Sunday, May 18, 2008

What she said ---

The late and brilliant Elizabeth Fox-Genovese has posthumously published a book entitled Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die . National Review Online has excerpted a chapter. Here are the concluding paragraphs:

Many Americans, who come to see same-sex marriage as just another step in marriage’s evolution, will accept the public pronouncements that they are doing no more than supporting “fairness” by extending some valuable benefits to people of the same sex who happen to love each other and wish to live together without shame or stigma. What could be more innocuous? But for the hardcore activists, the real goal is the destruction of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They aim to discredit all forms of authority — especially God and nature — that dare to tell people how to lead their lives. In the view of queer activists, desire, like love in Carmen’s “Habenera,” knows no law — nor should any be imposed upon it.

In the current climate, the appeal of their position is not hard to understand, especially since most of those who accept it do not begin to understand its implications. If anything, the defense of same-sex marriage looks like yet another logical step in the gradual increase in freedom for all members of society. And since activists, the courts, and the media overwhelmingly encourage this deception, we may readily understand that many people may come to see same-sex marriage as another blow against outmoded and illegitimate forms of authority — a blow for freedom and equality. Buying into this view, however, they will remain blind to the ways in which they are playing into the hands of vast governmental and economic powers. The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination.

Contrary to many prevailing views, marriage is not the seat of oppression but rather the last best ground for resistance against it. In binding men and women into loving relations and shared purposes, marriage acknowledges the reality of sexual difference even as it works to bridge that difference and lay a foundation for a vital and, yes, grown-up social life.

143 comments:

Sven said...

It's curious that through the centuries God and Nature seem to always "choose" disgusting, authoritarian bigots as spokespeople.

Inevitably, we discover that, in fact, those spokespeople had chosen themselves and were only speaking for the earthly powers that be.

Anonymous said...

A very well written perspective on what many think but haven't put into words.

There is no way that anyone could fit same sex couples into what marriage has always meant, especially in this country.

The California case is very similar to the arbitrary powers of monarhy that finally compelled revolution in this Country. Here we have but a few justices, arbitrairly imposing their (different) view of marriage on all people in California.

Jay Bullock said...

what marriage has always meant
The failure, here, is the presumption that the "meaning" of marriage has been static. It has not.

Anonymous said...

Jay -

"The failure, here, is the presumption that the "meaning" of marriage has been static. It has not."

In this country it has been and long before...do you think these justices came from a different place and time in some remote or barbaric part of the world?

Dad29 said...

Well, yah, Jay, you're right.

Marriage used to be a sacrament, until the Protestant Revolution.

That was precisely when the (understood) nature of marriage changed.

Of course, that didn't change the reality--only the perception.

Jay Bullock said...

Dad29, marriage was many things for many cultures long before--and long after--it was a sacrament for a single Christian church. To suggest that its exercise by that church is the only historical--or even the only proper--construction of marriage is not just short-sighted but absurdly inaccurate in so many ways.

Once again, we reach the point where you say, "What I feel is normal is 'natural law' and what deviates from my conception of normal is an aberration and must be stopped." When that's the sum total of your argument, Dad29, there's no sense in carrying on.

Anon 12:49, who I assume is also Anon 5:43, also fails the history test and, worse, has no concept of the California law on which these decisions were based. CA granted essentially the full rights of marriage through the legislature albeit under a different name (and after the legislature passed a marriage law, twice, that was vetoed by the governor who said he would rather have the court rule!). The justices found that creating a separate-but-equal class for treatment under CA law violated CA's constitution. This case had nothing to do with a "a few justices arbitrarily imposing their view of marriage on all people in California." The people of California did that to themselves, by electing and re-electing a legislature intent on granting equal rights to gay couples.

Dad29 said...

As usual, Jay, you attempt to voice MY argument in terms you can refute.

That's what's called "straw man." In this case, you built a false box around my limited response.

I recognize that other cultures besides Christianity have marriage.

Isn't is interesting that not ONE of those 'other cultures' has GAY "marriage?"

See, Jay, all of those other folks understand the objective reality in play.

Maybe you could learn something from them, Jay, instead of creating straw men to knock down.

Jay Bullock said...

Isn't [it] interesting that not ONE of those 'other cultures' has GAY "marriage?"
Isn't it interesting that this is FALSE?

Anonymous said...

Although this isn't intended to be indelicate, it seems significant that while heterosexual intercourse has the possibility for yielding babies, sodomy does not (regardless of the gender of those involved). That doesn't mean the latter should be illegal or something, but it does point to something profoundly different between a relationship between a man and woman and other relationships. In part because it is extremely difficult to define what that difference is, the same sex marriage debate will rage on. In any event, the California dissenters recognized that judges should let the debate play itself out and have no authority to impose their own policy positions on the rest of society.

Dad29 said...

Jay, perhaps you'd like to itemize the (recognizable) cultures which recognize gay "marriage."

PaulNoonan said...

The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination.

How? Just saying it doesn't make it true. Here, watch.

I have fourteen million dolars.

Nope, didn't happen.

Contrary to many prevailing views, marriage is not the seat of oppression but rather the last best ground for resistance against it.

I'm married. My marriage is pretty cool. That said, it has little to do with oppression. It is difficult to see how marriage would work to advance the cause of freedom. Marriage is nice. I'm a fan. I'm such a fan I even think gay people should be allowed to get married. But let's not go crazy here. I would argue that marriage promotes stability, but that is a reason for gay marriage, not a reason against it.

In binding men and women into loving relations and shared purposes, marriage acknowledges the reality of sexual difference even as it works to bridge that difference and lay a foundation for a vital and, yes, grown-up social life.

Once again, this is an argument for allowing, not prohibiting, gay marriage. Arguing the other way is a 2+2=5 argument. It's like an environmentalist arguing that nuclear power hurts the environment and corn-based ethanol helps the environment. Ignoring facts and logic for touchy-feely-goodness.

And I'll ask again, since no conservative can ever answer this question, if you are married, and gay marriage becomes legal, will it hurt your marriage?

Anonymous said...

Jay -

perhaps you could demonstrate your superior knowledge of history by showing us at what point in American history marriage meant anything but between a man and a woman.

The California Court had nothing to go on but it's own arbitrary view. The people of California voted 61% in favor of the statute that made marriage between man and woman in California law. Don't tell me that it wasn't the justices using unrestrained aribtrary power to change what people have long held true.

Moreover, you try to make it sound like homosexuals are the same as hetrosexual when they're not. Don't you think your lacking in judgment?

illusory tenant said...

"They aim to discredit all forms of authority — especially God and nature — that dare to tell people how to lead their lives."

What claptrap.

Since when can't gay people also claim that God speaks to them? God tells different people all sorts of different things all the time (or so we are told).

And how exactly is homosexuality unnatural? I suspect it's quite natural to homosexuals, including humans and ostriches.

Brett said...

I think what Jay is saying is that this country's Judeo-Christian history loads the question as to the "meaning" of marriage or how it was "historically" understood. Saying that the court's holding is contrary to the historical meaning of marriage (while, of course true) is about as obvious as saying that tomorrow follows today.

The meaning of marriage, however, has nothing to do with the legality of marriage, particularly when the court is asked (as a matter of first impression) whether giving marriage to some, but not to others, runs afoul of certain protections. What's being lost, however, is that the court was never previously called upon to answer the question whether marriage for some but not gays is lawful. That the court ruled in favor of gay marriage in 2008 is not evidence of activism. It's just proof that an issue of first impression finally made its way to the court. (Admittedly, I'm assuming it was an issue of first impression, since I haven't heard anyone disparaging the court for overruling prior precedent directly on point).

Dad29 said...

God tells different people all sorts of different things all the time (or so we are told).

Partly correct.

God speaks only what is true, and speaks that truth to different people (e.g., Moses, Abram/Abraham, David, Peter, John, etc.) But it is also true that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle (John, c. 100AD)--so no new 'truth' has been revealed since then.

All following TRUTH has been a logical extension of Revelation.

Needless to say, truth does not include homosexual 'marriage.' That would be a denial of the truth of the human body.

3rd Way said...

If there is anything "un-natural" about sexuality in our society it would be the institutionalized taboo of homosexuality. Homosexual behavior is present in nearly every corner of the animal kingdom, and it has been part of the human experience for as long as we have been keeping records.

Dad29 said...

God tells different people all sorts of different things all the time (or so we are told).

Partly correct.

God speaks only what is true, and speaks that truth to different people (e.g., Moses, Abram/Abraham, David, Peter, John, etc.) But it is also true that Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle (John, c. 100AD)--so no new 'truth' has been revealed since then.

All following TRUTH has been a logical extension of Revelation.

Needless to say, truth does not include homosexual 'marriage.' That would be a denial of the truth of the human body.

illusory tenant said...

God speaks only what is true.

Ah yes, of course. What about you, are you speaking the truth here? Are you sure?

No new truth has been revealed since c. 100 A.D.

So God's just been repeating himself?

the truth of the human body.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but I'm guessing it's a reference to orifices, appendages, and so forth.

Free the Hermaphrodite Seven!

On Lawn said...

Sven: It's curious that through the centuries God and Nature seem to always "choose" disgusting, authoritarian bigots as spokespeople.

Its not surprising that given the nature of supreme authority, many have claimed to have access to it in order to persuade people.

It is not surprising that bigotry, disgusting authoritarianism comes also from people who assume there is no supreme authority. For them, no authority beyond themselves is a great excuse to do mischief. And that is well spoken to by the article above.

Jay Bullock: The failure, here, is the presumption that the "meaning" of marriage has been static. It has not.

The meaning of marriage has been static. I am well aware of different expressions of that meaning, and different cultures and protocols as implementations of that meaning in sociality.

But the association of marriage with mating (sexes producing offspring) and how those offspring are taken care of is common among all of them.

I'll tell you what. Finding an example that contradicts that should be easy, right? If I'm wrong, you should be able to find an example where that statement is wrong.

I'll await for you to do so, as I am still waiting for someone to show a counter example to that. Perhaps you know something they (among which are doctorate level anthropologists who have researched this topic specifically) do not?

And just to show where you are thoroughly routed here, Anonymous pointed to the justices, who in California recently held that the meaning of marriage has been one mand and one woman. He asks why you feel they erred on that, considering you claim greater understanding than them.

I notice you have not met that challenge either.

Paul Noonan: Just saying it doesn't make it true.

The author clearly did not "just say it".

I'm always amused by untutored acts of denial like, "just saying it doesn't make it true". I'm amused because the person using that argument never seems to realize that saying something is not true does not make it false by the same reasoning.

Though I'm noting the folly of your argument, that doesn't mean I an uninterested in what you have to say. Please explain better how you feel that the nihilism behind this push would not reduce our ability to say what is right or wrong for society (i.e. establish laws, provide common security, etc...)

Paul Noonan:It is difficult to see how marriage would work to advance the cause of freedom.

That is an honest and frank admission of your own failings. I appreciate it.

I'll give you one example, I hope it helps.

Freedom is our ability to correctly govern ourselves. Governing ourselves is our ability to make decisions.

In choosing to marry, I chose to exercise my right to create a union with someone of the other sex -- knowing full well that union was inherently designed biologically to create children.

Those children have the right to their heritage, to be raised by the parents who combined to make them in a loving commitment to them. That commitment includes teaching them how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly.

I have the right and responsibility to raise them, to exercise good governance with someone of the opposite sex, in achieving that responsibility to children.

Neutering marriage does two things. First, it rebels against the idea of marriage equality -- equal gender representation in marriage. Marriage equality, as in any governance equality, helps promote more fair systems and execution of governance.

Second, as in Massachusetts and other governances the ability to be father or mother for a child is completely undermined. Your self-governance and family governance is assumed by the state. It is equaled with people who order children from a catalog, the birth certificate is re-written to meet the demands of those commercial transactions. The child's rights are undermined to have access to their heritage, people are payed to abandon their children. Trafficking in human lives has strong 14th Ammendment concerns in my book.

Paul Noonan: I'm such a fan I even think gay people should be allowed to get married.

I agree. But they are not served at all by giving them a counterfeit of marriage and society is not benefited by accepting that counterfeit as the new currency.

jfoust said...

Let the churches do whatever they want in terms of "marriage." Yes, some fraction of gays are religious and want those trappings, too - let them find a church who will deliver it. But they're rather unanimous about desiring to share in the civic rights and obligations - inheriting property, power of attorney, health care decisions and benefits, adoption, etc. that are handed to Britney Spears along with the certificate at the Vegas Late Night Chapel of Love.

I often see this as a church-state issue. As you can see in both Esenberg's posts and from-God's-mouth-to-Dad29's-ear, those arguing against circumscribing civic rights to same-sex couples often do it from a religious basis because they see it as an incursion on this governmental blessing of their religious ceremony. As Jay correctly points out, the civic side of marriage has changed through law many times. Ask a divorce attorney. If the civic bundle is so wonderful for traditional couples, why wouldn't it be beneficial for same-sex couples?

As for Dad29's challenge about who liked same-sex unions when and where, see Wikipedia. But heaven knows where Wiki-surfing will lead you, like adelphopoesis.

PaulNoonan said...

Wow, On Lawn, you might be a new favorite of mine.

That is an honest and frank admission of your own failings. I appreciate it.

You too.

I'll give you one example, I hope it helps.

Well, I could use a good chuckle.

Freedom is our ability to correctly govern ourselves.

No, that's intelligence, and skilled implementation. Freedom is tangentially related to proper governance, but the ability to correctly govern ourselves is not freedom. Freedom is:

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.


Your definition is closer to "responsibility." A fine thing, but not freedom.

Governing ourselves is our ability to make decisions.

I would say that it's setting up a system which slows down the rate at which the government can act/expand. But to each his own.

In choosing to marry, I chose to exercise my right to create a union with someone of the other sex

Good for you!

-- knowing full well that union was inherently designed biologically to create children.

First of all, that's not what the word "knowing" means. You think it, but you don't know it. Second, you may not know this, but you actually can produce children without being married. I wouldn't recommend it, but it does happen. Maybe you meant to say "raise children properly" or something like that, but marriage has little to do with creating children.

Those children have the right to their heritage, to be raised by the parents who combined to make them in a loving commitment to them.

This is what I would call, "flowery, somewhat awkward language that doesn't mean anything." I don't know what it means to have a right to your heritage. I guess it means you have a right to be brought up the way that you are brought up. I suppose since there are no alternatives, you're right. It just doesn't matter. Marriage is good for raising kids, which is yet another argument in favor of gay marriage. Do all of you conservatives actually support gay marriage? Because you argue the other side much better than your own.

That commitment includes teaching them how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly.

Again, an argument in favor of gay marriage. Good work.

I have the right and responsibility to raise them, to exercise good governance with someone of the opposite sex, in achieving that responsibility to children.

Here you're just redefining a term (good governance) to fit with your earlier metaphor, which a. makes no sense, and b. sounds dirty.

"So, you're going to give her some of the ol' good governance later, eh?

Neutering marriage

Assumes facts not in evidence. -1 point.

does two things.

Only two?

First, it rebels against the idea of marriage equality -- equal gender representation in marriage.

