Prop 8 Myths Busted

[jwhitlock]

You're free to believe whatever you want on that topic--and you're civil right to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex to raise your children in a dual gendered household.

You're also free to advocate on behalf of you're belief that opposite-sex parenting should be encouraged and supported at the expense of same-sex parenting.

What you aren't and shouldn't be free to do, however, is impose that belief on others' children and families, or vote to remove the civil marriage rights of couples and parents who don't share your views.

Daniel2

I'm imposing my beliefs on others' children and families, and I should have limited rights to vote? Pathetic.

Thanks for the additional insight on what we're really up against when dealing with SSM supporters. Social experimentation disguised as "rights" is simply a train wreck waiting to happen.

[california boy]

I like this as a showcase example of the kinds of misrepresentations SSM supporters make. Gays have the same right to marry as anyone else, and the fact that there are far more gays in mixed gender marriages, then there are in same sex marriages indicates that they recognize this.

The fact is, SSM supporters are demanding a special privilege for their narrow special interests, and not some kind of "right" that they don't already have.

And I like this a completely flawed illogical example of the kinds of misrepresentations those against SSM supporters make. You were unable to answer the question weren't you. Just why didn't some of the greatest legal minds in the country simply walk into the Supreme Court and tell the judges that "Gays have the same right to marry as anyone else" and then go home. Nothing more to discuss. If gays are treated equally before the marital laws of this country. what is there to even discuss in the Supreme Court. This issue should have taken up 5 minutes. The justices should have simply stated that it is a fact gays are treated equally and gone home. It is so embarrassing that the lawyers defending prop 8 didn't even bring your brilliant conclusion up. If there is no inequality, then there is no case to talk about. They get paid millions and you, without even a law degree, solve the problem with one proclamation. Done.

Those fighting against gay marriage seem to be shocked that the support for gay marriage has grown so quickly and so steadily in the last 10 years. They look for a reason for this astounding rapid trend. What they have come up with is that the "gay agenda" has been incredibly successful at "brainwashing" Americans.

Every time some guy makes an argument like this, and America compares it with the arguments supporting gay marriage, a few more join our side. Thanks Whitlock. Keep at it. We need you in this debate.

[Daniel2]

I'm imposing my beliefs on others' children and families, and I should have limited rights to vote? Pathetic.

Thanks for the additional insight on what we're really up against when dealing with SSM supporters. Social experimentation disguised as "rights" is simply a train wreck waiting to happen.

No one (not you, OR I) have any "right" to vote down the civil rights of others--that's precisely the reason we have civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution. That concept isn't new, nor is it unique to SSM supporters like myself--it's an American value.

Neither my family, my children, or my motivations are "a social experiment." I'm saddened that the offensiveness of that type of rhetoric isn't self-evident.

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[Ron Beron]

I'd rather a child be raised in a home with a loving family, stability and comfort. Same sex couple or opposite sex couple aside, as long as that child is given the opportunity to know love and pass the love and learnings on to the next generation then that's good enough for me.

Are you saying that women and men can give the exact same nurturing or are they different in their nurturing sytles?

[jwhitlock]

And I like this a completely flawed illogical example of the kinds of misrepresentations those against SSM supporters make. You were unable to answer the question weren't you. Just why didn't some of the greatest legal minds in the country simply walk into the Supreme Court and tell the judges that "Gays have the same right to marry as anyone else" and then go home. Nothing more to discuss. If gays are treated equally before the marital laws of this country. what is there to even discuss in the Supreme Court. This issue should have taken up 5 minutes. The justices should have simply stated that it is a fact gays are treated equally and gone home. It is so embarrassing that the lawyers defending prop 8 didn't even bring your brilliant conclusion up. If there is no inequality, then there is no case to talk about. They get paid millions and you, without even a law degree, solve the problem with one proclamation. Done.

Those fighting against gay marriage seem to be shocked that the support for gay marriage has grown so quickly and so steadily in the last 10 years. They look for a reason for this astounding rapid trend. What they have come up with is that the "gay agenda" has been incredibly successful at "brainwashing" Americans.

Every time some guy makes an argument like this, and America compares it with the arguments supporting gay marriage, a few more join our side. Thanks Whitlock. Keep at it. We need you in this debate.

