ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Gay marriage eliminates motherhood

Time exposes yet another lie from the pro-homogamy crowd:
France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.  The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word "parents" would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples. The draft law states that "marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender". It says all references to "mothers and fathers" in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply "parents". 
The homogamy advocates often like to ask how government-approved "gay marriage" could possibly affect normal heterosexual marriages.  Here is the answer: by eliminating both maternal and paternal status in law.  Nor is France the only place this legal assault on the traditional concepts of motherhood and fatherhood are taking place; the California Senate has sent up a trial balloon in its bill 777 which appears to be an attempt to remove the traditional concepts from the state educational system.

The interesting thing will be how this end to the legal statuses of "mother" and "father" will affect divorce law.  After all, it won't be possible to assume that child custody will be given to the mother, once that position is legally abolished.  One wonders if the pro-homogamy members of the more progressive sex will rethink their support for the fake institution if they realize it may eventually result in their losing a substantial portion of their family court advantage.

Labels: ,

140 Comments:

Anonymous VryeDenker September 25, 2012 3:47 AM  

Our children will all belong to the state eventually. Socrates would be proud. Or was that Plato? I could never tell.

Blogger MWH September 25, 2012 4:01 AM  

Will we see pushback in the form of mass divorces from state-sanctioned marriages, followed by remarriages without government approval?

Anonymous VD September 25, 2012 4:03 AM  

Will we see pushback in the form of mass divorces from state-sanctioned marriages, followed by remarriages without government approval?

No, only increasing numbers of normal couples refusing to formally marry.

Anonymous VryeDenker September 25, 2012 4:19 AM  

One semi famous American comedian put it thus:"Hey, we've got such a nice thing going, let's bring the government into it!"

Blogger Crude September 25, 2012 4:59 AM  

I always wondered why I've never seen this angle played up severely on the anti-gay-marriage side of things: asking if it's true mothers aren't really necessary for a healthy childhood, and if a woman is completely superfluous if you just have a ready and willing man.

(Ideally, asking this about fathers should work just as well, but nowadays fathers seem to mostly be viewed as 'the one who supplies money' and little else, at least in some quarters.)

Blogger Lucas September 25, 2012 5:04 AM  

This charade will go on until the purpose of it has been acumplished. Once the society demands for "normalization", all the left wing activists will be silenced.

When in doubt, youtube yourself: Yuri Bezmanov

Anonymous OCS September 25, 2012 6:00 AM  

Interesting how sin has its built-in self-destruct mechanisms. It's almost as if God doesn't really have to do smiting--we're perfectly fine in smiting ourselves!

Anonymous T14 September 25, 2012 6:18 AM  

I hate people who post off-topic things but...SEAHAWKS!!!
As for France - Thank god for a country strong enough to stem the tide of islam.
May my knuckles ever be more worn than by knees

Blogger Ryan Anderson September 25, 2012 6:33 AM  

Why do you think a change in legalese is equivalent to "eliminating motherhood"?

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 25, 2012 6:34 AM  

Whenever activists used to stop me on the street and ask me to sign some petition in favor of gay marriage, I'd ask them if they favored the principle of changing the meaning of a word simply based on the number of votes.

I'd ask them, "What if I got enough signatures on a petition to vote to change the meaning of the word 'vote' -- and the new meaning didn't include you?"

Anonymous Nah September 25, 2012 6:48 AM  

"it won't be possible to assume that child custody will be given to the mother, once that position is legally abolished"

Liberalism will make some form of unprincipled exception to keep women happy.

Anonymous DrTorch September 25, 2012 6:51 AM  

The state will soon be accepted as one of the parents, and will prevent parenting it disagrees with, and assume custody at will. Even easier than done today.

As for people leaving Calif b/c of the interference, I'll bet you start seeing Amber alerts to keep parents (and their tax dollars) in the system.

Anonymous Roundtine September 25, 2012 6:52 AM  

Why do you think a change in legalese is equivalent to "eliminating motherhood"?

Because mother is no longer a legal term, nor is father. If this passes and you go into a French court, there will be two parents: A and B. Legally speaking, there is no difference between the father and mother, they are both parents. And once mother and father are both replaced by parent, it becomes easy to add more parents.

If a legal change such as this came to the U.S., it would probably make the courts abolish all sex distinctions, due to precedent. The equalists would probably push it, not realizing the consequences.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 25, 2012 6:53 AM  

"Why do you think a change in legalese is equivalent to "eliminating motherhood"?"

I believe Orwell addresses this rather compactly in History and Theory of Newspeak. Something to the effect of, once you lose the ability to say a thing, eventually you also lose the ability to think it.

