, dishonestly pretending that you were not referring to said groups. Just say it Krista.. it’s not that hard: “My name is Krista and I’m an obsessed whackjob”. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Doctor Gonzo
Hmmm. I’ve never heard marriage put that way. That’s a pretty stark legal interpretation, don’t you think? I’ve never thought of my marriage as being nothing more than assigning responsibility for our (non-existent) children.
If you seriously believe that marriage is nothing more than a set of laws for assigning responsbility for children, then you are at odds with the vast majority of the country, including all of those religious people who think that marriage involves God in some way.
Pooh
So, Big D, which was it? You weren’t referring to Krista, or that you were right in your reference to Krista? Try to keep up, but those are mutually exclusive propositions, and we’re silly that way, but you should probably pick one or the other because trying to alternate makes you look like, well, yourself actually.
zzyzx
The reasons for same sex marriage are that it makes things easier for the couples in question to deal with everyday matters (e.g. joint ownership of property, visitation rights in a hospital) without hurting anyone else in any way. If something helps people and doesn’t harm anyone, I don’t understand why it shouldn’t be done.
A large part of the reason why I’m going to end up marrying my current gf is that it’s becoming a real pain to live together and share things but have to fill out tons of paperwork to – say – switch over my car to her. We’re probably not going to have kids (I don’t think it will be possible due to some health issues) so I’m effectively in the same situation as someone in a same sex relationship. If I can get married, I don’t see why they can’t.
Krista
Once again, nice try. If I’m oh-so eager to slam conservatives, and do so regularly, then how come my post made no mention of them?
John S.
How about Darrell, a
personpersona who regularly brands EVERYONE who doesn’t agree with him as a leftist, moonbat, kook, etc.?Just say it Darrell.. it’s not that hard: “My name is Darrell and I’m an obsessed whackjob”. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Brian
Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?
Should these relationships get the same government approval? They’re not all that different, really. And can you see these groups coming out of the closet (so to speak) seeking the government bennies after gays get them?
I remain unpersuaded by the idea that gays “deserve” a “right” to marry.
chopper
well, spoofy is as spoofy does, i always say.
Krista
Darrell, you are a fucking dishonest coward who should hang his head in shame.
demimondian
End of life issues — a spouse has rights to access to medical records and decisions as next of kin. Adoption of a spouse’s children. Child support (which is an issue for both gay and lesbian couples). Social security benefits for a stay-at-home spouse.
No, Brian, there are a lot of benefits to “marriage” which don’t accrue to same-sex couples. And if you don’t think that they can have kids…I suggest you read any of Savage’s stories about the kid he and his partner adopted, or that you talk to the couple down the street from me when they’re out walking with their kids.
Darrell
I never said it did. Show us where it did or STFU.. it’s that simple you dishonest fucking bitch.
zzyzx
The difference, of course, is that those relationships are by their very nature transient. Marriage is supposed to be permanent.
John S.
It’s difficult for a maligned and petulant child with an overblown superiority complex who likes to throw red-faced tantrums when confronted with their own solecism to come off as anything but themselves.
Brian
I’m with you, but I believe that there will be unintended consequences, some of which I noted above, that we’ll have to deal with in our “rights” culture. At the same time, the entire concept of marriage, fidelity, and family will change to the point of being unrecognizable. There are consequences for society at large, not just social conservatives.
jaime
How about it’s none of your fucking business if two men or two women want to marry.
Good. So you’ll endorse a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage between older people, or those incapable of having children? Or those who have undergone vasectomies or had their tubes tied? Or those who don’t want children?
demimondian
Why should straights, even those who choose not to have children, be specially privileged? Gay marriage isn’t a rights issue, it’s an equal protection issue. If a couple wants to take on the burdens and benefits of marriage, then I don’t care who they are. I don’t see why the law cares, either.
chopper
WTF do those have to do with marriage?
see, you’re arguing from the same incorrect frame of mind that figures that the US Constitution bestows rights onto people. that is incorrect; the US Constitution assumes that rights belong to the people and then purports to say what rights the government has the limited ability to curtail.
saying that people don’t have a certain right until it’s written down or that they somehow prove that they ‘deserve’ it is a backwards reading of the way rights are supposed to work in this country.
Doctor Gonzo
Two straight women: fine. Brother and sister: illegal for incest issues. Two single moms: fine. Gay man and straight female friend: fine. It’s not the state’s job to determine what constitutes a “valid” marriage outside of the legal requirements. No sex, no intimacy, no emotinal sharing…it’s not anybody’s business (and plenty of heterosexual marriages are pointless).
If two straight women are raising kids together, and they want to make it easier for one to assume custody of the kids in the case the other dies, what is wrong with that? More importantly, wouldn’t it be much better for the kids for the other parent to assume custody, instead of being put in a foster home?
There are hundreds of benefits that married people get that aren’t afforded to unmarried people. The way I see it, either the government should get rid of all of those special benefits, or open them up to all couples that want them.
jaime
We should take it back to biblical times when I had many pre-arranged teenaged wives who know that if she talked back that meant a public stoning. Ahh…tradition.
ppGaz
Sure. Gay people want marriage. They benefit, and deserve the benefit. There is no rational reason to discriminate against them. Society benefits for exactly the same reasons that it benefits from all marriages. No difference whatever.
Marriage is marriage, and a family is a family. You are either for these things, or not. The sexual preference at the core of the thing is irrelevant.
Failure to recognize this is ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted and gratuitous manipulation for one’s own purposes. Rather than ask for a rationale for it, you should be looking for one against it. There is none. Not even the lying prick homophobe Darrell, the lyingest piece of crap ever to walk these paths, can state one. And you, you’re just a spoofass troll. But you got a real and comprehensive answer to your question, and there’s not even any charge for it.
srv
No, the government should not be in the business of codifying religious institutions.
But as long as it is, it ought to be blind.
John S.
The exchange:
Now go fuck yourself, you irascible prick.
chopper
only to those that have such a dislike or distrust of gays that they don’t want to recognize it in the first place. it’s circular logic. “i don’t want ‘marriage’ to change cause then ‘marriage’ will have changed.”
SeesThroughIt
You know, it’s funny…I find Buchanan’s social views to be completely repugnant and emblemic of why I could never embrace social conservatism. And yet on other matters, I really respect his intellect even if I think he’s completely wrong. I really can’t explain it, and it kind of weirds me out, but there it is.
Brian
There can be rights that are given as the result of said adoption, but that is not the same as a child born from sexual encounters. If the child cannot be supported, yet is carried to term,s/he can be adopted, and the adopting parents, gay or straight, receive benefits in kind. Blanket benefits for gays is not as acceptable to me.
The benefits can be transient with the relationship. When a couple divorce (and gay couples will divorce, I suspect in numbers at least equal to straights) the bennies are lost.
Darrell
Here’s one example of such unintended consequences. Not sure those unintended consequences trump demi’s well stated points on the other side, but there will most certainly be a lot this kind of thing happen as a result of same-sex marriage being made legal here.
Pb
Darrell,
Now apologize to Krista, or go to time out.
Darrell
One obsessed whackjob is enough on this thread Pb
Doctor Gonzo
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you telling me that only gay people will get married for tax purposes, and straight people never have?
Seriously, what color is the sky in your world?
HyperIon
last night CSPAN had two back-to-back presentations: one supporting the marriage amendment and one against. IMHO the folks supporting the amendment were very dim bulbs compared to those against, who were from the center for american progress and the cato institute.
i love CSPAN. they just turn on the cameras and film. i think what they do is as important to democracy as the internet. brian lamb is my hero!
contrasting the PATHETIC arguments (based primarily on “protect the children!”) from the pro amendment folks with the well-reasoned approach of those against the amendment was very revealing (but only if you appreciate reasoning, i guess).