Still frothing at the mouth, I see, and unwilling to engage in any real discussion. Your trite little scenario about lawyers and why they're not using my arguments is irrelevant; as you're well aware, the legal deck - which operates in an alternate reality anyway - is so stacked on your side that rational observations and concerns such as mine are not going to have any part in the shallow demands for "rights" that your sound bites want us to believe is the real issue.

It's pretty clear that pointing out that gays have the same rights as everyone else already is valid, and that what you're really trying to create is a special privilege for the very few who want to take advantage of it. SSM supporters realize that most of the American populace doesn't think particularly deeply about things; they've been conditioned to react to media sound bites in forming their opinions. Congratulations - you've been able to appeal to the lowest common denominators in order to push your agenda.

I can see that pointing out that there are far more gays in mixed orientation marriages is troubling to you; so troubling, in fact, that you don't want to even acknowledge it. It gives the lie to the notion that all gays just want to be with other men, and it just doesn't work any way else. Real life is so much more complex than that.

[Stone holm]

I would not at all be surprised if it were true that a greater number of people with SSA are in heterosexual marriages than SSM. That is a testimony of the power of cultural taboos, but I doubt that it is of much other significance or adds much to the debate. It may well be that heterosexual child rearing is better, but so far the credible studies have not demonstrated that to be the case. And given the fact that the Church itself encourages that unmarried women give their infants up for adoption says something about biological parents, not sure what. We prefer the heterosexual parent scenario because of our wanting to emulate the Divine. Whether it is right for us to force that emulation on others who don't believe the same is legally appropriate is the question. For those gays who are now more willing to come out of the closet and want to establish stable relationships, there will be a greater incentive now to convert their Civil Unions to marriages since the Federal laws grant benefits to married couples that are not granted to those in Civil Unions. Hence we can eventually expect a surge in those States which allow gay marriage.

[jwhitlock]

No one (not you, OR I) have any "right" to vote on the civil rights of others--that's precisely the reason we have civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution. That concept isn't new, not is it unique to SSM supporters like myself--it's an American value.

You and other SSM supports keep wanting to phrase SSM as a giving you a right that you don't have. That, as I have demonstrated, is false. You have the same rights as everyone else, and what you're demanding is a privilege that only applies to a narrow special interest group. In fact, it's a privilege that relatively few people will want to use. It is entirely appropriate to vote against elevated privileges for one segment of society, especially when the implementation of such privileges will eventually take precedence over basic rights such as freedom of worship and freedom of association. We've been over this ground before; it would appear that just because you want to phrase it the way you do, I shouldn't be allowed to vote on it - even though I have deeply held, and very valid concerns about the overall impact of SSM. That's extremely disturbing, but I recognize the battle lines that are being drawn and the tactics SSM supporters are going to use to force their agenda on the rest of us.

Neither my family, my children, or my motivations are "a social experiment." I'm saddened that the offensiveness of that type of rhetoric isn't self-evident.

This is the type of sound-bite misdirection that SSM use to claim victim status in responding to those who have valid concerns about the social experimentation that SSM is. The fact is, your lifestyle and family life wouldn't change one bit with or without SSM. A surprisingly large number of gays really don't want to have anything to do with SSM and actually oppose it. They don't feel that implementing a heterosexual practice such as marriage for gays is a threat to their sexual freedom. Here's a link to a rather interesting blog post with just that viewpoint. Most gays just don't want to be married, it appears, and that makes the whole SSM thing not a gay issue, but a privilege demanded by relatively few gays.

So the real question is why some gays are demanding marriage at all. There certainly isn't really that much advantage from a government standpoint; taxes are higher for married couples, and public welfare actively discourages marriage when it comes to welfare benefits, for instance. Having the state validate a marriage is irrelevant as far as the relationship itself is concerned; gays are not prohibited in their relationships in any way, shape or form, which is why your accusation against me concerning your family or taking away rights is not only offensive, but flat out false.

On the other hand, it is clear that there are gay activists out there who are more than willing to make marriage a wedge issue to force others to not only accept but embrace gay lifestyles. It has already been clear that gay "rights" activists are more than willing to override religious freedoms and rights of association by claiming they infringe on "rights" that gays should have. These "rights" are actually nothing more than special privileges that will be used to override what those activists don't agree with. Hence, I understand where your methodology is coming from when you demand that all this be phrased in terms of "rights" gays don't have. However, I also think that's simply misdirection and the fact that gays already have all the rights anyone else has is something that SSM supporters have not been successful in effectively addressing. And sound bites don't count.