Ah, so one of those things is a concept that you just made up now. So really it probably only does one thing. Let's see what it is...

Marriage equality, as in any governance equality, helps promote more fair systems and execution of governance.

How? I mean, do you by any chance manage the Cincinatti Reds?

Second, as in Massachusetts and other governances the ability to be father or mother for a child is completely undermined.

Did anyone else hear that when Mass legalized same sex marriage that all the dudes became deadbeat dad eunuchs? I think at least Fox News would have covered that.

Your self-governance and family governance is assumed by the state. It is equaled with people who order children from a catalog, the birth certificate is re-written to meet the demands of those commercial transactions.

Now I'm thinking of deleting this comment because I'm actually a bit scared. So if we have gay marriage, the state will send me children and order me around? This makes no sense, again.

The child's rights are undermined to have access to their heritage, people are payed to abandon their children. Trafficking in human lives has strong 14th Ammendment concerns in my book.

Hey, the deep end is pretty nice. Alot like left field.

On Lawn said...

Paul,

To be honest people claiming to not understand, see, or even comprehend are all too common.

the ability to correctly govern ourselves is not freedom

And when you come up with false statements like that, I understand why your inability to see or understand another's point of view comes from.

I can generally understand that you freedom includes the ability to make bad choices for yourself. I'll agree that is freedom also, but irrelevant to my point, which is that when our ability to correctly govern ourselves is compromised so is our freedom. Do you disagree?

First of all, that's not what the word "knowing" means. You think it, but you don't know it.

It seems another philosophical lightweight high-centered in the oozy mire of existential nihilism.

Speaking to the broader point, yes I knew the nature of sexual (man+women) relations from well into elementary school. And I planned accordingly. As Rick pointed out in the previous article...

"Marriage is not simply a tool to be taken up when children arise but a social model for the way in which sexual relationships between men and women are best conducted."

Clearly the understanding is there to be had, whether you choose to engage in it or be mired in doubt.

I don't know what it means to have a right to your heritage.

Again, you are frank and honest in admitting your failings. Here is more information...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wcomment0915/BNStory/Front/

"The right of indigenous peoples to protect and enjoy their cultural heritage is recognized in a number of international instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenants on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, and on Civil and Political Rights, the International Labor Organization’s Convention No. 169, and the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/indileaflet12.doc

Marriage is good for raising kids, which is yet another argument in favor of gay marriage.

It is a good argument in favor of marriage, but not its neutered counterfeit. Why marriage is good for raising children extends to the preservation of the natural link between the children and their parents. We see that in the differences bewteen step-children and children who are still in an in-tact family. We see that even when there is only a single natural parent compared to step-parents.

And to be sure, the benefit of marriage doesn't translate to conditions where people are purchasing children from a catalog to pretend to be just like heterosexuals.

Do you disagree on that?

You went on to disagree with marriage equality. After all that women have done to promote marriage equality, and even extend that equality to opportunities in civil government, you would rather show yourself the bigot in denying that such a concern exists or should exist.

What a way to go.

I wish I could even say your attempts to divert that subject were funny, because they were certainly trying hard to be. Sorry.

Did anyone else hear that when Mass legalized same sex marriage that all the dudes became deadbeat dad eunuchs?

Did anyone else here read the same wild attempt at comprehension as Paul did? :)

Just a quick tip, it really is better to ask questions than make such embarrassing attempts.

So what did you not understand? Start there and ask what I did mean rather than assume things I didn't.

So, go ahead give it another try. Only this time, try to understand.

On Lawn said...

jfoust: As Jay correctly points out, the civic side of marriage has changed through law many times.

We are not talking about changes in civil code, but changes in the meaning of marriage.

And for that, even militantly atheist countries have understood marriages definition of one man and one woman. Even dictionaries today which include a same-sex instance of the word, will simply say it is a same-sex imitation of marriage.

So will anthropologist same-sex marriage advocates...

"[t]hroughout history same-sex marriages mimic opposite-sex ones: that same-sex marriages in America do so once again is not grounds for banning them."

Only if you follow the links you will find that his (Dr Chapman's) examples are rather tortured. Specifically in that in each case we look and see same sexes because we have a more technical biological sense of the term 'sex'. But the cultures that implemented them do not, and consider them still mixed-sex marriages. Even to the extreme degree of claiming there are five genders to accommodate their versions of marriage.

Do you perchance find an example where the people in the marriage do not consider themselves different genders? Do you think that requiring someone to claim to be the opposite gender would fly as a compromise to the current debate?

If not, then the claim that they are the same is a simple fabrication.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn -

Are you from Wisconsin? There is a Supreme Court race coming up.

By the way, from my view it is On Lawn 2, PaulNoonan 0.

PaulNoonan said...

Your problem, lawn boy, is that I understand far better than you do.

Paul,

To be honest people claiming to not understand, see, or even comprehend are all too common.


Just so we're clear, I understand, and you do not. If you did understand, you could answer a simple question.

the ability to correctly govern ourselves is not freedom

And when you come up with false statements like that, I understand why your inability to see or understand another's point of view comes from.


Here you are like the leftist who insists that freedom = equality. Freedom is not whatever you say it is. That would be relativism. Forunately, you are about to prove my point...

I can generally understand that you freedom includes the ability to make bad choices for yourself.

Freedom does not include this ability, it IS this ability.

I'll agree that is freedom also, but irrelevant to my point, which is that when our ability to correctly govern ourselves is compromised so is our freedom. Do you disagree?

This is going to be really really fun. Who ever would have guessed that logic would be fun.

In your first comment you wrote:

Freedom is our ability to correctly govern ourselves

And just now you wrote:

I'll agree that is freedom also, but irrelevant to my point, which is that when our ability to correctly govern ourselves is compromised so is our freedom. Do you disagree?

Which means that you wrote "when freedom is compromised, so is our freedom."

Nice work. I suppose I agree with that as much as I would agree that red is red, however you're still misusing the word freedom to nefarious ends, sullying its good name.

First of all, that's not what the word "knowing" means. You think it, but you don't know it.

It seems another philosophical lightweight high-centered in the oozy mire of existential nihilism.


Do you have counter-arguments? Since I know you hate questions I'll just mention that I'm not a nihlist. "To Know" is not "to believe." Lest you be eaten by a dragon on your way home today.

Speaking to the broader point, yes I knew the nature of sexual (man+women) relations from well into elementary school. And I planned accordingly. As Rick pointed out in the previous article...

Awesome, this is always my favorite stupid argument. So, you planned, eh? How about you do a little experiemnt. Tunr gay. Don't worry, you can always change back. (Right? I mean that must be how it works.)

What's that? You can't turn gay? Oh. Well, I guess your argument was idiotic. Maybe you should try turning rational instead.

"Marriage is not simply a tool to be taken up when children arise but a social model for the way in which sexual relationships between men and women are best conducted."

Clearly the understanding is there to be had, whether you choose to engage in it or be mired in doubt.


I choose to make decisions based on evidence, to allow others the freedom to make mistakes (or to achieve great things) and to take steps to eliminate the doubts I have. I can't just assume it away like you.

I don't know what it means to have a right to your heritage.

Again, you are frank and honest in admitting your failings. Here is more information...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040915.wcomment0915/BNStory/Front/

"The right of indigenous peoples to protect and enjoy their cultural heritage is recognized in a number of international instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenants on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, and on Civil and Political Rights, the International Labor Organization’s Convention No. 169, and the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/indileaflet12.doc


Fine. not relevant to anything, but fine. Also, sort of a made up positive right. Rights are for individuals, not cultures.

Marriage is good for raising kids, which is yet another argument in favor of gay marriage.

It is a good argument in favor of marriage, but not its neutered counterfeit.


Assuming facts not in evidence. -1 point. (It would be nice to see some evidence on this point, as it is raised so often. You'd think there would be study upon study. Oh well.)

Why marriage is good for raising children extends to the preservation of the natural link between the children and their parents. We see that in the differences bewteen step-children and children who are still in an in-tact family. We see that even when there is only a single natural parent compared to step-parents.

I would argue that there are two natural parents, but perhaps I'm just being nit-picky now. We also seem to be meandering into gay adoption. That's really a separate argument. We're dealing with government recognition of gay marraige here. Basically, taxes, power of attorney, et al.

And to be sure, the benefit of marriage doesn't translate to conditions where people are purchasing children from a catalog to pretend to be just like heterosexuals.

Do you want to take out this paragraph? It's kind of embarassing.

Do you disagree on that?

I think I need a little help on your question. Because picking my kids out of a catalog would be awesome. Especially if I could take all my best bits and all of my wife's best bits and go with that.

Or were you talking more about a slavery scenario? Or just adoption. And I'm pretty sure that rather than pretending to be heterosexual that they're just being homosexual, possibly with children either through adoption or artifical insemination.

Just stating that they are pretending is not evidence. Do you know what evidence is?

You went on to disagree with marriage equality. After all that women have done to promote marriage equality, and even extend that equality to opportunities in civil government, you would rather show yourself the bigot in denying that such a concern exists or should exist.

Oh, I see. You think marriage equality means equal numbers of men and women, when it really means that both members of the partnership are equals. Well, now you can retract your point.

What a way to go.

I wish I could even say your attempts to divert that subject were funny, because they were certainly trying hard to be. Sorry.


It's OK. I enjoyed it. And that's what's really important.

Did anyone else hear that when Mass legalized same sex marriage that all the dudes became deadbeat dad eunuchs?

Did anyone else here read the same wild attempt at comprehension as Paul did? :)


Did anyone else realize that my translation wasn't as far off as it should have been?

Just a quick tip, it really is better to ask questions than make such embarrassing attempts.

So what did you not understand? Start there and ask what I did mean rather than assume things I didn't.


One of us did not understand. Only one of us knows which one it was.

So, go ahead give it another try. Only this time, try to understand.

Try this. ive me, in one paragrpah, some actual evidence that gay marriage is bad. It should be causally related, it should be factually negative, and it should not involve devine revelation.

Good luck!

3rd Way said...

Noonan 3

OnLawn 0

TKO after OnLawn's ridiculous "freedom" definition argument.

Anonymous said...

noonon said ;

"Try this. ive me, in one paragrpah, some actual evidence that gay marriage is bad. It should be causally related, it should be factually negative, and it should not involve devine revelation."

I hate to interrupt into this exchange, but I think the issue is that the California Supreme Court took it upon itself, with no authority, to change the only meaning of marriage that this counrty has ever known.

You want a question answered that really isn't material to the issue. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals and this arbitrary move by these justices is going to back fire on many liberal justices throughout the country and rightfully so.

On Lawn said...

Paul,

Freedom does not include this ability [to make bad choices], it IS this ability [to make bad choices].

You go ahead and fight for the opportunity to make bad choices. I assume the ability to make bad choices figures in somehow to your overall argument for the opportunity for neutered marriage.

As for myself I'd rather the opportunity to make good ones.

But to your larger point, you'll find that good and bad are both relative to each other. Thus you cannot have one without the other. Perhaps that is what you are saying, but that would undermine claiming my original statement wasn't inclusive enough for not mentioning bad choices also. Or perhaps you really do mean bad choices as what "is freedom".

You'll have to tell me.

Because picking my kids out of a catalog would be awesome. Especially if I could take all my best bits and all of my wife's best bits and go with that.

So to you, children from a catalog are more "awesome" than the ones that do not have all the "best bits"?

That is an interesting approach if that is accurate.

Since I know you hate questions I'll just mention that I'm not a nihlist. "To Know" is not "to believe."

To know is not to believe, and I could only believe (not know) that sex makes babies? And claiming we do not have the ability to know is not nihilism?

If I'm missing what you are saying, please explain further.

And I'm pretty sure that rather than pretending to be heterosexual that they're just being homosexual, possibly with children either through adoption or artifical insemination.

Interestingly enough, most children in same-sex households came from previous marriages (heterosexual). But even more to the point, claiming that a child has two mommies, instead of a mommy and a daddy is definitely pretending.

How about you do a little experiemnt. Tunr gay.

LOL! One of my favorite typos to read all week.

But no big deal, it is pretty clear you meant "turn" (and experiment for that matter).

Beyond that, I make it a policy to not finish arguments for others. How does turning, or not turning gay impact whether or not there should be equal gender representation in marriage?

You think marriage equality means equal numbers of men and women, when it really means that both members of the partnership are equals.

Look at how hilarious you are, now that you aren't trying to be.

I suppose the "patriarchy" of a marriage with only men is more equal to you than both members of each gender are equals in the partnership of marriage? Perhaps because each man might be equal to the other?

Your bigotry continues to shine through.

On Lawn said...

Funny,

3rdway seems to think that Noonan has the freedom definition. Which is funny considering Paul quoted the dictionary and still displays no real understanding of the concept.

PaulNoonan said...

Fisking is getting boring. Suffice it to say you miss the point on a bunch of stuff.

You can have certain knowledge, but not through faith.

Of course freedom is the ability to make good or bad choices, but no one needs to look out for the good choices. You will never be able to tell the good from the bad without the opportunity to choose either.

Regarding children, the faster we advance technologically, and the more we can treat diseases in the womb, the better off our children will be. Some people are scared by reproductive technology advances. It's not really on point, but you seemed to be sullying those kids created by artificial means. For shame.

Kids who live with gay parents often have one biological parent and one step parent. If you wish to call this "pretending," fine, although it makes you a bit of a douchebag.

Typos happen. I'm sure you've made a few...

Andyway, the challenge to turn gay was based on your "planning:"

Speaking to the broader point, yes I knew the nature of sexual (man+women) relations from well into elementary school. And I planned accordingly. As Rick pointed out in the previous article...

Your final paragraph shows poor reading comprehension and isn't even worth discussing. You appear to be arguing with some other person, yet it is addressed to me.

On Lawn said...

Paul,

Fisking is getting boring.

I can't take responsibility for your feelings.

You can have certain knowledge, but not through faith.

And that is to be filed under whether or not one can "know" that sexual relations makes children?

Funny, how babies are made is not a faith based statement.

Even in attempting to cut your losses, you can't help but stumble over yourself.

It's not really on point, but you seemed to be sullying those kids created by artificial means. For shame.

I have no problem with curing disease. Its the eugenic overtones of phrases like the following which are problematic...

"Because picking my kids out of a catalog would be awesome. Especially if I could take all my best bits and all of my wife's best bits and go with that."

Anonymous said...

on lawn-

I don't think that noonon or 3rd way ever read what the founding fathers thought freedom was, where it came from and what preserved it. I percieve that you may have.

Super Id said...

anon 5:50.

Our founding fathers best expressed their hopes and dreams for this Country with the phrase "All men are created equal."

To me, as a conservative, I believe that is the principal that we must conserve.

I cannot see how a "civil union" maintains any semblence of equality. Rather, it continues the antiquated notion of "seperate but equal."

I recognize that in cases such as these where there is an "ick" factor it is difficult. But providing equal rights is the equitable outcome.

The religious argument is fine when we are in the context of religion. And, I have no qualms if a certain church refuses to honor gay marriages or otherwise. However, for purposes of the State, marriage must be viewed secularly. In the secular sense marriage is a contract between two people. If the state recognizes marriage as a right, then that right must exist for everyone.