Darrell
That’s not at all what I was saying. But thanks for playing
Darby
Maybe Darrell is referring to the Kristas of the left, of whom Krista herself isn’t a member?
Brian
What are you saying? Care to elaborate on this thought?
If the state is writing the license, then it absolutely is the state’s right to determine the marriage definition. Otherwise, why get married at all?
Right. Society sees a value in making this illegal because of the impact on the children that can come out of such unions. It’s not all that different from what I’m arguing. There’s no societal benefit to it, or to any of the other arrangements you find agreeable. It affects the personal individuals involved, at the expense of the population at large in terms of benefit output.
Nikki
So what? How does this in any way affect you?
Doctor Gonzo
Then what were you saying? The article you linked to argues that if gay marriage is legalized, then people will get married for tax purposes, completely ignoring the fact that straight people already get married for tax purposes. You are talking to a person who seriously considered getting married in college to get more financial aid, and who knows many students who did just that, BTW. People game the system now if they want to.
So if you are arguing that getting married for tax purposes is an “unintended consequence”, try again. And if you aren’t arguing that…then, well, what are you trying to say?
Blue Neponset
Except for the brother and sister I really don’t care if any of those couples get married or not. I certainly wouldn’t recommend marriage to any of those couples but if any of them want to spend the rest of their lives together, more power to them. The obvious reason to exclude a brother from marrying his sister is because any of the children they may have would probably be born with sever birth defects.
srv
I’m responding in general, not to “marriage” specifically.
You want to attribute reason to people who have fundamentally fragile value systems. This can happen to those on the left and the right in varying degrees, but it is inherent to those who live by certain religious world-views.
Who would Jesus hate? The only thing more rare today than a real conservative is a real christian.
ppGaz
Darrell, I promise you, you are done here. Permanently.
You will be beaten like a mule with new vigor fromt his day forward. Your willful stupidity has now crossed a line.
American Family ASsholes Association, or whatever the fuck you posted? Are you fucking insane?
Do you think that there are never “unintended consequences” in the world of straight marriage? People who marry for less than church-approved reasons, or who marry for sociopathic reasons? Those things have nothing to do with sexual preference, you fucking worthless bigot. They have to do with human nature and human fallibility.
You will wear the “I am a lying homophobe” here from this day on with every post you make as long as I am here to see it. You fucking suck, and you deserve to be banned from this place just on general principles. You don’t even have the courage to stand up for the senseless bigotry you sling here. You sling it and then pretend that you don’t embrace it. Your ruse is now over. You are the poster boy here now for stupidity and ugly bigotry and dishonesty.
Get used it to, Darrell, because I am dead serious.
Perry Como
How about blanket benefits for everyone that wishes to enter a committed relationship, regardless of sexuality?
Darrell
I never said ‘only’ gay, or ‘only’ straight people may get married for tax purposes or other financial gain as you alleged.
Doctor Gonzo
Okay, so do you support the state making sure that a man and woman really love each other, are planning on having sex, aren’t just getting married for the wrong reasons, etc.? So it’s the state’s job to decide which people are in a “valid” marriage? Remember, I said that the government should only care about the “legal” requirements of marriage. If two people get married and never speak to each other, it’s not the government’s business, nor is it mine.
Umm, there’s a bit of difference between banning incest due to genetics and due to power issues and expanding marriage to include gay couples. Family members shouldn’t marry each other for the same reason teachers shouldn’t sleep with their students: the power dynamic often leads to victimhood. But it is nice to see that you are using the same arguments as lots of other gay marriage opponents, that of “If we legalize gay marriage we will have to legalize polygamy/incest/pedophilia/bestiality!”
zzyzx
“The benefits can be transient with the relationship. When a couple divorce (and gay couples will divorce, I suspect in numbers at least equal to straights) the bennies are lost”
Yes but the expectation is different. Creating joint property for an arrangement where the people know that they’re going to move out as soon as they meet the right person seems counterproductive.
This really isn’t an argument against same sex marriage per se anyway, as there’s nothing that stops a gay man marrying his female best friend right now or from people making pacts that if they’re still single at 30 that they’ll get married.
Marriage is two things, a government system of benefits and a social/religious committment. People are already doing the second half. As long as people are going to take the plunge, letting them see each other when they’re sick seems like the trivial end.
tBone
I agree. Don’t the let door hit you in the ass – or whatever’s left of it after that beautiful p3wning Krista delivered – on your way out.
Tom in Texas
Why should we ban incestuous relationships? Seriously — how is it our business to tell them they can’t wed? The high risk of birth defects is not an argument to me — if we’re using that for justification, can we ban births in low income communities next to chemical refineries? I have to say I really don’t care who marries who. My qualification is that all parties in a relationship be capable of knowing and understanding what they are doing ie: no bestiality, pedophilia, marrying vegetables for an insurance policy etc. As for gay, incestuous, polygamist, or interracial marriages, I don’t think we can dictate it.
croatoan
Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?
The The Fourteenth Amendment (my emphasis):
Also, Loving v. Virginia:
Sojourner
It is an important source of societal stability. An important way of encouraging responsibility and commitment to society through the mechanism of love and commitment for another person. Just as with heteros.
Darrell
One more example of how leftists revel in self-congratualatory back slapping. As the ‘deciders’ of who is and is not p3wned, it must be great to have such a long undefeated history among yourselves
fwiffo
Those darn “rights!” Why do people even want them? They’re such a pain in the ass. Goverment is there to give you only the rights you absolutely need. I mean, they’re “inalienable” right? That means they’re not for aliens. Like those gay homosexuals with the gay.
Yeah, you’re totally right. There’s no societal benefit to the children of these individuals growing up in a family with a loving, committed adults and the stability of marriage.
Darrell
Slippery slope anyone? First gay marriage, then legalized incest. There you have it. Actually, I don’t hold a strong opinion for or against gay marriage, but it’s kind of interesting to see a first hand example of anti-gay marriage advocates’ argument about the dangers of the slippery slope.
fwiffo
Who’s spoofing as Tom in Texas? Come on now, fess up, you’ve confused poor Darrell.
tBone
Hey, it’s better than jerking off in the corner all by yourself.
Some Other Brian Guy
I guess it doesn’t surprise me to see Darrell and his buddies promoting incest and polygamy. After all their buddies out there in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT are under attack by the left wing activists.
How long will it be before we hear Darrell shouting “Free Warren Jeffs, he’s done nothing wrong!”
Some Other Brian Guy
tBone… great job! You’ve really got Darrell riled now.
Tom in Texas
Actually Tom is being himself today — no spoof. I’m, pretty libertarian at the core, and I’m being perfectly serious. I think state sanctioned marriages are about improving the community. Getting people to live in one home or city for decades, tend to their friends and neighbors, possibly raise a family, and contribute to the very essence of community. I really don’t care who is contributing.
Faux News
POTD. Now Darrell run along with your Fellow Troll Brian and go to Ptown in MA for your wedding. I will be there to kiss BOTH of the Grooms. :-)
Jeff Gannon
Faux News
chopper
You’ve got to be kidding. Are you telling me that only gay people will get married for tax purposes, and straight people never have?
my god, two gay people are getting married for tax reasons, just like straight people have been doing for all these years? those krazy kweers really are trying to destroy marriage.
Some Other Brian Guy
Wait a minute. Have you seen the impact on the children when people like Brian marry and reproduce?
It’s horrific, they become deranged lunatics bent on self-mutilation.
Obviously the only answer to this is to prevent people like Brian from reproducing. Society must step in to prevent this evil from occuring!
zzyzx
I admit that I’m not scared by the bottom of the slippery slope either. The only way that incest or polygamy or whatever bottom you have becomes legal is if the ickyness factor goes away. Once it does though, it’s very hard to keep the prohibition going.