So please don't snow me with some claim of "self evident offensiveness" in my viewpoints on SSM. It's bogus, and only serves to divert away from a discussion of the facts that I have presented.

[Stone holm]

You and other SSM supports keep wanting to phrase SSM as a giving you a right that you don't have. That, as I have demonstrated, is false. You have the same rights as everyone else, and what you're demanding is a privilege that only applies to a narrow special interest group. In fact, it's a privilege that relatively few people will want to use. It is entirely appropriate to vote against elevated privileges for one segment of society, especially when the implementation of such privileges will eventually take precedence over basic rights such as freedom of worship and freedom of association. We've been over this ground before; it would appear that just because you want to phrase it the way you do, I shouldn't be allowed to vote on it - even though I have deeply held, and very valid concerns about the overall impact of SSM. That's extremely disturbing, but I recognize the battle lines that are being drawn and the tactics SSM supporters are going to use to force their agenda on the rest of us.

This is the type of sound-bite misdirection that SSM use to claim victim status in responding to those who have valid concerns about the social experimentation that SSM is. The fact is, your lifestyle and family life wouldn't change one bit with or without SSM. A surprisingly large number of gays really don't want to have anything to do with SSM and actually oppose it. They don't feel that implementing a heterosexual practice such as marriage for gays is a threat to their sexual freedom. Here's a link to a rather interesting blog post with just that viewpoint. Most gays just don't want to be married, it appears, and that makes the whole SSM thing not a gay issue, but a privilege demanded by relatively few gays.

So the real question is why some gays are demanding marriage at all. There certainly isn't really that much advantage from a government standpoint; taxes are higher for married couples, and public welfare actively discourages marriage when it comes to welfare benefits, for instance. Having the state validate a marriage is irrelevant as far as the relationship itself is concerned; gays are not prohibited in their relationships in any way, shape or form, which is why your accusation against me concerning your family or taking away rights is not only offensive, but flat out false.

On the other hand, it is clear that there are gay activists out there who are more than willing to make marriage a wedge issue to force others to not only accept but embrace gay lifestyles. It has already been clear that gay "rights" activists are more than willing to override religious freedoms and rights of association by claiming they infringe on "rights" that gays should have. These "rights" are actually nothing more than special privileges that will be used to override what those activists don't agree with. Hence, I understand where your methodology is coming from when you demand that all this be phrased in terms of "rights" gays don't have. However, I also think that's simply misdirection and the fact that gays already have all the rights anyone else has is something that SSM supporters have not been successful in effectively addressing. And sound bites don't count.

So please don't snow me with some claim of "self evident offensiveness" in my viewpoints on SSM. It's bogus, and only serves to divert away from a discussion of the facts that I have presented.

Interesting, but somewhat unconvincing argument. Given the fact that traditional marriages are falling apart at a terrific rate and more and more young people are opting against marriage altogether, one would think that the nation would be trying to encourage stable relationships regardless of their form rather than trying to throw up obstacles. We need stability not conformity right now. The gay community from what I am hearing from my limited source of information is experiencing an internal revolution. There are the older gays who are more likely to be addicted to promiscuity and a bohemian lifestyle, and then there are the newer post plague gays who are seeking stable monogamous relationships and engaging in child rearing which involves also adopting a form of family values. The Christian rights resistance to gay marriage has resulted to some extent in their promoting the promiscuous faction. It is telling that many of the successful gay right lawsuits have been brought by Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans)

[Damien the Leper]

No. I just find your statement about marriage not being about gender or procreating mind boggling. Exactly who's marriage isn't about gender or procreating? Cause I'm pretty sure when I get get married, gender and procreation will be a big part of it.

That's fine. When I get married it will be about love, fidelity and commitment.

ETA: and also our devotion to God.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Valentinus

[Daniel2]

Are you saying that women and men can give the exact same nurturing or are they different in their nurturing sytles?

This question wasn't directed at me, but I would answer it by saying that I don't think any two parents have "the same" nurturing style, regardless of gender--each parent (and each set of parents) has their own unique strengths and deficiencies. I don't believe you can make the case that "all mothers have [blank] nurturing style," or "all fathers have [blank] nurturing style."

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[Shanky82]

That's fine. When I get married it will be about love, fidelity and commitment.

So will mine. Gender and procreation will also be big part of it as well. I'll take the whole package, not just the rainbows, unicorns, and cotton candy.