Anonymous said...

super id -

There is no valid equal rights argument concerning this issue. Homosexuals are not the same as hetrosexuals. Everything since our founding concerning marriage is between one woman and one man. The court had no authority to make that decision.

Supporting arbitrary decisions like this, that are tyranical in nature, does not make you a conservative. Unless, of course you do not know what you're trying to conserve.

AnotherTosaVoter said...

Rick this disappointing post is intellectually lazy, relying on nothing but the slipperly slope logical fallacy.

"A lot of fundamentalist Christians would like to transform us into a theocracy, so let's not allow anything remotely religious to affect policy."

See?

Publius said...

Anothertosavoter you do not understand the fundamentals of Christian Fundamentalists.
Even the bible is very clear on the divisions between government and theology.
Mathew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's

Please do not confuse the brain-dead image of Christians in the movies and Media with the reality of educated people who want to maintain the ethics this country was founded on.

John Foust said...

wlwraymWell, On Lawn 3:47, perhaps it's time to untangle "marriage" into its two parts: the religious part that you think God has to bless and that you are free to explain and justify however you like, and the civic part that's essentially a bundle of contracts and societal norms regarding handling of property, assignment of benefits and responsibilities, and voluntary authority over another person when they're incapable. Non-religious folks can today get "married" at the courthouse without benefit of minister. Are they sullying the good name of Marriage, too?

You and Prof. Rick give a token genuflect when it comes to saying you'll live and let live when it comes to the gays, but tell me where in the Bible it says someone's partner shouldn't be allowed in the hospital room when they're dying.

I think Noonan's in the lead, too.

Dad29 said...

3Way: if you wish, you may imitate those animal-kingdom critters who practice homosex.

They may serve as an example for YOU--but not for me, nor other rational humans.

Dad29 said...

Foust, you ought to try keeping up with actual scholarship.

"Adelphopoesis" was discredited from top to bottom about a year ago by actual scholars.

...and emulating SouthAfrican, or Dutch, examples?

Please, John. You went to the Seminary and learned THAT?

Dad29 said...

Foustie:

perhaps it's time to untangle "marriage" into its two parts: the religious part that you think God has to bless and that you are free to explain and justify however you like, and the civic part that's essentially a bundle of contracts and societal norms regarding handling of property, assignment of benefits and responsibilities, and voluntary authority over another person when they're incapable.

You're a little late to the party, John.

That's precisely what the CA supremes did.

The argument is not 'whether there is a State definition separate from a religious definition,' but whether the State's definition can forcibly re-write the religious definition.

Since the religious definition happens to be accepted as the norm throughout the last several millenia and by all major cultures, (excepting the 'sacramentality' albeit one could argue that the OT and NT sacramentalities differed only in mode)--it would seem that the CA supremes, like the MA supremes, have a good deal of chutzpah.

It won't be confused with wisdom or understanding.

Dad29 said...

OnLawn: Mr Noonan takes great pride in argumentation as inanos. He refuses to accept Aristotelian definitions--so why would he understand, for example, that freedom is the liberty to do what is right? He understands freedom as license, unwittingly baptizing wrongdoing in the process...

Let him have his fun, instead of blowing his arguments away.

That's simply too easy to do.

illusory tenant said...

Dad29 tries his hand at insult:

Those animal-kingdom critters who practice homosex may serve as an example for YOU--but not for me, nor other rational humans.

Followed by:

[Noonan] refuses to accept Aristotelian definitions ...

But see:

When one thing is predicated of another, all that which is predicable of the predicate will be predicable also of the subject. Thus, 'man' is predicated of the individual man; but 'animal' is predicated of 'man'; it will, therefore, be predicable of the individual man also: for the individual man is both 'man' and 'animal'. — Aristotle, Categoriae

Apparently old Dad is the one who refuses to accept Aristotelian definitions.

John Foust said...

Yes, Dad29, I read the example I linked to, and brought it up for entertainment value - not because I thought it was stellar scholarship.

So Who Would Jesus Banish From the Hospital Room?

On Lawn said...

John Foust,

perhaps it's time to untangle "marriage" into its two parts: the religious part that you think God has to bless

Funny, you sound like you didn't read the post you claimed to be responding to. The one pointing out how even militantly atheist states do not make the deviation in definition.

I see many, like yourself, who see religious involvement in marriage as ownership. When the shoe is on the other foot, and government is universally involved in marriage (even to defining it as one-man and one woman) you don't seem to make the same connection. Why, I don't know. Clearly the failing is not in the abundant reading on the subject.

The truth is that marriage the institution has involvement from many different social institutions and governances. Separate the two? Well you need to argue better (or even at all) how the two are incompatible, if different in legislative application at all. And then throw in corporate involvement in marriage and see if that needs "separation" also. How about individual involvement in marriage? You want to separate that too?

Its no wonder you buy into the level of philosophy peddled by Noonan, which appears even less solid than peddled in the movie Matrix.

On Lawn said...

Illusory Tenant,

I read Dad's comments to be in harmony with the Aristotle quote. He didn't deny the animal predicate in man, he simply chose not to follow it.

Animals eat bugs out of each other's hair, and even eat their young. That predicate exists in us, but I choose not to do that either.

While his point eluded his commentary, Noonan made mention of turning gay. Pity, the children are one of the best outcomes of sex -- if you've prepared yourself with a committed marriage to support that child with. Otherwise it is nothing but pain for the couple and the child.

The act of taking responsibility for our children is crucial for ensuring their rights, and the rights of each gender that combined to make that child. Equal gender representation, and the quality of that representation is marriage equality. Replacing that with the flash pan identity politics of homosexual activism just seems so cheap and desolate in comparison.

On Lawn said...

Super ID,

I can understand the notion that seperate but equal is not equal.

For me, I look at the sex segregative model of marriage and wonder why its even considered as par with sex integrative marriage. You can't get past the fact that our human species was designed with capacity only unlocked in sex integration. And beyond that, the sex segregative model is the very epitome of "separate but equal".

The argument for same-sex marriage is not unlike the argument for same-race schools. In fact much of the "born that way to not integrate with the other" arguments are scandalously similar to those used in justifying "separate but equal" in the 20th century.

illusory tenant said...

I choose not to eat bugs.

Thanks for sharing, but you'd eat them if you were hungry enough.

so cheap and desolate in comparison.

What, the innumerable loveless, abusive "traditional" marriages compared to, for example, these plaintiffs?

I agree.

On Lawn said...

Anonymous and Dad,

Thanks. Yes I've read many different sources of what freedom means, both from the founding fathers and those they took for inspiration.

Yes it is easy to blow his arguments out of the water, but only because at one time I had the same simplistic notion that he and those that agree with him did.

Ironically, such precepts tend to tie ones hands, making them unable to do the right thing at the moment. You can see how it breeds inaction even in his own posts. Ironic because correct principles of freedom should breed action and capacity, not timidity and the teenage fear of not being accepted by their peers.

illusory tenant said...

our human species was designed

Feel free to support that gigantic assumption.

On Lawn said...

Illusory,

What, the innumerable loveless, abusive "traditional" marriages compared to, for example, these plaintiffs?

Yes those examples work very nicely in showing the point I was making...

"[T]he children are one of the best outcomes of sex -- if you've prepared yourself with a committed marriage to support that child with. Otherwise it is nothing but pain for the couple and the child."

Do you thing the tenant of neutered marriage, that any two people can raise your child just as well as you will create more irresponsibility, or more responsibility towards offspring?

Do you think an industry that pays people to abandon their children as much as have children is promoting responsibility towards offspring or irresponsibility?

While you are looking for the end of civilization, you are missing the real examples of how the principles of neutered marriage are tearing apart families. Just look at McGreevey for just one example.

As I said before, issuing a counterfeit of marriage does no one any good. Especially those that are the main consumers of that counterfeit.

On Lawn said...

Illusory,

Feel free to support that gigantic assumption.

Which assumption, care to even include that in your cut and paste? Okay, I'll do it for you...

"[O]ur human species was designed with capacity only unlocked in sex integration."

Funny, Noonan called something like our biological design of sexual (as in not asexual) reproduction a belief or faith based statement. I'm reading this from both of you as extremely poor understanding of basic biological sciences.

It would be pretty funny to think that the basic tenant of reproduction classification is for all its volumes of research and analysis, based on just my assumption or religious belief.

Thanks for the chuckle.

illusory tenant said...

Which assumption?

That the species was designed, obviously.

Funny, Noonan called something ...

I'm not asking Noonan, I'm asking you.

Basic tenant ...

Tenet.

Thanks for the chuckle.

You're welcome, and thank you for completely sidestepping the question (which is as I expected).

On Lawn said...

That the species was designed, obviously.

I'm sorry you confused that for an invitation on debating creationism. I assume that means you are giving up on the discussion of marriage at hand looking for some other wedge to drive between religion and science? Sorry, I'm just not interested in that at the moment.

And you claim I was side-stepping. Yes I'm chuckling still as I write this.

Its sufficient to say that the nature of sexual reproduction is part of our humanity, and enforced. The design is either expressed in artistic license to describe that construct and its application on more complex organisms, or an inference to intelligence that implemented that.

You can choose either, the point about the nature of humanity as two-sexed is the same. But I tip my hat to your efforts just the same.

I'm not asking Noonan, I'm asking you.

I don't remember saying you asked Noonan, rather that you laid out a similar line of reasoning. You seem ready to put distance between that, and I'm happy to see I was wrong on that point. Though I don't believe your tangent was very interesting, at least it wasn't blatantly egregious.

illusory tenant said...

Sorry, I'm just not interested in that at the moment.

That's too bad, since you appear to be basing your opposition to same-sex marriage on some manner of biological design inference.

If you are, then you need to support that premise with evidence. I'm afraid you don't get to just assume it.

But thanks for reiterating once again what nearly every rational animal over the age of 12 knows, that there are usually* important biological differences between the male and female of the species.

If homosexual sex acts are what's troubling you, then why don't we outlaw them from "traditional" marriage as well, since heterosexual couples engage in precisely the same behavior (even married ones).

* But not always.

On Lawn said...

Illlusory,

If homosexual sex acts are what's troubling you, then why don't we outlaw them from "traditional" marriage as well, since heterosexual couples engage in precisely the same behavior (even married ones).

I have no problem with homosexuality, and it being legal. I even fight against laws and people who would make it illegal.

So you assumed a creationist bent (and persisted simplemindedly even when it was shown to not exist), and now simple animosity towards homosexual activity. Wrong on both accounts, and your embarrassment could have been saved if you only asked for clarification before jumping to those conclusions.

While you bring it up, my point about homosexuality is nothing more or less than the nature of that relationship is not marriage. But then a lot of things aren't.

Come to think of it, its such a minority of needy but unmarriageable households that perhaps even you do not detect the inherent bigotry of creating CU's or DP's exclusively for homosexuals with one hand and attacking marriage as too exclusive with the other.

Homosexuality is just a minority of same-sex households that could benefit from the stability of benefits and recognition, yet they set their table only for homosexuals.

So note that while I have no agenda against homosexuality, the homosexual bigotry needed to accept the arguments to neuter marriage is more than I can stomach.

Its a tough line to draw, especially considering the sensitivity of that crowd (and deservedly so considering the disparagement they have been given so often).

PaulNoonan said...

This thread is pointless, although it has shown us two things. Lawnboy either cannot or chooses not to read, and that Dad29 abuses Aristotle beyond recognition.

Nice work IT, but don't bother persisting. On Lawn isn't arguing with you, he's arguing with some magical spectre with your (and my) same name.

Anonymous said...

noonan -

no one likes a sore loser, grow up.

3rd Way said...

This thread is pointless.

Arguing with reason is fruitless when debate partners attempt to trump reason by injecting values.

Foust has the best argument in this thread.

perhaps it's time to untangle "marriage" into its two parts: the religious part that you think God has to bless and that you are free to explain and justify however you like, and the civic part that's essentially a bundle of contracts and societal norms regarding handling of property, assignment of benefits and responsibilities, and voluntary authority over another person when they're incapable. Non-religious folks can today get "married" at the courthouse without benefit of minister. Are they sullying the good name of Marriage, too?


Marriage as the conservatives are defining it has nothing to do with individual rights, but everything to do with their romanticized vision of how society should function. This vision was indoctrinated by the theological system that dominated our society in recent history (a mere verse in the brief chapter of human history within the long book of our planets history). The rights available to all of us shouldn't be prescribed by traditions and mores that were originally defined in a religious context.

There is nothing in the conservative argument that answers the question of how rights can be granted to one group yet denied to another. That denial of rights has to be based on some evidence of negative effects on society. No one can produce that evidence because it doesn't exist.

The conservative's definition of marriage either has to be changed or the state has to stop recognizing the marriage as the conservatives define it. Some really smart guys once established a clear segregation between church and state. If the state wants to seperate itself from religion it is clear it has no business establishing law based on irrational fears about discrediting "god's truth".

Obama is right to support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, but says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans.

McCain was "proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

The GOP wants to deny rights to Americans based on their religious beliefs. Who again is anti-American?

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

The real reason this thread is pointless is that On Lawn states his definition of marriage as though it's a universal given:

"Marriage demands the integration of sexes!"

And why?

Marriage demands integration of the sexes, of course, because integration of the sexes is marriage.

Isn't the real question here "What are the policy reasons for and against excluding same-sex couples from marriage"? Because frankly, On Lawn's (circular) opinion that Marriage Demands Integration of the Sexes (TM) and $2.99 will get him a Happy Meal.

See, I can concede that men and women have biological differences, but what On Lawn's position depends upon is these differences being grossly exaggerated so that it's necessary of the sexes to "combine" into a precious complementary whole in order for one to be a fullly actualized human being.

Anyone else here more than a half-human?

On Lawn said...

Folks, just a little background to be in full disclosure.

Fannie is a stalker of myself and a site I contribute to called Opine Editorials. You argue this long enough and you get these kind of cling-ons.

She's raised her accusation before (over and over again), but I will reply to it here for your sake.

Marriage demands integration of the sexes, of course, because integration of the sexes is marriage.

That would be a tautological argument, meaning it is redundant (you can cut it out of the reasoning without affecting the conclusion). Her cartoonish restatement is, itself, its own problem. She restates the argument without the reasoning, then attacks it as missing reasoning.

Fannie, did you miss the discussion on the value of integration? On the demeaned meaning of integration, the homosexual chauvinism present? It certainly isn't present in your restatement.

No because she does make a reference to it. She considers the value of integration, family relations, right to heritage as "grossly exaggerated". That is an interesting, and rather frank admission to her own values. I'd be interested in hearing her reasons why she feels others should share that same value as she does.

What I find interesting, having lived some of the story arch in her replies, is that she has given arguments and reasoning in the past. I've appreciated the dialog. I would assume if she still had confidence in those arguments she would repeat them for your benefit rather than what she just tried to do.

PaulNoonan said...

Hey Rick, you'd better watch out for this piece of legislation:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_bill_would_defend_marriage

PaulNoonan said...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_bill_would_defend_marriage

Anonymous said...