Andrew
It’s as simple as this:
I see no reason to allow the government any control over marriage. There should be a government protected, legal right to chose any other single individual (brother, sister, mother, father, spouse, child, friend) of legal age and appropriate competance to act as sole caretaker for medical, legal, and financial purposes.
Currently, some of these rights are possible via power of attorney and a number of other methods, but they are incomplete and difficult to arrange as compared to marriage.
Since it does not appear that the system will be changed to make these rights complete and easy to acquire without the legal notion of marriage, legal marriage is the clearest mechanism for a large class of people (homosexuals) to attain the benefits that they are clearly due.
searp
I agree with Blue Neponset. The most rabid defense-of-marriage types are homophobes, pure and simple. They probably read something somewhere, heard their minister say something, had an uncomfortable experience at some point in their lives, or just plain don’t like the idea of homosexuals being accepted in our society.
Some Other Brian Guy
As a member of SINK(single-income, no kids), I for one am tired of footing the bill of married people everywhere.
Let them pay their fair share of taxes, just like the rest of us!
Doctor Gonzo
Which is why incest is illegal. Show me an example of an incestuous relationship that does NOT involve abuse or coercion of some kind.
Some Other Brian Guy
Why is the Government marrying people anyway?
Isn’t marriage a Religious Institution? Shouldn’t the Churches be doing this?
Andrew
Also, I should clarify that there is no need for a bidirectional responsibility. One person should be able to be legal caretaker of multiple people, but those people are not necessarily caretakers of that person, just like adults can be responsible for multiple children.
A conventional “marriage” is just two people agreeing to be the caretaker for the other.
Tom in Texas
I agree. The main reason people are against incestuous marriages is the ickiness factor. “Dude, that’s your SISTER!!” Marriages aren’t solely about sex and procreation. It’s companionship that matters. Maybe some people really are only happy with their twin sister, or their mom, or whoever. We need to give them incentives to stay together and be happy.
chopper
only to those that have such a dislike or distrust of gays that they don’t want to recognize it in the first place.
What are you saying? Care to elaborate on this thought?
i’m saying that it all boils down to a basic dislike or disrespect for homosexuals cloaked in ‘defense of tradition’ or something like that.
the only way marriage would become ‘unrecognizable’ if gays are let in is if the only marriage you recognize is ‘straight’ in the first place. so saying that letting gays get hitched will make marriage change to the point of being ‘unrecognizable’ is merely begging the question.
jaime
And before you know it, people will be able to marry their favorite Rice cake. Bears will take up with salmon. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!!!!!
Now that that dumbass argument has been taken to its logical conclusion, let’s just get to the point: Two men having sex is icky to you and that colors your whole thinking.
Punchy
Tim, I have no idea what comments you’re referring to since your link doesn’t work. I’m not sure what line I’m walking, but if you’d rather I be gleeful and excited rather than angry and disturbed than I’ll just exit out the left door. I don’t need you to tell me how to react to a sure-fire hate monger. You go ahead and acquiesce; I choose to fight.
Some Other Brian Guy
Queen Victoria!
She married her cousin Albert!
A slippery slope indeed!
Brian
Sure, why not? And while we’re entertaining the possibilities, why should minors be excluded from being available as spouses for adults?
All of the various options I’ve noted in my comments can be up for grabs if we change what marriage is defined as. I tend to be pro gay marriage, but only because our culture seems to be heading that way, and I don’t care to fight it. I can see many good things coming out of gay marriages, but I can also see many unintended consequences.
I can’t be on the blog all day discussing this, so allow me to point you to a brief post on the subject from a libertarian blogger I like. She takes no position in favor or against gay marriage. She does cite examples of where the consequences outstripped the expectations when insitutions were “reformed”. The best quote for me from her post is actually attributed to another writer, but is this:
“people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it”
Some Other Brian Guy
Ah ha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_cousins
CHARLES DARWIN MARRIED HIS FIRST COUSIN! That’s why the lefties love him, because he’s an incestous gay mexican!
Half the states in the US allow first cousins to marry. A bunch of incest promoting gay marriage loving, lefty commies, they all are! West Virginia and Kentucky are probably the most popular state to move to to marry your cousin!
chopper
we have a natural, biological aversion to incest because it goes against our natural instincts to spread our DNA as far as possible. children of incest are more prone to genetic problems and taking care of those problems are a burden on society. in short, we don’t want to have more retarded kids in this country.
those problems don’t exist for gay couples. they adopt, or they have surrogates. sperm donors. they can have healthy children several ways.
John Cole
OooOOoo. Passive-Aggressive. DADDY LIKE!
tBone
Especially if those men are wearing Boy Scout uniforms, at least in Darrell’s case.
Mike in SLO
I’m not suprised there is so much contraversy given the fact that we cannot agree on a definition of marriage in the first place. For centuries it was a property arrangement. Now it’s supposedly about raising children, or love and commitment to one another, or a way to get a green card, depending on who you ask.
I remain unpersuaded by the idea that straights “deserve” a “right” to marry. A 50%+ divorce rate proves they don’t take it seriously or uphold the so-called “sanctity” of marriage.
I actually like the idea of everybody having to prove they deserve to marry. Let’s also have everybody prove they deserve to have children. There’d be no unwanted, uncared for children anymore.
Most people don’t “deserve” any of what they have, but they have it. That’s life, like it or not. The promise of America is that one can have the same opportunity and choice in life as everyone else, whether or not they are the societal norm. Let’s try to actually live our American promise. It’s an American thing to do.
Darrell
Look, after this thread, no matter where you stand on gay marriage, no more ridiculing the ‘absurd’ slippery slope arguments coming from the opponents of same sex marriage.
Some Other Brian Guy
If gays want to get married, doesn’t that seem to prove to everyone involved that they see the value of the social institution?
Wait, I guess I mean everyone involved who still thinks logically.
Tom in Texas
Perhaps it would help to think of it like this: I support cohabitational rights for relatives who live together. Case in point: My aunts in Philadelphia. They are both in their mid 60’s and support each other in every way. They are a couple. They deserve the same rights as my grandmother and her husband, who she married 4 years ago after my grandfather’s death for financial/support purposes.
Some Other Brian Guy
What are you talking about?
You’re the one who brought it up. We can only assume you suffer from some sort of Oedipus complex and want to marry your mom. Otherwise, why would you even be thinking about this as a real possibility?
So if we want to ridicule you for wanting to marry your mom, you know what. That’s our right as Americans!
Some Other Brian Guy
The real question that this thread has brought us to…
Why does Darrell want to marry his mother?
jaime
Hey, it worked in the Bible. Traditional Biblical law allows me to have a flock of wives that are minors. Why do you want to re-define marriage?
If we allow gays to marry the next thing you know, we’ll be allowing marriage to a hive of bees? Does that count as polygamy?
ppGaz
For anyone wondering where Darrell stands, on any subject, it’s easy:
Get him to say “I never said ………” and whatever he says he never said, that’s his real position.
He will never come right out and state his real position on anything, so that if you challenge him, he can say “I never said that.”
That’s his fucking game.
Darrell
No I didn’t. Re-read the thread dumbass.
Steve
You can marry your first cousin in New York. I had to learn that for the bar exam.
Doctor Gonzo
Are they aunts as in sisters, or are they aunts as in they are both married to brothers, and are therefore not related by blood in any way?
More importantly, do they actually want to marry each other, or is this some kind of hypothetical?
tBone
Please tell me their names aren’t Selma and Patty.
Face it, if we legalize gay marriage, there’s only one inevitable outcome: gay incestuous cartoon characters getting married.
chopper
because a minor in the sense of ‘age of consent’ is not considered legally competent enough to make the decision for themselves.
who does that apply to? those of us who are pushing for gay marriage obviously see the use in marriage. if we didn’t we wouldn’t care either way.