[Damien the Leper]

So will mine. Gender and procreation will also be big part of it as well. I'll take the whole package, not just the rainbows, unicorns, and cotton candy.

Good...fairy tales don't hold up. If we have kids, then pur marriage will be all the richer, whether by adoption or surrogate.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, some gays want exactly that to happen.

CFR.

[jwhitlock]

Interesting, but somewhat unconvincing argument. Given the fact that traditional marriages are falling apart at a terrific rate and more and more young people are opting against marriage altogether, one would think that the nation would be trying to encourage stable relationships regardless of their form rather than trying to throw up obstacles. We need stability not conformity right now. The gay community from what I am hearing from my limited source of information is experiencing an internal revolution. There are the older gays who are more likely to be addicted to promiscuity and a bohemian lifestyle, and then there are the newer post plague gays who are seeking stable monogamous relationships and engaging in child rearing which involves also adopting a form of family values. The Christian rights resistance to gay marriage has resulted to some extent in their promoting the promiscuous faction. It is telling that many of the successful gay right lawsuits have been brought by Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans)

No one is denying that current marriage relationships are under attack and are falling apart; that's what the church is concerned about. Our government bears a large part of the blame for this, and is definitely not at this point encouraging stable marriage relationships; in fact, quite the opposite. Government involvement in SSM as a special privilege is not going to help the situation at all.

I've spent some time doing quite a bit of reading from GLTB sources about where their attitudes towards marriage and relationships stand. When you get past the nice sounding sound bites about committed relationships, you find that such attitudes among gays are very much in the minority. The gay community is not unified in their attitudes at all when it comes to relationships; it makes for some very, ahem, interesting reading in some quarters. I don't get any impression that free-wheeling attitudes are limited to older gays; the younger generation is moving more and more towards putting lifestyle first, and responsibility second, and I don't see younger gays bucking that trend at all. I don't see any significant upswing in gay marriage rates happening, even if the federal government were to make it available to all (in violation of the states rights portion of the constitution, BTW).

So I don't think that a valid argument can be made that SSM will add additional stability in relationships to our society. It doesn't fit the trend that marriage in and of itself is becoming less and less of an option in many people's minds because it involves "too much responsibility".

Interestingly enough, I do not get the impression that most gays even support SSM. Most, I think, don't really care much about it. It's really a rather vocal minority of gays that are pushing the issue. That makes it difficult to equate the fight for SSM with the civil rights movement, which was far more comprehensive and far reaching, and had the almost universal support of blacks, where actual basic rights were being denied. SSM is a privilege that most gays just aren't going to make use of, given the numbers I'm seeing so far.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am quite shocked that you would consider Obama to be a centrist. Everybody knows Obama grew up with dedicated communists in his families. His mentors include Bill Ayers and Frank Marshal Davis, all dyed in the wool communists.

I realize that doctrinaire members of the totalitarian right wing claim that, but there is in fact nothing in President Obama's past or present which would indicate that to be true. Virtually all professional commentators agree that Obama governs from the center, and the left has been very critical of him for that. Obama has conducted his presidency just as he did his editorship of Harvard Law Review -- he has sought to satisfy everyone, and thus satisfying no one. That the extremes in this country are both so dissatisfied with Obama ought to tell you something which your dogmatism seems to resist: Presidents naturally move to the center. In fact, you cannot name one who has not.

[Damien the Leper]

Are you saying that women and men can give the exact same nurturing or are they different in their nurturing sytles?

Perhaps both. It depends on the person.

[Damien the Leper]

I realize that doctrinaire members of the totalitarian right wing claim that, but there is in fact nothing in President Obama's past or present which would indicate that to be true. Virtually all professional commentators agree that Obama governs from the center, and the left has been very critical of him for that. Obama has conducted his presidency just as he did his editorship of Harvard Law Review -- he has sought to satisfy everyone, and thus satisfying no one. That the extremes in this country are both so dissatisfied with Obama ought to tell you something which your dogmatism seems to resist: Presidents naturally move to the center. In fact, you cannot name one who has not.

I hate you...how dare you be the voice of reason, Robert!

[Bernard Gui]

If marriage is a civil right, are there any legitimate restrictions that can be placed on it?

[Damien the Leper]

I like this:

[Damien the Leper]

This is a beautiful picture:

Thread has become political