Fannie said -

"Isn't the real question here "What are the policy reasons"


You're okay with the Court making a policy decision? I thought the Courts are to rule on law.

Fannie said...

On Lawn is upset, so his inaccuracy is understandable.

He is part of an anti-gay group blog of which I regularly deconstruct their faulty arguments opposing gay rights. It is sad that he characterizes genuine criticism as "stalker"-ish behavior. In fact, if anyone were to read my blog they could form their own opinions.

It would be quite a change if On Lawn stayed on topic.

Anyway, more to the point of this discussion, On Lawn, I believe you missed this part of my analysis:

"See, I can concede that men and women have biological differences, but what On Lawn's position depends upon is these differences being grossly exaggerated so that it's necessary of the sexes to "combine" into a precious complementary whole in order for one to be a fullly actualized human being."

Your response indicates that you mistakenly believe that this analysis reflects something about my "values." I'm chuckling as I write this, but why are we talking about my values, again?

I think we've learned, On Lawn, that when you make this personal it's a severe impediment to dialogue.

But back to the topic at hand, I simply don't buy into the dualistic, polar conception that men and women are so entirely different that they must integrate into order to form a more perfect whole (or some variation of that theory). And, nor do many people. buy into such an idea. Yes, we all know that men and women have different sex parts and are different. But, at the same time, gender is more fluid, more gray, than your dualistic conception of it. To use an extreme example, the idea that a "masculine" butch lesbian would be somehow "complemented" by a man with all of his attendant manly traits is preposterous to anyone who knows a "masculine" butch lesbian.

By insisting that biology is destiny you deny the reality that many people exist in gray areas. And, that you continuously recycle that same argument and present it as absolute fact, when it's just a theory, is extremely tiresome.



"Anonymous,"

To address your question, are you under the mistaken assumption that we are currently in a court room?

On Lawn said...

3rd way,

debate partners attempt to trump reason by injecting values.

Most curious. Values do not trump reason, and I'm not sure where that was attempted. The value of something is a reason to take notice of it.

The whole discussion is an analysis of the value of one definition of marriage over another.

If you've come unprepared to show real value, and expected excuses to pass off as reason, then this will be a pointless discussion for you.

Marriage as the conservatives are defining it has nothing to do with individual rights

Perhaps I'm not lumped in with the conservatives (honestly I'm pretty difficult to pigeonhole mostly because I do not subscribe to either philosophy wholesale) but as far as my commentary individual rights have been a focus. From my first entry into this thread...

"Freedom is our ability to correctly govern ourselves. Governing ourselves is our ability to make decisions.

"In choosing to marry, I chose to exercise my right to create a union with someone of the other sex -- knowing full well that union was inherently designed biologically to create children.

"Those children have the right to their heritage, to be raised by the parents who combined to make them in a loving commitment to them. That commitment includes teaching them how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly.

"I have the right and responsibility to raise them, to exercise good governance with someone of the opposite sex, in achieving that responsibility to children.

"Neutering marriage does two things. First, it rebels against the idea of marriage equality -- equal gender representation in marriage. Marriage equality, as in any governance equality, helps promote more fair systems and execution of governance.

"Second, as in Massachusetts and other governances the ability to be father or mother for a child is completely undermined. Your self-governance and family governance is assumed by the state. It is equaled with people who order children from a catalog, the birth certificate is re-written to meet the demands of those commercial transactions. The child's rights are undermined to have access to their heritage, people are payed to abandon their children. Trafficking in human lives has strong 14th Amendment concerns in my book."

What I have seen is that a previously unknown right to neutered marriage is being considered solely by the neutered marriage activists here. Concern from every other group, especially the groups currently served with protection in marriage were called "grossly exaggerated", a highly dismissive and arrogant stance to be sure.

When it comes to values, and trumping others rights with their own ambitions, its been the homosexual chauvanism that could use more reason and more circumspection.

Don't blame religion, its your own fault.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

On the contrary, you are always far to entertaining for me to be upset :)

It is sad that he characterizes genuine criticism as "stalker"-ish behavior.

No, its the stalker-ish behavior of constantly turning up where I am posting that I find stalker-ish. To re-iterate...

"What I find interesting, having lived some of the story arch in her replies, is that she has given arguments and reasoning in the past. I've appreciated the dialog. I would assume if she still had confidence in those arguments she would repeat them for your benefit rather than what she just tried to do."

I'm happy to get legitimate points and arguments from anyone, and if I've left something someone feels needs a reply, please let me know.

It would be quite a change if On Lawn stayed on topic.

One of the funniest themes in this story arch is how Fannie will, almost as if she were writing a parody of herself, makes the same mistakes she complains in others -- in the very post she complains about them. Earlier she misspelled "misspelled", when she tried to cast aspersions on someone's intellectual capacity for not spelling something right.

Here she claims that I can't stay on topic in a post where she struggles to bring herself back to the topic.

- "Anyway, more to the point of this discussion"
- "But back to the topic at hand"

I'll agree that pointing this kind of thing out adds entertainment value more than anything else. The points are easily enough handled.

I simply don't buy into the dualistic, polar conception that men and women are so entirely different that they must integrate into order to form a more perfect whole

Must integrate to form a more perfect whole? Again I think even beyond staying on topic if she is going to discredit something it is better to discredit what I actually said. Honestly I think she's been stalking for so long she's gotten confused from past conversations with a guy named John Howard who coined the "half-human" phrase.

Which is different than the more biological point raised in this discussion, and not about completely human or not. It is about how human reproduction is accomplished, and not lying or pretending it happens some other way.

There are other values to integration, to marriage equality through equal gender representation and the quality of that representation. I'd be more interested in Fannie's replies to that.

Again its better to reply to what has really been said, and not what she hears in her head while reading it.

Fannie said...

On Lawn said,

"Concern from every other group, especially the groups currently served with protection in marriage were called "grossly exaggerated", a highly dismissive and arrogant stance to be sure."

You are confused. I said that your stance depends on "grossly exaggerated" dualistic differences between men and women. I did not say that concern over man/woman marriage is "grossly exaggerated." If you do not understand my position, I urge you to ask questions so I can clarify. Simply dismissing another's opinion as "arrogant" or "chauvinistic" when you don't understand it is not an intellectual response.

Furthermore, when you say:

"What I have seen is that a previously unknown right to neutered marriage is being considered solely by the neutered marriage activists here."

You tell us nothing new by pointing out the obvious fact that there's no literal right in the constitution for two people of the same sex to marry. That being said, let me point out another obvious fact that there is (in the US Constitution at least) no such a literal right for two people of the opposite sex to marry. In fact, there are a host of "rights" we have that are not enumerated in the constitution. It's funny how some believe that only rights they disagree with aren't "real" or have been fabricated from the proverbial "whole cloth."

Fannie said...

On Lawn,

Let's stay on topic.

Whether it's falsely accusing me of "sock puppetry," falsely painting me as an abusive personality, mis-using research data about gay people, your crazy off-topic attempts to discredit my personality knows no bounds. I do enjoy your antics though.

Essentially your position on the same-sex marriage issue boils down to your incessant re-iteration of the fact that men and women can make babies together. Neat-O.

But that's right, bud, just keep telling everyone about what a bad person I am and maybe they won't notice the blindingly circular nature of your argument.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

I said that your stance depends on "grossly exaggerated" dualistic differences between men and women.

The original quote is actually, "See, I can concede that men and women have biological differences, but what On Lawn's position depends upon is these differences being grossly exaggerated so that it's necessary of the sexes to 'combine' into a precious complementary whole in order for one to be a fully actualized human being."

Which is something different.

Ans while I'm pointing out differences, the word "combine" which you have in quotes does not appear in this thread until your post. What were you quoting?

The closest I can tell is that I used a conjugated form of combine just twice...

"Those children have the right to their heritage, to be raised by the parents who combined to make them in a loving commitment to them. That commitment includes teaching them how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly."

The second is,

"The act of taking responsibility for our children is crucial for ensuring their rights, and the rights of each gender that combined to make that child. Equal gender representation, and the quality of that representation is marriage equality. Replacing that with the flash pan identity politics of homosexual activism just seems so cheap and desolate in comparison."

Either you referenced those arguments, or you did not. Its up to you to clarify because of the obvious problems in your argument. But I'm willing to say that given the clue about "combine" and "fully actualized human being" as a reference to the procreative capacity which cannot happen any other way, is that you were referencing those arguments.

And so by calling the value I put on those facts as, "grossly exaggerated" deserves the very commentary you are trying to dodge...

"She considers the value of integration, family relations, right to heritage as "grossly exaggerated". That is an interesting, and rather frank admission to her own values. I'd be interested in hearing her reasons why she feels others should share that same value as she does."

And ...

"What I have seen is that a previously unknown right to neutered marriage is being considered solely by the neutered marriage activists here. Concern from every other group, especially the groups currently served with protection in marriage were called 'grossly exaggerated', a highly dismissive and arrogant stance to be sure.

"When it comes to values, and trumping others rights with their own ambitions, its been the homosexual chauvanism that could use more reason and more circumspection.

"Don't blame religion, its your own fault."

And don't blame me, either :)

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

You're a real gem...this issue came about because of the California Court ruling, not because we like to talk about it.

A court is suppose to have a law from the legislative body that tells it what it can do. In this case it just made up its own.

I took it from your comment that it's okay for a court to make policy decisions, kinda like thinking that there is no difference between any type of relationships.

I think one commentor said that the goverment should have no business regulating any relationship among the animal kingdom. I took it that he must think someone should be able to marry their dog or cat.

This raises the next question that is always hard to get an advocate like you to answer. Is there any relationships that you are opposed to?

On Lawn said...

I love the sock-puppet thing. That was good entertainment.

Just to close out that story, it turns out someone else (apparently a close personal friend of Fannie) fessed up to posting on Opine under two different names posing as an innocent bystander who was magically persuaded by Fannie and/or Jane's reasoning. And, it was only when Fannie kept falling over herself protesting that I even seriously considered that she was up to something nefarious.

So the question I have Fannie, is what did you know and when did you know it about Rachel? Were you in on the plan from the beginning or was she acting on her own?

your incessant re-iteration of the fact that men and women can make babies together [...] maybe they won't notice the blindingly circular nature of your argument.

Even funnier. Even in the act of reducing something to a over-simplification you can't help but contradict yourself. The second phrase undermines the first. The fact that children are uniquely served in an institution meant to preserve in-tact relations and responsibility in procreation makes this much more than "circular".

Its like you are so dizzy now you can't punch or walk straight. Its kind of difficult to justify continuing, except that you continue to be so hostile and over-aggressive.

Fannie said...

"Anon,"

"A court is suppose to have a law from the legislative body that tells it what it can do. In this case it just made up its own."

That statement tells me pretty much all I need to know regarding the futility of arguing with you. Since I'm not getting paid to teach you civics, political science, or the basics of our legal system, I can only pray that you do the learnin' on your own.


"On Lawn,"

It's odd that you recycle, ad nauseam, arguments that have already been discredited by other posters and me. Cutting and pasting them doesn't magically transform them into valid arguments.

I'm sorry that you misread my "grossly exaggerated" argument and then attributed doing so to... wait, where was I? I was so busy reading your explanation of how what I said and what you said that I said and how it was different that I fell asleep. When I woke up I realized it was just "On Lawn" being dodgy and attributing his own characteristics onto me.

Your "gender integration" argument is so utterly vague, lingo-y, and lacking scientific evidence that it's difficult to seriously address it. Two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry because The commitment between a man and a woman "includes teaching [their children] how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly"? Seriously? A same-sex couple doesn't know how to teach their children to exercise freedom and survive properly?

LOL. If you say so.

This is probably a fitting time for us to take a gander at the studies showing that children of same-sex parents turn out just fine.

Fannie said...

Now you are just getting silly, dear man.

I agree that your paranoid accusations were jolly good entertainment. What's even "funnier" is how convinced you are that you have it all figured out in light of the fact that you have it all so wrong.

:-)

Speaking of which, remember when you got banned from Ed Brayton's blog for allegedly sock puppeting?

Coming soon to a theater near you. On Lawn: Master of Projection.

Fannie said...

As this is neither my forum nor "On Lawn's" I am going to respectfully remove myself from this petty bickering and juvenile back-and-forth.

"On Lawn" has chosen to abusively attack my character, as opposed to my arguments, in nearly every comment directed to me thereby placing me in the untenable position of constantly having to defend myself and correct defamations rather than focusing on substance.

In Mr. Esenberg's previous post regarding same-sex marriage, I have raised a number of substantive responses that perhaps he or anyone who is not "On Lawn" will address.

Super Id said...

"A court is suppose to have a law from the legislative body that tells it what it can do. In this case it just made up its own. "

Actually, its the courts that review laws to determine whether they are constitutional. It's called judicial review and it has been pretty well established since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Thus, applying this "judicially activist" approach, the California Supreme Court reviewed the law and determined that it was unconstitutional, at least in terms of the California Constitution.

Overturning unconstitutional laws, is neither liberal nor conservative as it works both ways. For example, Scalia authored the lead opinion in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, which overturned a popular law which prohibited cross burning. This law was favored by the public, the legislature, and the MN Supreme Court. I dare say that Scalia was not being a judicial activist in R.A.V., he was perserving the 1st amendment.

Of course, by your definition Scalia disregarded the legistlature, the MN Supreme Court, and the general public and would therefore be a judicial activist.

On Lawn said...

remember when you got banned from Ed Brayton's blog for allegedly sock puppeting?

LOL. I was not banned for sock-puppetting. Brayton has something against disagreement, apparently. Brayton claimed I was reposting there under a different name after he (like yourself) wished me to go away.

What's even "funnier" is how convinced you are that you have it all figured out in light of the fact that you have it all so wrong.

Even funnier. Rachel fessed up.

I guess some people don't know when its over...

Or was her confession to posting under two different names a lie?

That would be an interesting development.

"On Lawn" has chosen to abusively attack my character, as opposed to my arguments

Folks, just a bit more story arch, this is usually her exit card. Some things haven't changed a bit.

I have raised a number of substantive responses that perhaps he or anyone who is not "On Lawn" will address.

Hmm, interesting. I wondered how you found me posting here. You went there first from here...

I'll go have a look, but considering how much I've discussed this with you I am still anxious to see you write substantive arguments and discuss them rationally. That is of course, rather than devolve into bitter complaining and false accusations of not dealing with your points.

On Lawn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Super ID,

Of course, by your definition Scalia disregarded the legistlature, the MN Supreme Court, and the general public and would therefore be a judicial activist.

That is quite a bit of a stretch considering what Anon actually wrote...

"A court is suppose to have a law from the legislative body that tells it what it can do. In this case it just made up its own."

That isn't an argument against judicial review. Its an extra-constitutional construction of a right which does not exist there, nor can be easily construed from there. The decision is 172 pages after all. Ironically judicial review is itself an extra-constitutional assumption of power, but that is another discussion.

As James Antle said, "This Los Angeles Times story about California Chief Justice Ronald George pretty much dispels the notion that the gay marriage ruling had much to do with applying the state's constitution and written law."