Faux News
From the Huffington Post:
– NABNYC, 06.05.2006
Tom in Texas
Doctor: They are sisters, have absolutely no sexual relationship at all (both are widows: One is a retired professor the other a Presbytarian minister) and they want the same legal and medical benifits offered to others. An incestuous relationship, be definition, includes sex. I think that is unfortunate, in that a relationship can be had with no sex at all: both my aunt’s and grandmother’s relationships are utterly asexual. They are pretty much identical — two people supporting each other so they aren’t sent to a home.
Doctor Gonzo
Tom, that’s an interesting scenario. One reason I support universal health care is to remove this calculation from marriage/divorce consideration, so that would take away the medical benefits reason for getting married.
I’d still have to argue that sisters should not marry, however convenient it would be for your aunts.
Tom W.
Always enjoyed your site – but man, how can you stand having an Anne Coulter ad all over the place? I mean geez, John, is the horror worth the $25?!
Tom in Texas
That’s ok. I’m pretty sure I am in the minority on this one.
srv
30 & 40 year old men in the US were marrying teenage girls without societal concern up well into the 20th century.
So much for consistent religious values.
Krista
Okay…that was a little creepy, John.
Oh, wait! Let me run that sentence through the Darrellator 3000 interpretation machine!
/clunking sounds
“Okay…that was a little creepy, John, because people on the right are creepy and perverted and homophobic and racist, and I rilly, rilly think that everything that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan says is the honest truth.”
Some Other Brian Guy
Quite avoiding the question.
Why do you want to marry your mother!? It is vital to this discussion to understand more about this topic.
Otherwise how can we properly judge whether or not your incestuous desires are at all similar to gays wanting to get married?
DecidedFenceSitter
You know what, to throw some fuel on this fire I’m going to do something stupid.
Hi, I’m polyamorous.
Everyone on here who has interacted with me has interacted with someone who supports the gay rights debate, not only for the intrinsic value of the granting equal protection, but moving the legal benefits from their socio-religious roots but into a more equitable contactual relationship.
I have a wife. On the 22nd I will have been married to her for four years now. We dated for three years prior to that for a grand total of 7 years.
I have a girlfriend. January was our two year anniversary of dating; and I plan on buying and giving her a ring this fall on a date that is meaningful to the two of us.
She moved into our home two years ago, and became a home owner a year later (i.e., paying mortgage and not rent).
And in the fall of 2007, we’re going to have a ceremony, a “untraditional celebration of a traditional notion” as one of my friends coined it.
I don’t even know why I’m writing this at this point. After several years of being a minor activist, I’m tired of making the same arguments, of coming up against the same prejudices, the same ideologies.
So you know what? Pass your damn amendment. It’ll be the second time that the Constitution has been amended to restrict the rights of the people rather than protect and enumerate them. And I’m just as sure that in a decade that it will be appealed as well. I can be patient.
I can wait. And the tide will turn. Read the polls, those who are my age already support gay marriage in far higher numbers then those 10-20 years older.
I can wait.
Kirk Spencer
Brian said:
Brian, I’ll try (seriously). To begin, I have to disambiguate this term “marriage”. See, this ‘joining of two people together’ has two functional definitions. One is religious, the other is civil. And in the United States, the two are separate.
Religiously, marriage is a sacrament. It is a ceremony in faith of joining two into one forevermore – in just about every religion I’ve studied. And this grants absolutely zero civil benefits.
Civilly, marriage is a contract. It grants an exchange of benefits and responsibilities. Benefits include (for example) assumption of power of attorney in lieu of an actual agreement in emergency circumstances, and a host of equal picayune legal assumptions of power and authority. It carries with it the responsibility of provision of support both to the spouse (the other contract holder) and to any dependents mutually obtained, again along with a host of equivalent benefits (to include the peculiar ‘a spouse’s testimony can be blocked by the fifth amendment’ decisions).
The proof that these are separate is simple. You can be married civilly without a religious component. If you do so, you do not lose ANY civil benefits, though certain religions will not (officially) consider you married. (Specific example: Until not so long ago, and possibly even at present, a marriage outside the Roman Catholic Church is, barring specific exception, not considered a marriage in the faith.) The reverse can also be true if the religious figure officiating does not have a license to grant civil recognition of the marriage. They are specifically and legally DIFFERENT applications of the same word and broad concept.
Marriage (civil) is the right to grant another individual a host of default legal permissions balanced by another host of assumed responsibilities until the contract is specifically voided (divorce).
Now, why should people be allowed to grant this authority to people of the same gender? And – I think relevantly – why should it not apply to members of the same family?
There are two reasons for the allowance, one philosophical, one practical. Philosophically, it’s a core concept of the constitution as amended. We call it due process. There shall not be a citizen who solely by virtue of being of a general class shall be denied the rights of the majority. Restriction and revocation of rights must be on a case by case basis and must be shown to be to the benefit of the civil society. Perhaps you have trouble with that concept, so I will instead use a practical one.
Every year, a number of people are required to jump through loopholes and paperwork that is neutralized by the default permissions of ‘marriage’. In more than a few cases this effort includes time and money in courts to persuade people that the individual does indeed have right and authority to operate as the other person’s partner. In specific example I cite the estimated 3-10% (depending on reference) of all wills challenged, that are challenged solely on the basis that the partner is not blood and so the will should be negated and the property given to ‘family’. Success of the challenge depends on the state of probate, but the cost of the court not only to the participants but to we the taxpayers is huge. And wills are far from the only example.
Bottom line: Allowing gays to marry (civilly) reduces costs to we the citizens; and allowing gays to marry (civilly) elimminates the practical creation of a second class citizen.
Challenges and responses:
Well, why can’t we just allow family to be married? Response: family by blood gains a significant number of these civil advantages already. Normally it requires “opt-out” by the individual to prevent them, making the “opt-in” of marriage unnecessary. The exception tends to be in the area of procreation.
CH: Well, why don’t we just allow marriage to so-called underage members? Response: I failed to include an adjective in the above discussion. “Adult”. That is, believed to be of sufficient mental awareness and self-sufficiency as to truly ‘be of their own mind’. We know, sadly, that there are 40 year old people who can be led to do just about anything by someone who gives them the time of day, and that there are 13 year olds who could be effective independent figures able to withstand peer pressure from almost any source. We have arbitrarily decided that a series of ages – 16, 18 and 21 in most states – will be used as a standin for this mental balance we call adulthood. The goal is a liberal one – the innocent shall be protected till they are able to defend themselves and pass along the protection to those who follow.
What about bigamy/polygamy(andry)? Interestingly, this one may be a concern. The greatest difficulty created is in the fact that there is no longer a single voiced power of attorney, but rather that there are multiples who may be in conflict. The resolution of this conflict negates a number of benefits the default authority was meant to overcome. In other words, if Wife A and Husband A have to go to court to resolve which decides the correct medical action for Spouse B, the waste of time and resources makes the whole benefit moot.
Kirk
Kirk Spencer
Addendum to my post in light of the ‘benefits for sisters’ mess above.
As per my remark about family, it’s different. I can get my sister (or brother) declared as my dependent – my responsibility for provision of care and support. My insurance will allow me to add her in that case. There are existing ‘loopholes’ to the default allowances granted by marriage for blood (or adoptive – legal, not emotional) family.
Pb
Darrell,
I agree, but unfortunately we’ve got both you *and* Brian… :(
Sojourner
No slippery slope. Gays want the same right as heteros:
To marry the one person they love as long as that person is able to give legal consent, is not related, etc.
Bruce Moomaw
I think the reason for the Christian Right’s infuriated opposition to gay marriage is perfectly simple: they are convinced, on religious grounds, that homsexuals are seriously immoral just by dint of being homosexuals, and so naturally they think they should be punished for that sin. Period. The nonsense about gay marriage somehow “threatening the stability of heterosexual marriages” is recognized perfectly clearly by everyone on both sides as nonsense; the Christian Right wants to ban gay marriage not because they actually believe it would weaken straight marriage, but simply because they want to punish homosexuality by any means which they can possibly get passed legally at this point.