PaulNoonan said...

I knew that drivel sounded familiar! You're the troll from Dispatched From The Culture War. Good to know you're still crazy and haven't changed your argument at all. Good luck in the future. Maybe someday you'll develop an actual agument on the subject.

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Maybe someday you'll develop an actual agument on the subject.

"Agument". Thats classic.

Take it from me. Saying I need to close such and such hole in an argument I present is good and legitimate criticism. I welcome it.

But something in your writing tells me that its not the lack of quality you are really balking at...

Pretending the arguments I've raised simply never existed is simply delusional. Didn't even Fannie notice that I not only presented arguments but cut and pasted them multiple times?

The self-consoling lie you are propagating is even one step further than Brayton simply wishing I would go away (again rather than requesting I give better arguments of one kind or another).

I won't say there aren't holes to be made in my arguments, its just clear that you aren't prepared to point them out if they are there.

Fannie said...

Wow, "On Lawn." Your last comment to me is SO interesting and relevant.

*Awed silence*

You have definitely convinced everyone that you are right about "SS'M'"!

What's your victory dance going to look like this time, "On Lawn"?

On Lawn said...

(I thought I posted this before, but since I don't see it I'll have to repost from memory)

Fannie,

When I woke up I realized it was just "On Lawn" being dodgy and attributing his own characteristics onto me.

Sounds like you are still dreaming. I was pointing out how much a struggle it seems to be for you to restate other's arguments accurately. You even seem to have problems maintaining consistency in restating your own arguments.

I can't be held responsible for mistakes you put into the argument.

Two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry because The commitment between a man and a woman "includes teaching [their children] how to exercise freedom, and how to survive socially and properly"?"

Naw. You keep reading the narrative saga of the homosexual struggle into what people are saying marriage is. To re-quote Rick, "Marriage is not simply a tool to be taken up when children arise but a social model for the way in which sexual relationships between men and women are best conducted."

Marriage is a way for the mother and father to prepare and commit to take care of their child, in the best way to ensure the child's rights and well upbringing. And to prepare and commit to support the other gender in their relationship to that child.

For why homosexuals shouldn't get married, you can read the common GLBT talking points of how homosexuals are doomed to tragedy if they try to integrate with the other sex in any meaningfully marital way.

Don't blame religion, don't blame law, and don't blame me on that one. I'm not the one saying they can't get married.

Seriously?

Its difficult to take any of your cartoonist representations of my argument seriously. Yet I still try.

A same-sex couple doesn't know how to teach their children to exercise freedom and survive properly?

And such represents the nature of "pretending" I mentioned earlier...

"It is a good argument in favor of marriage, but not its neutered counterfeit. Why marriage is good for raising children extends to the preservation of the natural link between the children and their parents. We see that in the differences bewteen step-children and children who are still in an in-tact family. We see that even when there is only a single natural parent compared to step-parents.

"And to be sure, the benefit of marriage doesn't translate to conditions where people are purchasing children from a catalog to pretend to be just like heterosexuals."

Surveys which compare homosexual couples raising children to the rest of broken homes raising children serves two purposes in my book. It underlines the importance of marriage as an institution preserving in-tact family bonds, and it also highlights the dubious nature of homosexuals fighting for exclusivity in CU's and DP's or even extension of marriage.

"Come to think of it, its such a minority of needy but unmarriageable households that perhaps even you do not detect the inherent bigotry of creating CU's or DP's exclusively for homosexuals with one hand and attacking marriage as too exclusive with the other.

"Homosexuality is just a minority of same-sex households that could benefit from the stability of benefits and recognition, yet they set their table only for homosexuals.

"So note that while I have no agenda against homosexuality, the homosexual bigotry needed to accept the arguments to neuter marriage is more than I can stomach.

"Its a tough line to draw, especially considering the sensitivity of that crowd (and deservedly so considering the disparagement they have been given so often)."

On Lawn said...

Re: Fannie...

Oh the sarcasm and wit.

Did I already point out how she usually does the exact same thing in her posts she complains others do? Misspelled "mispelled" and all? Oh yeah I did.

I suppose the irony of her drippingly snide comment about how on-topic posts are is lost on her :)

Super Id said...

On lawn,

My reading of Anon's comment was that he inferring that the California Supreme Court was displaying judicial activism.

With that assumption of the comment's intent, I proceeded to an example of a convervative court which disregarded the will of the people, the legislature, and lower courts (while it's another topic, I would agree that it was the right result)

But, I provide the example of R.A.V. to show that if overturning the legislature and will of the people is considered judicial activism (which some have argued for gay marriage). Then those same individuals must also consider Scalia to be a judicial activist.

Personally, I abhor the term "judical activism" as it usually used by the losing side to undermine their opponent's victory, without making any reference to the facts of the case.

But let's not lose sight of the bigger issue. Regardless of how the California court decided the issue, it is inevitable that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a gay marriage challenge.

If SCOTUS finds that marriage is a constituional right, I do not see how that right can be limited to hetro marriages.

However, I acknowledge that SCOTUS could also find that marriage is not a constituional right.

Personally, I find the second scenario to be more problamatic. If there is no constituional right of marriage, a State would have the power to ban marriage all together if it were the will of the legislature.

Finally, sense you broached the subject of extra-constitutional construction of a rights where does your claim that children have a right to heritage fit into the constitution. Or is that one of those penumbra's of an amendment that I keep hearing about?

illusory tenant said...

As James Antle said ...

Here is what James Antle said, at On Lawn's link:

"For all the legal arguments judges in Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, California and elsewhere have raised on behalf of judicially imposed same-sex marriage, their decisions ultimately hinge on policy questions: the fundamental purpose of marriage, questions of legal recognition for same-sex couples, the link between marriage and childbearing, and whether we're ultimately talking about the definition of marriage or the exclusion of some group of people from the institution of marriage."

To coin a phrase: "Well, Duh."

Perhaps the magazine editor James Antle may be forgiven for not being a lawyer or even a student of constitutional law, but the cases he references are equal protection clause (EPC) cases.

When an act by one of the other two branches of government is challenged under an EPC (State or federal), then the government needs to justify its act according to one of several doctrines developed by the United States Supreme Court, either a "rational basis" test, "strict scrutiny," or something in between.

The "policy questions" Antle mentions are not "legal arguments judges have raised on behalf of same-sex marriage," they are the bases according to which lawyers for the government have defended the various State bans against it.

It's a very fundamental distinction, and one that Antle appears to have missed completely; indeed, he has it exactly bass-ackwards.

Obviously judges are going to address the arguments State government lawyers put forth in their legal briefs. But that doesn't mean the judges themselves are making them.

In short, the citation to James Antle is an appeal to an extremely dubious "authority," Mr. O'Lawn.

Fannie said...

I see that "On Lawn" has finally decided to talk substance. For the record, if "On Lawn's" Very Important Opinions on same-sex marriage are indeed being misrepresented, I urge him to write with more clarity. Not everyone works with his odd lingo. (Marriage "neuterist"? Cool. You kind of write the cartoons yourself.)

"On Lawn's" definition of marriage:

"Marriage is a way for the mother and father to prepare and commit to take care of their child, in the best way to ensure the child's rights and well upbringing. And to prepare and commit to support the other gender in their relationship to that child."

So that's all settled then.

But seriously, "On Lawn," you do realize, don't you, that there is no single, universal definition of marriage, right? Essentially, you're stating what you want marriage to be as though it's a fact. I don't care what you (or anti-"SSM'rs) THINK marriage is. I care why you think it should be that way.

If it's about "the children," then again, I can only refer you to the studies showing that children of gay parents turn out just fine. (I provided a link above to the blog of one noted psychologist who discusses these subjects.)

Although your numerous quotations and cut-n-pastes make your arguments and speakers less than clear, I assume this is you talking when you quote:

"And to be sure, the benefit of marriage doesn't translate to conditions where people are purchasing children from a catalog to pretend to be just like heterosexuals."

At this juncture, the bigotry brimming just below the surface of your condescending tone comes to light. Do you know any actual gay parents? I know many. And let me tell ya, it doesn't work quite how you (mis)characterize it. In fact, I'd say you have painted quite the cartoon of gay couples.

See, here in the real world, gay couples raise adopted children (who are certainly better off being raised in a two-parent home than in foster care or in state custody) and they raise biological children conceived in a variety of different ways within a variety of different donor arrangements.

But perhaps more importantly, you have failed to show how legalizing same-sex marriage will result in actual harm. Same-sex couples are already raising children without marriage. And, heterosexuals will continue to get married and raise children of their own even if same-sex marriage is legalized (As is occurring in MA right now). You can't, of course, show that actual harm will result because all you're making a huge abstract future prediction. The only problem is, you're presenting it as though it's a foregone conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

"This raises the next question that is always hard to get an advocate like you to answer. Is there any relationships that you are opposed to?"

Fannie said...

"Anonymous" asked me:

"This raises the next question that is always hard to get an advocate like you to answer. Is there any relationships that you are opposed to?"

What is it exactly that raises your question? You are less than clear when you refer to "this."

It's probably hard to get people to answer that question, dear brave "anon," because it's incredibly loaded and vague. Before you go patting yourself on the back, could you clarify:

Are you asking if I am opposed to the legal recognition of certain relationships?

Or, are you asking if I am opposed to the fact that people have all sorts of relationships? For, certainly, people will enter into relationships whether I "oppose" them or not. LOL.

Are you asking me if we should ban certain types of relationships?

And, what types of relationships are you referring to? Sexual ones? Platonic ones? Business relationships?

I mean, I have a hunch you wanna take a ride down the polygamy/incest/man-on-turtle slippery slope, but could you at least do us the favor of being more specific?

illusory tenant said...

Rick Santorum-on-dog?

John Foust said...

Santorum left santorum on a dog? Eww!

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

First you dodge the question and now you say it's not clear enough or you don't understand the context. lol

Is there any personal relationships that humans have that you oppose?

I think that's clear.

Dad29 said...

Thus, applying this "judicially activist" approach, the California Supreme Court reviewed the law and determined that it was unconstitutional, at least in terms of the California Constitution

Not quite, SuperId.

The SCOCA applied a strict scrutiny standard heretofore not used in these cases.

Then it re-wrote the laws of nature, overstepping its bounds by quite a bit.

'S ok. The CaliConstitution will be amended in November. The SCOCA's re-write of natural law will be voided.

Super Id said...

dad29:

The appropriate standard of review is somewhat unclear for these types of cases. In Lawrence v. Texas Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a law that outlawed sodomy, the standard of review was unclear.

In his dissent, Scalia noted that the majority used a new form of rational basis. I note that Scalia specifically commented that he questioned whether laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples could pass the rational basis scrutiny. Personally, I doubt such laws could pass either level of scrutiny so the distinction is probably somewhat moot.

As for your natural law comments, I'll let you explain what you mean. However, if homosexuality is genetic, and if you believe in God, isn't it heresy to claim that something God created, and presumably intended, is unnatural?

PaulNoonan said...

"Agument". Thats classic.

You know what else is classic? Pointing out a spelling mistake when accused of not making a cogent argument.

Super Id said...

"On the contrary, you are always far to entertaining for me to be upset :)"

While we are throwing stones at glass houses, Lawn's first "to" should be "too"

But its hard to fault grammar and spelling errors when all you have to work with is a 2 inch box and no spell check. So, perhaps a little tolerance is in order.

Fannie said...

Anonymous,

You know, when one seeks clarification for a question you demand her to answer you could at least extend the courtesy of providing the clarification. Because honestly, you're testing my patience and are lucky that I'm even giving you the time of day as your juvenile comments in this thread largely reflect ignorance and immature cheerleading for "On Lawn."

Now, I'm sincerely not "dodging" the question, I just really need you to be more clear before I am able to answer you.

When you ask this:

"Is [sic] there any personal relationships that humans have that you oppose?"

Are you referring to romantic relationships, sexual relationships, marital relationships, or what?

Please also make clear how this question is relevant to the discussion. Do you just have a genuine interest in my personal beliefs? Or are you going to use my response in order to make sweeping stereotypes about gay people?

Jay Bullock said...

Watching this thread is like watching a train wreck in a housefire in a tornado.

I only pop back in to respond to this:
But its hard to fault grammar and spelling errors when all you have to work with is a 2 inch box and no spell check. So, perhaps a little tolerance is in order.
Download Safari: Resizable text windows (teh awesome!) and spell-check-as-you-type as an option.

Fannie said...

Yes, I find it irrelevant and distracting that "On Lawn" harps on people's typos and implies that it indicates stupidity or inability to spell.

When one is acting in good faith, a simple innocuous [sic] will do as that says "hey, I see a grammar/spelling error but it doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, your entire position isn't automatically discredited, and you're not a bad person."

Just as my comments have typos, so do "Lawn's." We're all human here, geez.

(Except for my wife, of course, who is a goat.)

AnotherTosaVoter said...

I apologize if I have missed it in the first 100 comments, but I doubt it.

Has anyone here answered the question, how would granting "marriage" to gays harm heterosexual marriage?

I think this is an important question, since it forms the basis for the opposing argument.

However I have yet to see that prediction backed up, either in this thread or in the two other threads that now total over 150 comments.

This argument reminds me of an episode of "South Park" where Cartman (or maybe Butters) finds the gnomes who are stealing his underwear. They have a "plan" consisting of three steps: 1, Steal underwear. 2, ? 3, Profit.

The gnomes never do come up with how stealing underwear will lead to profit, just as nobody opposed to gay marriage can seem to explain the actual mechanism whereby gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage or marriage overall.

1. Grant gay marriage
2. ?
3. Marriage is harmed

WHAT is #2? Anyone?

On Lawn said...

Fannie: there is no single, universal definition of marriage, right?

So what is the definition of marriage, to you?

And what do you call the legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and woman together?

Everyone, please let me know your thoughts on this question:

Do you support a government regulated and sanctioned institution devoted to establishing and preserving the in-tact relationships of man and woman and their children?

Yes/No?

I can only refer you to the studies showing that children of gay parents turn out just fine.

So do children who have single parents. If "just fine" is the metric for establishing who is married or not, then why are you only considering homosexual couples to extend marriage to?

Why not single people?

less than clear

Your admission to reading comprehension problems are appreciated, as always.

For instance, you claimed, "And to be sure, the benefit of marriage doesn't translate to conditions where people are purchasing children from a catalog to pretend to be just like heterosexuals", meant all homosexual couples. Where you get that is your own device, for earlier I also said,

"Interestingly enough, most children in same-sex households came from previous marriages (heterosexual). But even more to the point, claiming that a child has two mommies, instead of a mommy and a daddy is definitely pretending."

But perhaps more importantly, you have failed to show how legalizing same-sex marriage will result in actual harm.

Denial. (ibid)

I liked this contradiction...

I see that "On Lawn" has finally decided to talk substance. [...]

Although your numerous quotations and cut-n-pastes make your arguments and speakers less than clear, I assume this is you talking when you quote:


Its mostly cut and paste from earlier posts here -- and finally substantive. You are special.

On Lawn said...

SuperID

The appropriate standard of review is somewhat unclear for these types of cases.

No, actually the bar for rational vs strict scrutiny is well defined. The California Supremes got around that by declaring sexual orientation (not homosexuals, but all "sexual orientation") to be a protected class.

Personally, I doubt such laws could pass either level of scrutiny so the distinction is probably somewhat moot.

You've come full circle back to the comment you found less than worthy of at least Illusory's legal prowess....

"the fundamental purpose of marriage, questions of legal recognition for same-sex couples, the link between marriage and childbearing, and whether we're ultimately talking about the definition of marriage or the exclusion of some group of people from the institution of marriage."

I believe Washington, New Jersey, etc... Marriage's purpose has passed the rational test many times.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Yes, I find it irrelevant and distracting that "On Lawn" harps on people's typos and implies that it indicates stupidity or inability to spell.

Dictionary note people, I've come to understand that Fannie uses that word as if it means "you didn't really say it but I want to pretend you did".

Aside from noting the hypocrisy of you misspelling while criticizing the intellect of someone for misspelling, and the serendipitous fun that Noonan's mistakes have caused, I've no problem with misspelled words. In fact, I mentioned earlier that as long as I can figure out the word I don't care :)

On Lawn said...

Another Tosa Voter,

I've seen that question answered a few times here, and elsewhere in the thread.

For instance my first post in this thread noted the harm to human rights.

The author of the above article stated, "The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination."

Anonymous noted: "The California case is very similar to the arbitrary powers of monarhy that finally compelled revolution in this Country. Here we have but a few justices, arbitrairly imposing their (different) view of marriage on all people in California."

Given that could happen with any decision, the fact that neutered marriage encouraged and caused people to turn a blind eye to this over-reach means something. The mechanism you can explore as Justice George gushes all over himself for going outside the law and breaking new ground.

But since you ask that question I want to know just what would specify an answer to you. Just any answer? Or does it have to meet some kind of criteria.

If so, then why not show us an example of a good answer. Take any change to any social institution that you know is harmful, and then use that to answer your own question. From that we'll see if the argument for marriage is as more or less solid than your own example.

John Foust said...

Safari? What's next, you whip out an iPhone?

While riding the train in the fire-tornado, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me "So Who Would Jesus Banish From the Hospital Room?" and why, based of course on what God told them and including cites from the Natural Law.

Rick Esenberg said...

Tosa

It was Butters. I spent a a lot of pixels, ink and talk on this in 2006 but. briefly, #2 is as follows: Gay marriage reinforces and furthers the idea that marriage is an institution that is designed to accommodate the adults that enter into it. It is just about ratifying and facilitating lifestyle choices. Norms and rules surrounding marriage that frustrate this - legal rules that make one spouse economically responsible for the other (which arose out of a recognition that pregancy and childrearing cause economic vulnerability) or norms of monogamy (which rest - ultimately - in concerns about procreation and the different sexual attitudes of men and women associated with the procreative consequences of heterosexual relations. Because the defining attribute of marriage becomes benefits that help people live a chosen lifestyle, there is little reason not to extend these benefits to other relatiopnships that people may choose, such as nonmarital cohabitation or multiple partner relationships.

These effects are cumulative to other things that have brought similar pressures and they are effects not upon your marriage but upon the social understanding and legal definition of marriage.

While I cannot be certain how much impact gay marriage would have (although I suspect it would be significant), my opposition is rooted in the fact that we ought not undertake even a relatively small risk. Marriage is too important and its decline - as a result of other factors - has brought too much misery, particularly to the poorest among us. This is further supported, in my view, by the fact that most of the practical problems that people point to can be alleviated in other ways and some (such as the much cited refusal to allow people hospital visits)are wildly overstated.

Fannie said...

"Has anyone here answered the question, how would granting "marriage" to gays harm heterosexual marriage?"

Of course not as such a claim is a prediction of the future.

And seriously, Lawn, do you think you could cut it out with the personal attacks on me for one freaking comment? That's my challenge to you. Prove that you are a better man than you have shown.

If misspelling are irrelevant to you, it is odd that you continually harp on them.

Furthermore, I chuckled out loud when you informed me that:

"Your admission to reading comprehension problems are appreciated, as always."

Actually, I was noting your largely incomprehensible and lingo-y writing style, which you, ironically, failed to comprehend. I guess you have reading problems on top of your writing ones. For instance, you go on to declare:

"Dictionary note people, I've come to understand that Fannie uses that word as if it means "you didn't really say it but I want to pretend you did"."

What's a "dictionary note people"? And, what is "that" word that Fannie uses that means [blah blah blah]"? Oh wait, it doesn't really matter. This is all just On Lawn attacking me, switching the topic, and evading questions, per usual, while pretending to be the one taking the high road.

You're a tiresome fella, Lawn. Some of your substantive comments directed to me were so promising. Unfortunately, you just can't help letting your acrid personality get in the way of a good discussion.

Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than this. You can call this my "exit game" and assign a host of new sinister motives to me but really, my purpose here was to counter your odd arguments and hopefully engage in some sort of productive discussion. Unfortunately, right out of the gate you insisted on making this personal by characterizing me as some sort of stalker-ish ex-girlfriend (ewww, as IF!). The record on that is very clear and your cheap mischaracterizations will never change that fact.

Fortunately for those of us on the pro-equality side, pretty much every time you argue while simultaneously acting like the bully that you are an angel loses its wings and you automatically discredit yourself. I knew that ogre was hiding under that "shiny" facade you mistakenly believe you present to the world.

Thanks for at least not letting me down in that regard.

Peace.

Jay Bullock said...

This is further supported, in my view, by the fact that most of the practical problems that people point to can be alleviated in other ways.
But why, for Class X, should such "practical" benefits be granted automatically and without question, while for Class Y, they can accumulate only slowly and at great hassle and expense?

This is, to me, the equal protection pea in the stack of marriage mattresses.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Its rather an ego-centric game to measure the discussion on what offends and what does not offend you. The arrogance is your own, and your pride not worth protecting especially concerning the snide and hostile attitude you continue to take.

Moving on :)

And the word that you use to mean, "you really didn't say it but I want to pretend you did" (and continue to pretend I "harp" on) is imply, or implied.

Thanks for asking :)

I have better things to do with my time than this.

Yep, nothing seems to help you notice the time, or suddenly realize better things you have to do like asking you questions you don't want to answer...

It was good seeing you. You gave it a good try here again as always. I just wish you gave a tenth the effort to having a discussion that both people can come to understand each other better with, than your mind numbing attempts at dishonest discourse.

Dishonesty which is now again documented in this thread, and you offer no correction, apology, or even regret for.

John Foust said...

And Jay - you forget that when Class Y tries to change the status quo, the argument goes circular and is "refuted" by justifications like "But we only do that for married hetero couples." Similarly, the automatic and easy extensions to the married bundle happen because the bundle is already so big.

Fannie said...

Lawn's latest "narrative":

"Yep, nothing seems to help you notice the time, or suddenly realize better things you have to do like asking you questions you don't want to answer..."

Actually, that's quite dishonest of you On Lawn. As I have already stated, I would prefer not to engage in a discussion with someone where I must constantly defend myself against attacks on my character and personality. (Oh, what? Now On Lawn calls me "arrogant"? Sweet. So that's all settled then.)

When it comes to substantive debate, I am all for it. Substantive debate, as Lawn doesn't understand, does not include making judgment calls on others as being "stalkers," "chauvinists," "arrogant" and whatever other ignorant names he's called me here (and elsewhere).

For instance, I sincerely hope that someone addresses my rather long comment in the previous article on this blog. As On Lawn is incapable of debating me without attacking my character, honesty, intentions, and personality, unfortunately, that person will not be him.

See, the main problem I have observed in watching you, On Lawn, get banned from a multitude of blogs, it's that you automatically imbue your opponents as having bad intentions. If someone doesn't get your obtuse argument, or immediately understand WTF you're talking about with your odd lingo, you knee-jerk call them "liars," "disingenuous," and/or believe them to be actively out to mischaracterize your precious position. Or, you mock their "poor reading comprehension" without ever conceiving that the problem could be yours. Yet when people seek clarification, as I have done in the past, you accuse them of being dodgy and having some evil master plan. One pretty much can't win with you. And, hint, it's not because your "arguments" are superior.

For instance, in this comment you write:

"Evolution requires generations, numerous births and deaths in a life-tree that we are all a part of. And proper cultural heritage requires the link through those generations builds [sic] strong societies. We are dependent on our process of pro-generation through history as a species. We are defendant [sic] to understand our heritage to progress as a society."

Do you even know what you're talking about there? WTF does that even mean? It makes absolutely no sense. And believe you me, it's not because I suck at teh reading. Furthermore, you include no citations, no evidence, and no support for this "theory" of yours?

It's baloney like that the makes you look like a crank. Don't mistake this as some sort of personal attack. You may be a nice guy in real life, you're writing/theories are what's weird.

Anyway, I came here looking for a good discussion and gave a genuine critique of your argument: I believe that it's circular.

Right away, you assigned sinister motives to me by dismissing me as some "stalker" because I once also found you spouting your nonsense over at Box Turtle Bulletin, a blog I regularly read. Get over the paranoia and self-absorption. I read your blog regularly as, since you rarely write articles of your own and mostly just link to other bloggers, it serves as a nice little news clearinghouse that lets me know what the anti-equality crowd is up to. Besides, considering the sparsity of readers/comments you have over there despite your blog being several years old, one would think you'd appreciate the attention.

What I suggest is that you take a deep breath, try to give people the benefit of the doubt for once, lose the condescending judgmental attitude, and seek actual respectful dialogue.

illusory tenant said...

a life-tree

More accurately, a bush.

On Lawn said...

So funny,

Your diatribe, Fannie, once again suffers from the same thing it condemns. Its like you can't help it...

that's quite dishonest of you On Lawn. [...]

If someone doesn't get your obtuse argument, or immediately understand WTF you're talking about with your odd lingo, you knee-jerk call them "liars," "disingenuous," and/or believe them to be actively out to mischaracterize your precious position.


I also did a check in this thread. "liars" (which you again put in quotes) or even "liar" does not show up until your comment. Neither does "disingenuous" appear though you put that in quotes.

Perhaps you are referring to this comment, "I was pointing out how much a struggle it seems to be for you to restate other's arguments accurately. You even seem to have problems maintaining consistency in restating your own arguments."

Thats probably as nice as someone can put that you have not held a consistent rigor to your debating. And that continued in your emotional, and inaccurate diatribe.

It is the second time I'm pointing out this inconsistency. The quote above came from noting you were misquoting before, and your reply to it was...

I was so busy reading your explanation of how what I said and what you said that I said and how it was different that I fell asleep. When I woke up I realized it was just "On Lawn" being dodgy and attributing his own characteristics onto me.

So you avoided the issue by pretending to fall asleep, and then launched into a set of rather rank personal accusations about myself.

Sorry, but its not just a matter of cutting and pasting insults, and throwing about words you have little understanding of. I never make an accusation which I do not make a case for, I demonstrate evidence for the accusation.

Don't blame me, you have much to do on your end. And it is not easily covered by trying to divert with unfounded insults towards myself.

I join with Chairm and invite you to do better.

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

I've seen better arguments and denials and changing the subject from pre-schoolers then I have from you.

The only reason that you refused to answer the question is because you can't without exposing the hyprocrisy of your positions.

Your arguments only go to allowing anybody in any relationship to be considered married.

The goverement many years ago looked at all the possibilities and decided that marriage is between one man and one woman and that this was and is the best social order for the counrty and that it should be encourged.

On Lawn is right that you dodge the real issues, try to make it look like you're being picked on while attempting to insult anyone that you disagree with. I guess those are the only tactics you're left with considering your position.

On Lawn said...

Illusory,

Bushy is better than just a vine :)

Actually two recent studies caught my eye. One of them pointing out that our chicken came from a combination of the grey and red jungle fowl, not just a continuous line of just the red jungle fowl.

And another study found that humans evolutionary branch departed sooner than commonly accepted, but had various inter-mixing back with neanderthals and other homonids, probably much like the chicken's genealogy. Thats not a new concept, but their approach was interesting. Instead of looking at old skulls trying to justify bulges which then went away, they decided to apply a formulation that the skull didn't go through such drastic changes. Taking the smooth change approach they created a much different evolutionary tree.

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) recently took the "tree" to task as too simplistic. And I can agree with that, there were likely many divergences and joints which don't match what we understand as physical trees (though mathematical trees can).

Fannie said...

I'm pretty sure "Anon" that this was an AT&T conversation, so right about now you can just Sprint your way out of it. You are the perfect example of one who, when pressed to clarify a question, refuses to do so and accuses the other person of being dodgy.

That I didn't answer your question, ironically, didn't stop you from telling me my "answer" shows that I'm a hypocrite. Thank you for showing us how you already had a canned answer ready no matter how I answered your question. I mean, if I answer or don't answer you win. Congrats!

If you want to learn a thing or two about the law, legal system, or civics, shoot me an email and we can set up some sort of fee arrangement. But as it stands, I'm not going to gratuitously teach you the elementary lessons that you fail to grasp.

I find it quite funny that you accuse me of being dodgey, etc. as from where I sit, all I've seen you do is sit back from the safety of your anonymous moniker, cheer on your boy Lawn, and keep "score."

Toodles.


On Lawn,

You are confused. First off, the definition of "diatribe" is not "that with which On Lawn disagrees." Silly man.

When you say:

"I also did a check in this thread. 'liars' (which you again put in quotes) or even 'liar' does not show up until your comment.Neither does "disingenuous" appear though you put that in quotes."

We all applaud your ability to do a simple search on the internets. But, and I am sort of embarrassed for you, you don't understand how synonyms work? Nor do you understand that quotes can be used for other than direct quotes? Disregarding the fact that you have, actually, called me all of those things in the past, may I remind you that your very last sentence in one of your various irrelevant comments to me said this:

"Dishonesty which is now again documented in this thread, and you offer no correction, apology, or even regret for."

Do I need to walk you through how when you say that someone spoke dishonestly, you are simultaneously calling that person a liar?

LOL.

If you would like some personal tutoring, email me and we can set up some sort of fee arrangement. Although I wouldn't surprised if you choose to continue to be speak ignorantly.


It's been real.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Oh my. Now you think that condescending attitude will help people overlook your problems here? You have much to learn.

You claim your use of quotes was the rhetorical device of "scare quotes". Lets see if that fits either. From the your own link...

"For example, authors might use quotation marks to highlight special terminology, to distance the writer from the material being reported, to indicate that it is someone else's terminology, or to bring attention to a word or phrase as questionable or at least atypical in some way."

So if I were using the term "liar" it would be in some unique or atypical way? You yourself said,

"Do I need to walk you through how when you say that someone spoke dishonestly, you are simultaneously calling that person a liar?"

Nope, doesn't sound atypical at all. Was it my unique terminology? Well as pointed out "liar" and "disingenuous" did not appear in any form until you brought it up in this thread. Also "liar" and "disingenuous" are common terms.

Since it is not atypical use of common words or unique phrases, then I have to say that rules out (IMHO) you using them as scare quotes.