All that official business from Bush about the reason being that it would “endanger straight marriage” is just a figleaf — a classic political ploy to try to straddle the gap between two opposed political groups as well as he possibly can under the awkward circumstances. Legions of politicians have done it before, and legions more will in the future.
Krista
pb – But we forget! In Darrell-land, anybody who tries to actually hold him accountable for his wild accusations, and doesn’t get sidetracked by his fleet of jackalopes, is an “obsessed whackjob”.
Feh…I knew he wouldn’t have the balls to admit error. Poor Darrell. It must be tough, looking at yourself in the mirror and wondering why nobody likes you, not realizing that cowardice just emanates from you like a toxic cloud. I really feel sorry for him, actually.
Pb
Krista,
That’s because you’re far too nice. I, on the other hand, feel sorry for the rest of us.
Bruce Moomaw
As for the twaddle we’re getting on this thread about marriage to very young minors being no more immoral than gay marriage: please. The point is that gay marriage harms no one in any way, while marriage between an adult and a young minor who is almost certainly not nearly ready for it emotionally (and who can be easily bullied by that adult) DOES do harm to that minor.
And if you insist on believing that homosexuality is immoral even if does no harm to anyone, then you’re faced with the obvious next question: just HOW immoral is it in that case? As immoral as murder? As stealing $5000? As stealing a penny? And, in any such case, why?
Put that way, it becomes instantly obvious that people who call homosexuality immoral are really just saying that it’s AESTHETICALLY offensive to them; they don’t like to look at it. But physically deformed people are aesthetically offensive to us too, and we don’t think they have a moral duty to stay tucked indoors out of sight.
Christ, do I actually have to explain any of this to adults?
Punchy
EXACTLY. He cannot say “my religion forbids it” without looking like he’s governing from his Bible. Instead, it’s this bullshit about “sanctity of marriage”, but the origin has nothing to do with concern about marriage and all to do with concerns about what his Bible says.
And the kicker is that he obviously thinks we can’t see through all that….won’t notice his sham proclamations..
Some Other Brian Guy
Well Darrell has disappeared when questioned about his mother.
But the point is, where my questions no more ridiculous or stupid then what Brian and Darrell have spewed on this thread as reasonable issues?
That is why Some Other Brian Guy exists, to de-spoo the wingnuttery pretending to be reasonable.
Some Other Brian Guy
That can’t possibly be true!
If two guys get married, assuming we have a balanced population of men and women… that means there are two women in this world who can’t find a husband.
This forces those women to engage in a lesbian affair!
This does appear to be the argument Brian and Darrell are making.
Krista
DecidedFenceSitter – Either we’re a pretty jaded bunch, or nobody really knows quite how to respond to your disclosure. :)
Tom in Texas
That’s why I could never marry a Canadian. They speak (or at least understand some) French. They’re too nice — plus that whole “eh” thing would drive me batty. Who watches hockey in the US of A? CANUCK MARRIAGES ARE RUINING AMERICAN VALUES. We need an amendment. Hell, all I need is an addendum to the current one. Can we PLEASE ban Canadians from marrying here as well?
Darrell
What so over-the-top ridiculous or stupid things have either of us ‘spewed’ which compare with your ever so witty and hilarious comments regarding my mother? Given that I don’t feel strongly one way or another regarding gay marriage, seems some of you are so extreme that even middle of road points of discussion get painted by you as beyond the pale.. whatev
Pb
Some Other Brian Guy,
Actually, it’s more nefarious than that–all those gay men and women not making babies with each other all the time collectively lowers America’s birth rate, which is why the Mexicans are taking over!
Andrei
Actually… given how John defended Stormy and banned me when I called Stormy an epitaph to prove to her that not all of us lay the smackdown like sissies, I’m wondering where his sense of chilvary has gone when Darrell called Krista “a dishonest fucking bitch.”
Not that Krista needs defending given how well she reacted to the whole thing. (Although many claimed that Stormy didn’t need defending either.)
It’s one thing to not ban a guy like Darrell for basically being an idiot. That’s all fine and dandy and well within the rules of what B-J is supposed to be about I guess. But it still begs the question amoung many commenters and readers here why Cole doesn’t respond to Darrell explicitly after all this time.
Sure, there’s no need to read anything into a non-response (busy with work, missed the comments, thinks the comments aren’t worth responding to, who knows) and there’s no need to make up some wild conspiracy about the motives of keeping silent in responding to a guy like Darrell… but in this particular thread, when Darrell has very clearly crossed the intellectually dishonesty debate line, one has to wonder why the host remains silent on letting one person consistently act like a screaming six year old in the grocery wanting candy in the checkout line.
Darrell
Ouch! Get me some ice for that spanking you gave me Krista. You guys are way too clever
Tom in Texas
No offense intended Krista — I’ve never seen a hint of French from you :)
srv
Outside Quebec, I wonder how many speak French. If we could just get them to secede, we could pick up the nice parts.
Some Other Brian Guy
Well actually, in Soviet Russia they do. People who are not normal are really looked down upon. This included the gays, cripples everybody.
So Darrell and Brian want to turn the United States into a version of the Soviet Union.
That makes Darrell and Brian Communists!
COMMIE BASTARDS!!!!!! YOU KILLED KENNY!
Krista
Vraiment?
Darrell
In case you didn’t notice, my comment was a response in kind to this from her
Unlike you calling Stormy a “cunt” without her cursing at you, I was responding to expletives thrown at me from Krista. See the difference now you jackass?
Darrell
This is what passes as ‘reality’ among so many on the left.
Some Other Brian Guy
So let me get this straight. Your position is, “I don’t care, I won’t be affected by this… therefore I am in support of Amending our Constitution to include discrimination.”
That makes perfect sense.
So it’s not that you are a bigot, you just support this gay marriage amendment thing because it’s a political angle you think will help the GOP win votes with.
Which is exactly what everybody has been saying it is, that you called whacked.
Fascinating.
But you still have not answered why you want to marry your mother.
Some Other Brian Guy
Have you ever belonged to an organization such as the Communist Party?
Answer the question Darrell, and we better not find out you are lying or we’ll string your family up at Gitmo!
-Some Other Brian Guy
Chairmen of the Coalition to Protect American Values
Darrell
Hey, keep pounding those strawmen if that’s what floats your boat. Just don’t pretend like you’re a normal rational human being
Oh you lefties are so witty. And such a nice touch bringing up my mother. ‘Reality based’ community is what you call yourselves, right?
Some Other Brian Guy
Actually no.
Some Other Brian Guy
Why are you running away from your position?
I mean which is it. Do you care, or don’t you care? If you don’t care then this is obviously political… if you do care, then obviously you’re a bigot.
Enough with the reality based community. I spit on reality. I am the antithesis of Reality!
I am Some Other Brian Guy! I use righty argumentation style to make my point. Look in the mirror, Darrell, you will see Some Other Brian Guy in reverse.
Now answer the question.
Why do you want to marry your mother.
Have you ever belonged to an organization, such as the Communist Party?
Are you supporting gay marriage bans because you are a bigot, or because you are a political hack?
Some Other Brian Guy
THREE QUESTIONS!
There are three questions placed before Darrell. Let us see how long he can spin without answering them.
Krista
Andrei, Darrell’s right about the cursing aspect of it. It was evenly dealt out by both of us, so I didn’t take particular offense. Thank you, though, for your thoughfulness.
Tom in Texas
Krista:
Next time just cuss him out in French. How will he know?
Krista
Ignore the misspellings, please and thank you.
And Darrell, just because I’m not taking offense at you calling me a fucking bitch, it doesn’t mean I still don’t think you’re a cowardly dishonest ass.
Just wanted you to know. :)
Some Other Brian Guy
On a related note…
Proof that God is Dead
Tom in Texas
Or English works just fine.
The Easter Bunny
You ought to be a Senator, Tommy Texas. Nice to see that the moonbats and kooks haven’t driven away all the sane people here.
You don’t go far enough, though. Not only do we need to ban Canucki marriages; we need to round up the Canuckistanis in our midst and ship them all to Gitmo for some good old-fashioned American waterboarding. That’ll teach ’em to try to push their perverted gay moose-worshipping ways on decent folks like us.
And you lefties can take your whiny little complaints about due process and Geneva conventions and all the rest of your moonbeam rainbow hippy-dippy horseshit and shove it right up your tailpipes. 5/29 changed everything. We’re fighting a global war on Canucki extremism and gay marriage, bitches!
Andrei
I know. (Although I find it amusing Darrell equates “coward” with “bitch” in terms of expletives. Obviously, the word “fucking” hit the right button inside Darrell and for that, you are to either be congratulated or chastised. I can’t tell which!) It was just more of a thinking out loud exercise of how it is that guys who seem rationale like John Cole don’t respond to what I think many of us would agree are patently absurd discussion points from a guy like Darrell. (And yes, the original articles themselves do that to a certain degree, but one would think there’s opportunity for direct clarification.)
My favorite conspiracy theory right now is that John is Darrell, and uses that identity to keep the ad clicks going and his ranking reasonably popular on some blog tracker that watches page activity. But that would make me sound crazy like ppGaz so I try to avoid speaking about that crazy train openly.
fwiffo
Balloon Juice – where people of all political persuasions, ethnicities, orientations and cultural backgrounds can come together as one and act like absolute jackasses.
Darrell
Why are you lefties focusing on your creepy obsessive nonsense, when we have such a fascinating persona in our midst with FenceSitter:
Dude, it would be really interesting to hear a few of the details on how you pulled that off. If you all are truly happy, then congrats and take a bow.
I don’t mean to appear snarky over what appears to be a seriously poignant real life story.. but can you tell us how you sprung this on your wife and then convinced her to go along with it? Wow. You must have some incredible sales skills.. that, or a huge schlong:)
Tom in Texas
Now that you mention it, there’s a certain house seat I’ve got my eye on. A different Tom just had to give it up because of a huge media conspiracy to demonize him. It’s true — I heard it from Steven Colbert himself.
ImJohnGalt
Ah yes, gay marriage is a problem, but if some guy enters a consenting arrangement with two women, well that’s titillating. Darrell just can’t help himself. Now, if only they were boy scouts, that’d be a trifecta, eh?
Seriously, Darrell, are you that sheltered? Polyamorous couples don’t “convince” each other to go along with polyamoury (at least, not ones with relationships that last).
Generally a couple comes to polyamoury together after establishing a secure relationship with one another but a desire to explore the lifestyle together, or they meet within the community. If a partner needs “convincing” to do it, it can quickly become coercive, and the relationship will die.
Some Other Brian Guy
It’s interesting, with Darrell’s obsession about marrying his mother and everything.
There’s no Constitution Amendment banning Polygamy or Incest. Yet we have numerous laws against it.
Why aren’t they concerned about this?
I mean even the wording of the amendments I’ve seen, something about one man and one woman, don’t point out that the pair can’t be related.
So Darrell could marry his mother after all, there’s no amendment stopping him!
Darrell
I guess I am, as I’ve never knowlingly encountered a polygamist before. I’m skeptical though at your assertion that one of the parties typically doesn’t need be ‘sold’ on the idea. I would think it would take a lot of convincing, at least inititally.. as the sharing of attention would seem to arouse jealousy.
All hail FenceSitter!
Pb
…Darrell creepily obsessing over a personal story of polyamory?
My apologies, DecidedFenceSitter, since Darrell never will. That is to say, personally, I’d rather be ignored than have Darrell fantasizing about my personal life. Ugh.
Brian
So, if I understand the gist of this thread, with the possible exception of minors and siblings, any couple or “family unit” should be able to have civil marriage rights or at least the benefits that come with marriage. Have I got that essentially correct?
Pb
Brian,
More or less–the recognition or at least the legal rights. Either that, or get the government out of the marriage business in the first place (although that’d be a lot tougher).
Andrei
Given John’s D-Day post now up on the blog… it seems quite sad to me to think my conspiracy theory about John being Darrell couldn’t possibly be true, given how long and how much time that post probably took to assemble. (It also potentially answers the question why John isn’t repsonding to Darrell. Ah well… back to my cave.)
demimondian
potd
Punchy
Pick up? Nah…let’s TRADE. They give us Saskatubigword and Nova Scotia, we give them Mississippi and Alabama. We can then trade Tennessee (on the condition Frist goes with it) to Mexico for Cancun, and just give Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico in a “sacrifice to the Sea God” type maneuver. To maintain 50 states (and thus avoid the idea of the country en masse purchasing 2 billion new flags), we could split Florida in two, with the state line between N and S based on where tan-lines become noticable (around Orlando, I’d say).
Pb
Andrei,
Sadly, no–that was a repost from 2004.
RSA
Okay, here goes: Gay people, by virtue of having chosen their particular sexual orientation, clearly demonstrate their low moral fiber. We can thus expect a higher incidence of other failings, such as being bad credit risks and violent criminals. Gay marriage is the solution: gay partners will become responsible for each other’s debts, and they will be more likely to murder each other than right-thinking straight people. Marriage is punishment for gays, and they won’t even realize it. . .muahaha.
Andrei
Ah! I missed that! My fault. I’m sorry.
(See Darrell… not so hard to say.)
DecidedFenceSitter
Actually, unsurprisingly that is most of the reactions fall along two reactions for those not personally involved, i.e., coming out to our parents –
1) OMG the sex must be great, how the hell did you do it; or
2) Whatever floats your boat, dude.
—
I didn’t post this to titillate, though I expected it to. It is one of the more common male fantasies. My life is a lot of work, a lot of balancing, and everything that I know, every time someone comes up to me to ask questions about the lifestyle, well, the lessons that I’ve learned are just as applicable to a more standard.
No, I mostly posted this cause I’ve hit bitter, I’m sick of people telling me how I’ve got to live my life because it doesn’t fit within their norms. Basically, I’d love for every supporter of these measures, whether an active or passive supporter, to go up to a gay couple of 10+ years and say “I don’t believe you deserve equal protection under the law.”
And for many of the true believers, that wouldn’t be an issue. But I just want them to know who the ones who they are hurting are, I want them to put a face to the pain they choose to inflict. I want them to know what damage they cause.
Unfortunately, I’m not gay, though I do support their rights. So I can’t drop that hammer, I can’t bring that experience.
But I am part of an outlier culture, every day I commit a class D misdemeanor in my state, our five years plans moving out of a state I love because I need to be in a state that the Child Protective Services won’t take away my kids when I do have them.
That is why I posted this.
And to answer the question posed, no matter how crudely asked, because I do try. My wife and I came to this through conversation and communication, the hallmarks of any stable relationship, and because someone was pursuing her. So if there was someone who had to be convinced almost 3 years ago, it was me, not her.
Lord knows the sex is not worth the headache, legal issues, and stress that this lifestyle puts on us.
But the love is. And the sense of family.
—
Brian, yes that is exactly what those who are proponents of these equal protection want IMO. The amount of variance covers the spectrum, much as it does on any controversial issue, but as a baseline generalization – “civil marriage rights or at least the benefits that come with marriage” – would make my life a lot easier. And save me several thousand dollars in lawyer to get all those rights fees versus a 50 dollar marriage license next year. :)
The Other Steve
Here’s a question.
Why should we be opposed to polygamy?