Though I find it a nice try. I assure you that I have no problem with scare quotes. Scare quotes happened even in the first comment in this thread, without any need to correct or retort. Because it was obvious they were scare quotes.

And if you were just using scare quotes that would have been acceptable if not just rhetorically sophomoric. But you can't even qualify for that high of a standard here.

Oh and lets be specific here. I called you dishonest in that quote not for struggling to be accurate in restating your own and other's arguments (as you claim), but for saying that you don't have the time for this discussion, and underhanded personal attacks that don't want to talk to people who "abusively attack my character, as opposed to my arguments" claiming that is myself.

On that note, I need show nothing else than that you've replied to my comments repeatedly after making those claims. And rather discuss how offended you are than the discussion at hand. And I continue to show how I'm attacking your arguments -- let the implications on your character fall where they may.

For instance, lets remember why your restatement is material to discuss in that often your restatements create the problems you claim my argument has. For example from my first reply to your first comment I noted:

"That [what you falsely ascribed as my argument] would be a tautological argument, meaning it is redundant (you can cut it out of the reasoning without affecting the conclusion). Her cartoonish restatement is, itself, its own problem. She restates the argument without the reasoning, then attacks it as missing reasoning.

"Fannie, did you miss the discussion on the value of integration? On the demeaned meaning of integration, the homosexual chauvinism present? It certainly isn't present in your restatement.

"No because she does make a reference to it. She considers the value of integration, family relations, right to heritage as 'grossly exaggerated'. That is an interesting, and rather frank admission to her own values. I'd be interested in hearing her reasons why she feels others should share that same value as she does."

Has she shared her reasons yet? If so please point them out to me.


...

In the mean time, has (or anyone else invited) answered these questions from an above post...

___________


Fannie: there is no single, universal definition of marriage, right?

So what is the definition of marriage, to you?

And what do you call the legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and woman together?

Everyone, please let me know your thoughts on this question:

Do you support a government regulated and sanctioned institution devoted to establishing and preserving the in-tact relationships of man and woman and their children?

Yes/No?

I can only refer you to the studies showing that children of gay parents turn out just fine.

So do children who have single parents. If "just fine" is the metric for establishing who is married or not, then why are you only considering homosexual couples to extend marriage to?

Why not single people?

Fannie said...

As you can see, On Lawn very much enjoys irrelevant meta-commentary and endless proofs as to how others constantly misrepresent him. If anything I give him much credit for being one of the greatest Masters of Projection I've had the displeasure of encountering on the internet. For instance, he tells me:

"Now you think that condescending attitude will help people overlook your problems here? You have much to learn."

LOL. The irony is not missed.


"On Lawn,"

Your delusional, irrelevant, and largely unintelligible previous comment provided much entertainment.

You take yourself pretty seriously, dontcha?

But now that you've bored everyone out of the conversation and have finally decided to talk substance again please try to, in the future, stay on topic while addressing my substantive replies.

You write, semi-quoting me:

"Fannie: there is no single, universal definition of marriage, right?"

You then ask us:

"So what is the definition of marriage, to you?"

Civil marriage is a status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits. What relationships are worthy of such status is precisely the point of our contention. The "universal" extra-special super-duper "marriage" that has supposedly existed throughout time and culture in a completely unchanging format, of which so-called marriage defenders speak, is usually equivocated and confused with the state's recognition of certain relationships.

Are you still with me, Lawny?

Further, you ask:

"And what do you call the legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and woman together?"

I call it a legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and woman together.

You also ask:

"Do you support a government regulated and sanctioned institution devoted to establishing and preserving the in-tact relationships of man and woman and their children?

Yes/No?"

LOL. Yes. (I'm not sure if we're allowed to expand upon our answers here).

What follows is a bit confusing as Lawn provided quotes without attribution. I'll try to clarify where I can.

I said:

"I can only refer you to the studies showing that children of gay parents turn out just fine."

To which Lawn responded:

"So do children who have single parents. If 'just fine' is the metric for establishing who is married or not, then why are you only considering homosexual couples to extend marriage to?"

First off, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the studies showing children of same-sex parents do better than "just fine." It's odd that you interpret my characterization of "just fine" as a literal scientific metric.

"Why not single people?"

Please be more specific. Are you really asking why single people cannot get married? Unless you're Dennis Rodman, single people by definition do not have another person to marry. If this is your less-than-articulate attempt to get us to debate your "then why can't mothers and daughters marry?" argument, then you're gonna have to come out and be more specific lest you accuse someone of (dun-dun-dun) dishonestly and disingenuously misrepresenting you.

Show us the money, Lawn. But again, I urge you to do better than you have and not make this personal.

On Lawn said...

Folks, those wishing to avoid the "irrelevant" meta-commentary that Fannie continues to drag into this discussion (and then quaintly blame me for replying to) just skip to the "_____" below.

Fannie,

As you can see, On Lawn very much enjoys irrelevant meta-commentary and endless proofs as to how others constantly misrepresent him.

Heh, that is funny.

So now that the evidence is stacked and you've surveyed it, suddenly the personal attack you raised when you said, "If someone doesn't get your obtuse argument, or immediately understand WTF you're talking about with your odd lingo, you knee-jerk call them 'liars,' 'disingenuous,' and/or believe them to be actively out to mischaracterize your precious position," -- is irrelevant.

I think you also just called proof irrelevant too.

I don't mind your back-peddling. I'm just pointing it out.

Your delusional, irrelevant, and largely unintelligible previous comment provided much entertainment.

That is hilarious too. I'd hate to bother you to bore us with substantiating those accusations with proof. Of course without proof, your accusations are not cruel, abusive, or distracting? Or even irrelevant meta-commentary?

Folks, I think there isn't much point of the back story here. This is pretty much what she's tried the whole time. And I just keep patiently pointing it out.

People can refer to my above comment to see if it matches her curt and most serious accusations. But as for myself, her reply speaks volumes about her expectations of debate.

Now to reply to the rest of the comment.

___________


Remember you asked for the clarification and so am I.

You defined marriage as...

Civil marriage is a status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits.

So is any "status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, priveleges and benefits" a marriage? Is a "disabled" a marriage? Is "veteran" a marriage?

Or do you have some specific characteristics to identify what qualifies to be a "a status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits"?

What relationships are worthy of such status is precisely the point of our contention.

If that is the contention, then on what basis do label a situation as not worthy of being a "a status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits"?

The "universal" extra-special super-duper "marriage" that has supposedly existed throughout time and culture in a completely unchanging format,

Again, that is not what has been said. To quote myself from above,

"The meaning of marriage has been static. I am well aware of different expressions of that meaning, and different cultures and protocols as implementations of that meaning in sociality.

"But the association of marriage with mating (sexes producing offspring) and how those offspring are taken care of is common among all of them.

"I'll tell you what. Finding an example that contradicts that should be easy, right? If I'm wrong, you should be able to find an example where that statement is wrong."

To date, has anyone provided such an exception? Please show me where in case I missed it.

In the mean time, I assume you would agree it unfair to say that I've claimed that marriage has existed "in a completely unchanging format".

I call it [a legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and women together] a legal life long committed procreational arrangement of man and woman together.

Do you call not call that "marriage"? Do you disagree with those that do call that "marriage"? Do you disagree with anything that might be called a "marriage"? (If so, what would be some examples?)

Because you do not give that relationship a label, do you think such a commitment is not worthy of a label?

Yes [in support of a government regulation of an institution geared towards the above commitment]. (I'm not sure if we're allowed to expand upon our answers here).

What does the government call that program?

And I expect that nothing I've said should keep you from expanding on that answer as much as you like.

I urge you to familiarize yourself with the studies showing children of same-sex parents do better than "just fine."

There folks, is a use of scare quotes. The funny thing is she just put scare quotes around her own verbage :) Specifically...

"This is probably a fitting time for us to take a gander at the studies showing that children of same-sex parents turn out just fine."

So how much more than "just fine"? And are you trying to say that no children from single-parent households turn out
as well?

And (to re-state a question you became mired in answering again) if single-parent households children turn out just fine (or whatever rhetoricaly ambiguous bar you set) doesn't that mean the single parent should be called a marriage too? There's over 1000 benefits (you told me once) itemized in federal law for marriage, are single people not worthy of those benefits?

Are you really asking why single people cannot get married?

Thats funny, that is like asking you why homosexuals can't get married. Like single people, of course they can. But then they wouldn't be homosexuals or single any more would they, right?

That is why the question is why are you denying marriage benefits to single people? Is there some criteria you have to marriage (yet unsaid) that makes them less than worthy?

If you want to explain why mothers and daughters can't marry, please do so also. I'm curious just what you consider to be "worthiness", and since you bring it up, where does that stand on your definition of marriage as a status for [etc..]?

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

On Lawn,

Your whining is quite tedious.

I urged you to do better. Although my expectations were somewhat low, you did not fail to disappoint me.

Such is life on the world wide web. I won't lose any sleep over it if you won't.


Alas, you asked:

"So is any 'status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits' a marriage?"

Nope. As I said, Lawn, what relationships are worthy of such status is precisely the point of our contention. It is my view, as it is the view of many others, that same-sex romantic couples are worthy of being included in such status. It is your view, correct(?!) that they are not.


You said:

"But the association of marriage with mating (sexes producing offspring) and how those offspring are taken care of is common among all of them.... etc."

The problem here is that you keep trying to make this discussion revolve around what the definition of marriage is. That is not something we are ever going to agree with.

Responsible procreation is an important function of marriage but it is not legally limited to that function. You keep telling us that marriage is about responsible procreation blah blah blah but what is lacking is your argument as to why that should be the legal definition of marriage. And, you also fail to prove (because you can't) how allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in harm to society.

See, I've heard pretty much all the predictions as to the Great Harm that Will Result if same-sex marriage is legalized, but you've gotta admit it's a pretty gigantic prediction. Are you claiming to know the future?

Don't forget, now, before you cite the infamous Scandinavian statistics, (say it with me now) correlation does not imply causation!


You also say:

[Insert completely irrelevant argument about scare quotes that demonstrates you still miserable misunderstand the concept. I will refrain from embarrassing you further than you have embarrassed yourself.]

After all, you really show your ignorance with this doozy:

"if single-parent households children turn out just fine...doesn't that mean the single parent should be called a marriage too? There's over 1000 benefits (you told me once) itemized in federal law for marriage, are single people not worthy of those benefits?"

Here you fail to understand that the benefits of marriage are relational benefits. That is, they exist precisely to benefit two people, as opposed to one. (How, for instance, would you suggest a single person add a beneficiary to his/her health insurance plan if, you know, he or she is single?). Now, if you're talking about the recognition of other types of relationships, that's a completely separate issue than giving single people, by themselves, the benefits of marriage.

Granting "single persons" the rights of marriage doesn't even make conceivable sense. (Yes, I'd like to file my taxes jointly, with, um, myself?). Get real, Lawn. Are you really this stupid or are you just playing?

Wow. I am definitely wasting my time if you do not understand the legal status of marriage and its attendant legal benefits, privileges, rights, and obligations. Shoot me an email and I can give you a tutorial on the legal system (fee-based of course).

Unfortunately, it seems you're so fixated on your Marriage Demands Sex Integration theory that you severely lack a big picture view of how this all fits together.

But keep on talkin, bub. You pretty much discredit yourself every time you punch those keys.

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

Okay, lets try something a little easier that maybe your one track simple but confused mind can handle.

Do you have any moral objections to any other sexual preferences and lifestyles that people may have?

3rd Way said...

Sweet Jesus... the two of you could go on forever.

Are you two a married couple?

Fannie said...

Anon,

"Okay, lets try something a little easier that maybe your one track simple but confused mind can handle."

LOL. Thanks for today's chuckle. I'm sorry that you are under the mistaken assumption that you are a competent judge of intellectual vigor. How sad. :-(


3rd Way:

"Sweet Jesus... the two of you could go on forever.

Are you two a married couple?"

That also made me laugh. You're right. This is sort of getting ridiculous. While watching On Lawn go off on his tangents and narratives is pretty entertaining in its own right, our little "debate" is probably boring everyone else.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Your whining is quite tedious.

I feel unvalidated when you say my concerns and objections to how you treat me are just "whining".

(Thanks 3rd way! :)

It is my view, as it is the view of many others, that same-sex romantic couples are worthy of being included in such status. It is your view, correct(?!) that they are not.

Incorrect. I think homosexual couples are worthy of such a "status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits."

I'll one up and say I think others beyond "romantic" couples are worthy of the such a status. Do you disagree? If so, what makes unromantic couples unworthy for any such status.

But then you also said you do not think any status upon which [etc...] is marriage. We both agree on that too. I think moving forward we can agree that you don't need the term "marriage" to have a "status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits."

What makes such a status "marriage" and what makes it not a marriage?

[T]he benefits of marriage are relational benefits. That is, they exist precisely to benefit two people, as opposed to one.

Lets play a round of "if the shoe fits..."

***

The problem here is that you keep trying to make this discussion revolve around what the definition of marriage is. That is not something [everyone is] ever going to agree with.

[Relational benefits] is an important function of marriage but it is not legally limited to that function. You keep telling us that marriage is about [romance] blah blah blah but what is lacking is your argument as to why that should be the legal definition of marriage. And, you also fail to prove (because you can't) how allowing [singles or non-romantic couples the status of marriage] will result in harm to society.

***

So does that fit or not? If not, what makes your "definition" of marriage more important to codify into law than explicitly promote responsible procreation through expecting equal gender representation? In other words why should your argument be considered valid, and what changed in the argument I mad-libbed that makes it invalid?


[Insert completely irrelevant argument about scare quotes [...]

LOL. That was funny. So not only did you put your own words in "scare quotes", the whole subject (which you brought up, not I) is "completely irrelevant". Or are you trying to say it is relevant when you say it as an accusation, but not when I reply to the accusation? If so, are you saying I have no valid claim to disagree or reply to your accusations?

And you are right about one thing, no matter what I seem to say you have the same snide remarks to give about it. That template model seems to be exactly how you work. Even when it winds up being your own remarks!

Granting "single persons" the rights of marriage doesn't even make conceivable sense.

If I only had the time to dig up all the old quotes you had in response to Jose saying the same thing about neutered marriage :)

I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of why your definition of marriage should get government recognition and not any one else who disagrees with you. Not a single person seeking the same benefits as those in a relationship, and not polyamorous people who want more than two in their romantic relationship, and such.

Go ahead, fire away.

When the shoe is on the other foot...

Fannie said...

Your entire confused comment, On Lawn, continues to demonstrate your ignorance. First off, your odd cut/paste/quote/interchanging/edits strategy makes a lot of what you wrote unintelligible.

Secondly, you wrote

"Not a single person seeking the same benefits as those in a relationship, and not polyamorous people who want more than two in their romantic relationship, and such."

Although your sentence is severely misconstructed, I think you are suggesting that I don't think single people deserve the benefits of marriage. Your are confused beyond repair. It is not me who is denying these single people you are so very concerned about the benefits of marriage. By definition, the legal arrangements attendant with marriage necessarily involve TWO PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO ONE SINGLE PERSON. Criminey. You really are that dense, aren't you? Why, pray tell, do you want this "single person" to have the right to file his/her taxes jointly with him/herself?