It always struck that polygamy and opposition to it, tended to prove Smith and Hume’s theory of moral sentiments. Quite obviously in the bible there are examples of individuals who had multiple wives, even concubines. I am aware of nothing that says “Thou shalt not”.
In historical context, it makes sense. Since men did the dangerous stuff they had a shorter life expectancy, meaning more women in the society compared to men and a strong demand to have more babies. Clearly having multiple wives in this situation bears fruit.
But as society balances, population increases and the need for increasing the population vanishes along with the relative imbalance of men to women. Now you have a different situation, where to insure a reduction in societal friction you don’t have a handful of men marrying up all the available women. Otherwise you have some men who are very frustrated and prone to suicide bombing attacks.
So the morality here isn’t one of God’s creation, but rather one of societies sentiments based upon needs.
Just interesting. I’m opposed to polygamy, but only because I went to a college with a 70/30 male to female ratio, and I thought it was very unfair when guys had multiple girlfriends.
Punchy
OUCH. If I may…it’s an engineering school, wasn’t it? Milwaukee School of Engineering?
Krista
DFS – I have only one question: where on earth do you find the time? :) (I’m kidding — you don’t have to answer. My viewpoint falls into the “Whatever floats your boat” category.)
And Punchy?
Bite your tongue, sir. While it’s flattering to think that you desire Nova Scotia in this hypothetical trade, there’s no damn way I’m giving up my healthcare.
Krista
Anybody know offhand what the ratio is of polygamists to polyandrists? I seem to recall reading that there are very few instances of polyandry. Any married women here can probably understand why.
demimondian
Formal polyandry is rare among humans, although there are a very few societies which practice it. Given the potential for violence in such relationships, that’s not entirely surprising. Functional polyandry, however, appears to be quite common in all societies: even today, the rate of misattributed paternity has been estimated to be about 1 in fifteen live births in England, for instance.
I infer that there are lot of functionally polyandrous female humans. The alternative is blasphemous.
demimondian
What gives you the impression that you’ve got a choice? We’re going to come back and conquer you, just like we did back in 1812.
Brian
ppGaz…I found you a new spoof.
I’m not sure that we should be, at least in a legal sense. I don’t understand how these situations work. How do the finances work? How is the man shared amongst the wives?
Polygamy has always struck me as a logistical nightmare in our culture for those involved, and therefore a natural bar to many participating in it.
demimondian
Actually, cultures that practice formal polygyny tend to be strongly patriarchal. As a result, the man brings home a pretty young wife when he wants one, and he does with the older one as he wants. Typically, she becomes an unpaid slave. Since such societies tend to have no means for women to escape such marriages, you can usually describe them as “hell on Earth” without overstating the case too much.
I don’t deny the possibility that a consensual multi-party marriage could work, you understand. Monogamy has a certain intrisic symmetry which seems hard to replicate in polyamorous matrimonial relationships, though, so I’m skeptical about them.
Sean
I’m coming rather late to this game and the conversation has wandered rather far afield from the first “why” question that was posted. As a recovering conservative, I’ll give you my $.02 on why change is such a problem for some conservatives.
The farther right you go, the more the belief systems are based on a single, immutable Truth. The farther right you go, the more adherants to said belief systems are convinced they are the sole custodians of said Truth. Anything that challenges that Truth shakes the foundations of their world view.
Krista:
I just finished an intro to sociology class and can proudly pontificate in response to your question about polyandry, though I can’t give you any numbers.
Polyandry is almost non-existant. There are only a handful of cultures where it still exists. It exists in regions where living conditions are extreme, food is scarce and children can are a liability: mountain cultures in the Himilayas and the Andes for example. It’s also worth noting that cultures that practice polyandry are not matriarchies where the woman gets to pick her husbands. The woman is usually shared between brothers.
Punchy
You can move to Manitoba. Wicked good fishing, I hear. You’d make a fine ‘Pegian….
The Easter Bunny
About time you woke up and realized the need to take the fight to the Canuckistanis, demi. We will crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.
You feel that burning, stinging itch, Canuckis? That’s the rash of freedom and democracy, bitches, and we’re going to spread it in your country like crabs at the Burning Man Festival.
Krista
TEB – just a marketing tip. If you want to promote freedom and democracy, you might want to make it sound a tiny bit more appealing.
DecidedFenceSitter
You choose what’s important to you K, I don’t watch TV, I rarely go to the movies, instead I spend more time with my friends, with my loves.
A typical schedule goes like this:
1st,3rd,5th Monday – Family Dinner Night I have 9-12 people over, close personal friends who might as well be family.
2nd and 4th Monday – Me Nights, I get to choose what I want to do without consulting.
Every Tuesday – Happy Hour with a different group, generally with my girlfriend.
Every Wednesday – Family Night, just the three of us, staying in.
1st and 3rd Thursday – Date Night with my wife, where we do something special, just the two of us.
2nd and 4th Thursday – Date night with my girlfriend.
5th Thursday – Me Night.
1st,3rd,5th Friday – I have friends over for geekery.
2nd and 4th Fridays – Free
Weekends are generally a motley of activities; but I generally have to get my oil replaced every 6-7 weeks due to the mileage I put on my car.
—
As far as practical finances goes, well, our home is run very much like a business. For comparisons, my wife is the CFO because she wants to have absolute control over the finances, and it pleases her to balance to the penny. Otherwise, every month, on the first Wednesday, we have a small business meeting where we review the budget and expenditures for the previous month, and plan our events for the next 6-8 weeks. The curses of having a huge social circle.
Note that those of us in this subculture try to stay aways from polygamy, polyandry and polygymy simply because of the social stigma that those words carry, or to quote a friend, “So that’s some sort of Mormon thing?” Hence the bastardization of greek and latin for polyamory.
Oh and for those that think my wife is a poor abused neglected thing, please tell her that. No one’s dared say that to her in about two years after the last tongue lashing she meted out.
—
And to go back to finances, it works the same way it does in any healthy relationship, compromise and talking. We have a single joint account that all three of us have access to, and our own separate accounts. We’ve agreed and compromised on what comes out of what account, and it works. We get all the bills paid, we get to have fun, and if something explodes like the A/C unit, well we pay for the repairs, and it doesn’t really impact us.
Considering the high cost of living in the area (DC Metro), it’s nice to have the three incomes as well.
Krista
Mm, I’d imagine. And yeah, if you don’t watch TV, that would make a huge difference. It’s disturbing how much of a time-suck TV can become.
Well, you sound happy, and if you and your loves are happy as well, then my proverbial hat is off to you. Relationships can be damn hard work, and I’m sure that adding another human’s quirks and foibles into the mix can make it even more so.
Anyhoo, I’m off to bed, but I really want to thank you for having honoured me with a personal glimpse into your life — I think many of us have walked away with more open minds tonight because of what you’ve chosen to share.
ppGaz
FenceSitter …. I am a firm believer in leaving other people alone when it comes to matters that are none of my business. So good luck to you on your living situation.
But I can’t help reading your story and imagining myself in that situation ……
Hi, I have a girlfriend. My wife just found about it.
Please in the name of God, somebody call 911 and save me from being cut up by an angry woman wielding a large carving knife and calling me names I can’t make out over the sound of my car being driven into the dining room …..
Okay now I have large objects including cast iron frypans and chairs being thrown directly at my head …..
Oh Jesus now she has me in the doorway and is smashing the door over and over into my head ….
….who knew she could run this fast oh fuck I will never be able to get away from her before she …..
…are those my good shirts in the front yard with the arms cut off and Eat Shit and Die spray painted on them?
How the hell did she get my credit cards and Oh Christ here comes the car into the kitchen ….
Krista
ppGaz – you’re assuming that more than one woman could put up with you, hon. :) (I kid, I kid.)
ppGaz
AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHELPMEAAAAAAAAA
Krista
Note to Mrs. ppGaz – have you realized you’re living with a veritable comic genius?