As I said a long ass time ago. This conversation is pointless.

But yes, On Lawn, let's all continue dwelling on the definition of marriage.

What is funny is that On Lawn, who is so eager to pose a string of questions to me, has failed to answer the shortcomings in his arguments.

Oh dear! Maybe he was too busy misunderstanding scare quotes again.

Let me re-iterate so we can watch Lawn play dodge ball:

"And, you also fail to prove (because you can't) how allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in harm to society.

See, I've heard pretty much all the predictions as to the Great Harm that Will Result if same-sex marriage is legalized, but you've gotta admit it's a pretty gigantic prediction. Are you claiming to know the future?"

If I missed your explanation somewhere in these voluminous and largely irrelevant comments, I'm sure you won't hesitate to point it out to me.

Anonymous said...

fannie said-

"our little "debate" is probably boring everyone else."

It's only getting boring because you won't answer the questions.

I think On Lawn just ask you the same thing in his last comment. Yesterday, IT and Foust fully understood the question and I think others would also want to know your response.

By the way, if you have less than your masters or PHD, you shouldn't be trying to make your self sound superior to others that are commenting. It's my view that you don't and that you lack sufficient experience and judgment to be making some of the comments that you do.

Fannie said...

On Lawn, I'll try to put this in terms you can understand.

An easy way to conceive of marriage is that it legally turns two people into one. Marriage benefits work by bestowing legal benefits, rights, and privileges on two people as though they are one.

A single person (as you may know) by definition is one person. There is no necessity to legally turn one person into one person for purposes of marital benefits. I don't come up with the law, Lawn, I'm just telling it how it is.

If you want to push for the rights of single people to marry themselves so they can give themselves the benefits of marriage, more power to ya. But, much like this entire comment thread, it would be a pointless endeavor. I can see your placard now: "Single people deserve the right to automatically inherit from themselves when they die!" "Single people deserve the right to bereavement leave to mourn their deaths!"

Fannie said...

Anon,

It's cute that you think you are relevant to this discussion in any way. FYI, in case you haven't noticed On Lawn and I have quite a substantive back n forth going on when he doesn't degenerate into his usual pettiness.

As a cursory examination of my profile and blog shows, I'm an attorney, so I do know a thing or two about the law and our legal system. So as for your little tip and ignorant judgment call regarding my credentials, I can only express my pity of you by re-iterating how sad it is that you believe yourself to be a competent judge of intellectual vigor.

I do realize that you, being the pesty little type that you are, are very likely to question my credentials. Oh well. Such is life. When I wake up in the morning I will still have my law degree, law license, and considerable student loan debt.

You, however, will still be a coward. And a not very bright one at that.

I'd say that's a win for me.

On Lawn said...

I too think you left far to much unanswered from the discussion. I don't mean to pile on but what you did offer invites some discussion...

It is not me who is denying these single people you are so very concerned about the benefits of marriage. By definition, the legal arrangements attendant with marriage necessarily involve TWO PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO ONE SINGLE PERSON. Criminey.

There are a lot of items here recently, (not sure why it takes so long) that we seem to be agreeing on. This might be the most productive part of the discussion, in that we seem to have great opportunity to understand one another.

For one, I well understand and perfectly agree that it isn't you "who [are] denying these single people" a "status upon which the state confers a bundle of rights, privileges and benefits".

But with one hand you open up your first comment here rebuking the act of stating a "definition of marriage as though it's a universal given". You considered referring to the definition as a circular argument.

And then with the other defend your own views saying, "[b]y definition, the legal arrangements attendant with marriage" preclude someone from considering their own status a marriage.

That just begs the question, do you have some reason why a definitional argument for you is a valid argument, but not for anyone else .. or is this just a double standard here?

And if it is sufficient to find "legal arrangements attendant with marriage" to invalidate someone's belief that their status is not "marriage", then what do a lesbian couple need with presumed paternity? What does a gay couple need with presumed paternity?

That doesn't mean I'm not still interested in your answers to the questions above. I think we all see where you need to start explaining yourself quite a bit better.

And if you can't do that, can anyone help Fannie (logically) out of the contradiction she built for herself?

Anonymous said...

Fannie -

You truly are not the blessing that you think you are and your immaturity and poor attitude has been noticed.

Fannie said...

Anon,

Right back at you, babe.


On Lawn,

You demonstrate a poor understanding of my arguments.

I sincerely hope you acknowledge, expand upon, and address the shortcomings in your argument that I have now raised three times:

(And I quote myself)

"And, you also fail to prove (because you can't) how allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in harm to society.

See, I've heard pretty much all the predictions as to the Great Harm that Will Result if same-sex marriage is legalized, but you've gotta admit it's a pretty gigantic prediction. Are you claiming to know the future?"


Just as an FYI, before anyone claims a victory due to silence, I am going to be quite busy at work for a week or so and won't have the luxury of this constant back and forth.

On Lawn said...

Fannie to Anon: It's cute that you think you are relevant to this discussion in any way. [...]

[...] his [On Lawn's] usual pettiness.

I can only express my pity of you by re-iterating how sad it is that you believe yourself to be a competent judge of intellectual vigor.

I do realize that you, being the pesty little type that you are, [...]

You, however, will still be a coward. And a not very bright one at that.


What poor manners.

Actually Anon stated that he doubts you have a masters degree or a doctorate degree...

"By the way, if you have less than your masters or PHD, you shouldn't be trying to make your self sound superior to others that are commenting. It's my view that you don't and that you lack sufficient experience and judgment to be making some of the comments that you do."

I'd say that's a win for me.

You don't appear to have the academic credentials to cash the checks your ego is writing. Unless you consider this a name calling contest, I do not see you as winning anything by your rudeness.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

You demonstrate a poor understanding of my arguments.

I'm not claiming to understand your arguments. Which is why I asked questions like...

"That just begs the question, do you have some reason why a definitional argument for you is a valid argument, but not for anyone else .. or is this just a double standard here?"

you also fail to prove (because you can't) how allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in harm to society.

That is an interesting bar to set. Especially for someone who has, for herself, only offered a definitional argument to support her own marriage policy proposal.

If that is the bar you set, then that is fine as long as you agree to play by the same rules. And if I'm supposed to accept your proposed change because one can't prove or know the future, then are you going to accept any proposed change to marriage if you cannot prove or know the future?

Is there any change marriage you wouldn't accept even if you couldn't know and prove the future?

And last but not least, if you can't prove or know the future are you going to acknowledge it as a hole in your arguments?

before anyone claims a victory due to silence

You've dug a pretty deep hole with your double standard here. Leaving may help keep you from digging deeper, but it certainly doesn't dig you out.

I've seen some rather intelligent people on this website arguing both sides, but I doubt even they can dig you out of it. I doubt any of them want to try, any more than you want to.

AnotherTosaVoter said...

Rick said,

“Tosa - It was Butters.”

Thanks!


I had a long post prepared in response but such a lengthy response is unnecessary. First I appreciate the civil tone of your response and apologize if my original response in the original thread gave offense.

Your key argument, if I may paraphrase and summarize extensively, is that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would weaken the institution by allowing it to be changed to “facilitate” any lifestyle and that doing so could lead to polygamy and all the other whacko relationships. Aside from the slippery slope, you seem to be arguing the premise that marriage as an institution is something that requires people to conform to some kind of norm that is defined by the institution itself, and that it should not be the reverse.

There are two main problems with that argument.

One, it rests on the slippery slope logical fallacy. “B may lead to C so we cannot allow B”. I agree with your point that expanding it for one group might make it easier to expand it for other groups, however that to me is not an acceptable argument for taking the step. For me it is about the merits of making the policy choice. That is always how it should be. You’d say the same thing to someone who made the same argument against a policy choice you favor, for instance global warming nuts. Their argument is the same: allowing pollution may turn us into Venus, so we aught not take the risk.

Second, the history of marriage is one of societal, religious, and legal changes to facilitate lifestyle choices. Marriage has not remained a static institution that made people conform, but largely the opposite.

In ancient Greece it merely facilitated procreation; men were encouraged to seek sexual satisfaction outside of the marriage with members of either sex. Is that an institution you'd support?

In Rome men could solve the economic problems of supporting a wife and children by killing them without question. The church led the charge to reform the institution away from that practice, and for the better, would you not agree? If you do then your argument that reforming the institution invariably weakens it cannot be true.

In different times and to varying degrees marriage in Europe was a business deal – it facilitated economic or political benefits for the fathers of the bride. Love was hardly an issue and the poor wife (and often the husband) had no choice. My wife’s engagement ring would have once been considered a down payment.

Changes have continued since then. For some times in recent history marriage required religious approval, or state approval, or no approval (common law, recognized in the U.S. until relatively recently). All of which restricted or enhanced access based on the societal norms of the time as determined by adults. They facilitated different lifestyles (Religious, secular concerns for cohabitation, societal need to prevent inbreeding, etc.) based on the societal norms of the time.

Given then that marriage has already changed several times throughout history in order to facilitate one lifestyle or another, how can you say that marriage as it exists now, or 20 years or 50 years ago is “perfect”? Rush Limbaugh smartly asks global warming freaks, how do we know today’s temperature is perfect if it’s been changing throughout history?

Further, how can you claim the institution will be damaged by reforming based on people’s needs if that’s precisely what’s happened since Ancient Greece? If your makes sense then is the institution not already damaged goods?

Let me anticipate the counter-argument: at least it’s always been man-woman. I'm sorry, but it's a much bigger change to prohibit a husband from murdering his wife and kids at will, or to prohibit a husband from auctioning off his wife in the town square than it is to make the superficial change of genders.


I have a hypothetical for you. If we cut a deal and said gays can now “marry” but it’s going to be more difficult for Rush Limbaugh to get a fourth divorce or Joe and Ted to get a first, would you say the institution has been strengthened or weakened?

Which change would have the bigger impact?

Fannie said...

Ho ho ho. That Lawn is lecturing anyone on their manners just gave me a ginormous laugh.

Let's recap a tiny fraction of some of Lawn's lies during this thread:


"Fannie is a stalker of mine..."

"almost as if she were writing a parody of herself..."

"...your mind numbing attempts at dishonest discourse."

"a highly dismissive and arrogant stance to be sure."


And let's have a look at what our poor anonymous commenter has said:

"I've seen better arguments and denials and changing the subject from pre-schoolers then I have from you"

"Okay, lets try something a little easier that maybe your one track simple but confused mind can handle"


Wait, wait don't tell me. Lawn and anon's comments are justified because they're "true." LOL.

How rude indeed! I urge you both to re-examine your own attitudes as much as you have examined and placed judgments on mine.

Fannie said...

Lawn, you seem to have forgotten that I already know you are as lousy a judge of intelligence as you are of one's character. So cast as many aspersions on my character, credentials, and intelligence as you want. Your opinion doesn't much matter to me, nor does it matter to the reality of my life- something you really know nothing about.

Just keep that in mind when you're composing the next installment of your Fannie narrative.

Fannie said...

I also noticed that Lawn failed to answer or address the questions I posed to him. Rather, he chose the odd tactic of posing a series of counter-questions to me. See, that's sorta what he does. Never answers, only asks.

Lawn:

How do you believe society, children, families, and/or anything else will be harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to call their unions marriage?

Be specific.


Again, as my time here is limited, I hope you don't waste it.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Presuming infallibility is not an argument. You've been rude, and not even people who agree with the conclusion of your arguments have accepted your contradictory reasoning.

All the complaints about this being a train wreck and pointless have come from people who support your position from what I can tell.

Let me re-iterate where I think you need to explain your position better...

"I'm not claiming to understand your arguments. Which is why I asked questions like...

"'That just begs the question, do you have some reason why a definitional argument for you is a valid argument, but not for anyone else .. or is this just a double standard here?'"

Thats a pretty problematic platform from which to start saying things like,

Lawn failed to answer or address the questions I posed to him

Especially concerning that accusation is false. I did address the question...

"If that is the bar you set, then that is fine as long as you agree to play by the same rules. And if I'm supposed to accept your proposed change because one can't prove or know the future, then are you going to accept any proposed change to marriage if you cannot prove or know the future?

"Is there any change marriage you wouldn't accept even if you couldn't know and prove the future?

"And last but not least, if you can't prove or know the future are you going to acknowledge it as a hole in your arguments?"

Its only fair.

Or should I suggest that if that is not fair to you, then it seems safe to say that your double standard is an egregious resort to which you justify because of your own self-righteous and self-justified ends you seek.

Because life is a two way street. You can start playing by the same rules you expect others to play by. Letting the chips of how that reflects no your character fall where it may.

Besides, considering that you were also caught in trying to justify making unsubstantiated accusations -- even to thumbing your nose at the suggestion of offering evidence -- it really not to hard to read the chips here.

"As you can see, On Lawn very much enjoys irrelevant meta-commentary and endless proofs as to how others constantly misrepresent him. If anything I give him much credit for being one of the greatest Masters of Projection I've had the displeasure of encountering on the internet."

It reads, proof and evidence means nothing to you and the rhetorical device "whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" is sufficient.

Your intellectual credentials, one would assume, would be screaming at that injustice.

Fannie said...

LOL. Like I said, Lawn only asks, never tells.

I'll tell you what Lawn. If you want to engage in what you undoubtedly see as a mere "intellectual" exercise where you get to play perpetual Question Master why don't you shoot me an email and we can debate off-line.

Your posturing and bravado no longer on display, you will no longer have a need to publicly save face, as that has proven to be a distracting concern of yours. For, if you truly wanted the "chips to fall where they may," you would have never started your Fannie storytelling in this thread to begin with.

And finally, since you continue questioning credentials, I am curious as to how your background in "technology" qualifies you to intelligently discuss the very specialized topics of your blog:

"gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy"

It's not my habit to regularly question or even bring up credentials in debates, but since you and "anon" have made these personal characteristics relevant perhaps you can enlighten us to what yours are. By "technology" do you mean you have received some sort of advanced law/biology/anthropology degree from an online university?

Surely you're not just an average guy who, despite having no specialized training in the areas about which he blogs, is nonetheless under the faulty impression that he's capable of competently discussing nuanced specialized topics or of even recognizing competence when he encounters it, right? I mean, such a thing is simply unheard of on the internets!

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

At this point I'm simply asking,

"[W]ith one hand you open up your first comment here rebuking the act of stating a 'definition of marriage as though it's a universal given'. You considered referring to the definition [to be] a circular argument.

"And then with the other defend your own views saying, '[b]y definition, the legal arrangements attendant with marriage' preclude someone from considering their own status a marriage.

"That just begs the question, do you have some reason why a definitional argument for you is a valid argument, but not for anyone else .. or is this just a double standard here?

"And if it is sufficient to find 'legal arrangements attendant with marriage' to invalidate someone's belief that their status is not 'marriage', then what do a lesbian couple need with presumed paternity? What does a gay couple need with presumed paternity?"

You've now written five medium length posts after requesting that people not infer your silence in the face of those question to be anything other than an issue of your time constraints.

Anonymous said...

Gayest. Arguing. Ever.