(Sorry p – I shouldn’t rib you like this. I must still be feeling a bit feisty from going toe-to-toe with Darrell today. It’s not something I’m used to, so it takes awhile for the blood to cool down, evidently.)
Tulkinghorn
Fencesitter:
What you are describing is not polygamy, but monogamy with concubinage. There is ample allowance for it in the Bible, but not in common law. As you are probably aware, girlfriend/concubine has no rights at common law or by any statutes I have ever heard of. A raw deal for her, really, as there is no good way to protect her rights.
Perhaps the best approach would be to divorce wife, move the threesome to Massachusetts or Canada, and have wife and concubine marry as spouse and spouse. You would maintain visitation/custody rights and support obligations to all children, but would have to prove paternity… This is more interesting than the family law exams that they could come up with just five years ago.
The Other Steve
Aye, engineering. Iowa State. It’s more 50/50 now, but back in the late 80’s it was 70/30 and it sucked. Bottom 3 dorm floors were girls, top 7 were guys. I don’t know why the guys had to be on top, but that’s the way the girls liked it.
Perry Como
Sen. Santorum, is that you?
demimondian
TOS — none of you knows from unbalanced gender ratios. When I was in grad school, the department had 183 grad students, of whom three were female.
demimondian
Well, he doesn’t live in Pennsylvania, so it’s possible.
Punchy
Wow. I went to Iowa. Never heard of such m/w ratios over there in Ames. Great town, nice Veisha parties. Of course, when going home with a date means your hands are in your pockets, that musta sucked. Still, great party town.
Punchy
Such wordsmithing on this blog never ceases to amaze me.
The Easter Bunny
Look, sister, we’re running a war here, not a marketing campaign. I’m not some blow-dried wind-surfing focus-tested poll-monkey. I don’t give a shit if the only way we can win hearts and minds is by surgically removing them and holding a lottery.
So get used to it. I’m a straight-talker, not a homo-talker like you people with your fancy French words. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If you don’t like it, tough. It tests great with unemployed 18-54-year-old white males living in their parents’ basements, and that’s what counts.
demimondian
Listen, Krista. It’s time for us all to wise up to TEB’s abuse of the dead of 5/29. Despite his rhetoric, he has betrayed their sacred memories — I mean, really, “If you don’t eat Peeps this spring, then the Canuckofascists will have won”?
Let us honor (you can spell the word however you like, OK) those who died on that tragic day by rising above narrow partisanship, and by uniting to face tomorrow with peace through strength, prosperity through production, and contentment through well-deserved rest. Let us go forward, together, to make the world a place that the scared dead of that tragic day will not be rejoicing to have avoided.
Otto Man
Instead of 8 Santorum kids, we’d have 32. ‘Nuff said.
ppGaz
Monogamy with concubinage?
Isn’t that like vegetarianism with meatballage?
The Other Steve
Dates? What dates? I told you it was a 70/30 male to female ratio. :-)
The Other Steve
Shouldn’t that be enough for a anti-Santorum marriage amendment?
Beej
ppGaz,
My husband asked me what I would do if he went out with another woman. I assured him that in 10 or 12 years I would probably cool down enough to put flowers on his grave. My best to your wife. I think I like her style!!
DecidedFenceSitter
Tulkinghorn, my friends who are becoming lawyers love my life to debate what would happen if… some of them keep wanting to bring it up in law class and see what the professor does.
Actually in Canada, some reports have stated that with the Muslims coming in with multiple wives, the 2nd and 3rd wives are coming in as “cousins” to the first.
Tulkinghorn
You are a good sport to let people treat your personal life as an intellectual curiosity. I recall a law in England that allowed muslims to claim one wife at a time, but not more than one, to come in under the immigration laws.
Where there is universal health insurance the issues are less pressing… people can live together and still have access to health care. The old model was if you had a large family you would often have an aunt or cousin living with you to help out. Under our post-war insurance regime extended families are penalized if they do this and are not a part of the workforce.
John S.
I have long thought this was the harsh undercurrent of the gay marriage debate. The Chrisitan ‘outrage’ over the matter is little more than a red herring. The REAL force opposed to it are big business – namely the insurance companies. If gay marriage became as legal as segregated marriage, then all of a sudden millions of people would become ‘insurable’ – at the expense of their employers and the insurance companies that would represent them. Given the dreadful situation of healthcare in this country, does anyone doubt that instantly making millions more eligible for care doesn’t scare the shit out of the business and insurance lobbies? You can bet it does.
Steve
Um, insuring additional people is not an expense for insurance companies. In fact, it is how they make money.
It would be an additional expense for businesses, although I really haven’t seen a strong push by the business lobby. Many large companies already have domestic partner policies in place, so they wouldn’t even be affected.
Let’s think about this for a second. If the social cons AND the business lobby felt strongly about this, why wouldn’t it be a bigger priority for Bush, as opposed to something he only brings up in an election year? The reason the administration only pays lip service to the issue is because, yes indeed, it is only a major issue for the religious right.
The Easter Bunny
Wow, that sounds really nice, demi. You should take that message on the road. Fill up your Happy Pouch with rainbow dust and pixie juice and go skipping down Moonbat Lane. Sing Kumbaya. Hug a tree. Save a whale.
But when you step on a Canuckistani bomb and get blown into smoking gobbets of kook-flesh, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Pb
DecidedFenceSitter,
Way too much work for me–I’m so not that organized. :)
demimondian
As we have seen so often, the so-called Canuckistani-leaning BTM (Bunny Trail Media) still latch onto TEB’s sound bites like dolphins in a tuna-net. What evidence does he have to support his claim that fighting the Disciples of the Moose will actually keep them there, rather than bring them here? If anything, it will create locally grown radicals, who will respond to the random deaths of their compatriots in Eastern Canuckistan by attacking us here.
John, Tim — when are you going to take action against the liars who share your radical philosophy, instead of against us who try to protect AMERICAN RIGHTS?
John S.
It is an expense – or rather, a reduction in profit – when people previously covered under costly individual policies are now eligible for insurance under cheaper group policies.
You wouldn’t see it. The best lobbying is the kind you don’t see.
Because they oppose it from different angles. Social cons can publicly oppose gay marriage under the cloak of ‘traditional values’ and ‘morality’. That’s a lot different than opposing gay marriage because of profits. The lobbies work quietly to ensure that millions of homosexuals and their families will not be eligible for insurance while publicly the religious right wage their crusade. Although their goals are the same, the ideology that drives the two groups have nothing in common.
The Easter Bunny
It’s the flypaper theory, mofo. Our ordnance is blowing huge chunks out of Canuckistan and leaving behind a thin, sticky residue of freedom and democracy that traps the terrorists. The more they struggle, the stickier it gets. Canuckis can check in, but they can’t check out, bitches!
dlnevins
Let me guess: you lived in Towers?
(ISU grad, class of 1985, and one of only 3 women to major in Chemistry in my class. Yes, the sex ratio was wierd then, but as it tilted in my favor, I can’t complain much.)
Jess
Re: Polygamy:
Until recently I had a fairly libertarian attitude towards it and didn’t think it should be illegal, but I started reading “Under the Banner of Heaven,” which discusses how it works out in practice among fundamentalist Mormon communities, and it appears to be an ugly deal, very exploitative of women. This book has been criticized for its bias, but really, how else can a community maintain this practice without brainwashing and coercion? There may be individuals like DFS and his women who make it work fairly for everyone involved, but most women are not going to go for it unless they’ve been more-or-less bullied into it from childhood. I don’t know if making it illegal is the solution (it doesn’t seem to be working to stop these cases where it exists illegally), but I don’t see it as a benign alternative anymore. It’s not equivalent to gay marriage, which is between adults of relatively equal power within their community.
Pb
Jess,
Indeed–that’s my opinion of fundamentalism too.
Jess
PB,
Ditto.