Today it's harmless "legalese," next week it's the schools, next year it's your family mailing out Parent's Day cards. Just as they assured us it wouldn't even creep into legalese, right? Camel, nose, tent, etc.

The guiding principle of the Left is not that it wants to uplift the groups it likes; its true guiding principle is that it wishes to destroy and grind into dirt the groups it hates. Which is an awful lot of groups. Most of what the Left does consists of hate.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 25, 2012 7:01 AM  

Well I can't wait. I hear this season the Steppenwolf Theater is presenting an exciting new production of "Parent Courage and Her (or His) Children."

But I'm sure this type of nonsense will never fly in Parent Russia.

Anonymous VD September 25, 2012 7:03 AM  

Why do you think a change in legalese is equivalent to "eliminating motherhood"?

If you believe the government can create "gay marriage", you have to accept that it can abolish "motherhood".

Anonymous rubberducky September 25, 2012 7:47 AM  

They will simply rationalize that women are more deserving than men based on their minority status (although women are technically a majority).

Anonymous JartStar September 25, 2012 8:05 AM  

If it was only about gay marriage they could have left in mother and father, this is about the later acceptance of polygamy. In the States I still don't think the pro-homogamy crowd knows what they are ultmately supporting, but in France the goal might already be in view.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza September 25, 2012 8:09 AM  

Feminists everywhere rejoice!

Wait til the state decides that all children should be raised by the state minus any parents at all. The proponents of homogamy won't fight for their children. As if this debate was ever about children, its about willful societal decline.

Anonymous Fatso McGraw September 25, 2012 8:21 AM  

Women will not lose their advantage in family court. The state will simply grant favored status to the "parent with a uterus" or some other such shenanigans when a man goes up against a woman in family court. The government is incompetent, but they'll find a way to promote homogamy without de-throning women, their natural constituency, in the process. There will be a law of unintended consequences here, but it won't be that.

Anonymous Tallen September 25, 2012 8:27 AM  

Plenty of links to choose from on google but for the lazy folks... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9563543/France-set-to-ban-the-words-mother-and-father-from-official-documents.html

Anonymous DrTorch September 25, 2012 8:35 AM  

The guiding principle of the Left is not that it wants to uplift the groups it likes; its true guiding principle is that it wishes to destroy and grind into dirt the groups it hates. Which is an awful lot of groups. Most of what the Left does consists of hate.

The father, and active promoter, of these leftists movements is the Devil, he hates ALL people, and wants to grind them into the dirt. None of this is a surprise. After this the leftists will turn on each other. You'd think the French of all peoples would know this.


Of course the Muslims will join in and fill the moral vacuum, but that's not gonna make things any better for the French.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 8:40 AM  

If you believe the government can create "gay marriage", you have to accept that it can abolish "motherhood".

This is a pretty silly argument Vox. The law merely "abolishes" a legal relationship of motherhood but replaces it with a very similar, legally recognized relationship and status called "parent". Any special privilege or responsibility abolished by this act will only be relative to the other parent i.e. preference in awarding child custody after divorce. It does not eliminate any special status of motherhood that would also fall under parenthood. It does not mean that women won't bear children and raise them for the first 18 years of their lives.

What exactly are these special, relative privileges/responsibilities of mothers that you fear losing?

This is equally as silly as the argument that changing the legal term from "rape" to "sexual assault" in criminal law, as many states did several decades ago, means that rape is no longer a crime.

Blogger JD Curtis September 25, 2012 9:07 AM  

After all, it won't be possible to assume that child custody will be given to the mother, once that position is legally abolished


I can hear the courtroom custody arguments now...

'Im more effeminate! No, I'm more effeminate you eff-ing queen!

Anonymous Toby Temple September 25, 2012 9:12 AM  

The law merely "abolishes" a legal relationship of motherhood but replaces it with a very similar, legally recognized relationship and status called "parent".

That statement is so stupid. "Fatherhood", "motherhood" and "parent" already existed for millenia. What the law is doing is erasing "motherhood" and "fatherhood" while keeping "parent".

Anonymous VD September 25, 2012 9:12 AM  

This is a pretty silly argument Vox.

Logic is not silly at all, 691. The fact that you can't follow the logic doesn't mean that it is nonexistent or insignificant. You fail to see that the power to create "gay marriage" or merely abolish "motherhood" and replace it with a very similar relationship can also eliminate either of them altogether.

And that is considerably less unthinkable now than either homogamy or the end of legal motherhood used to be.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 9:14 AM  

Did you hear that, 691?

Anonymous Mark September 25, 2012 9:32 AM  

And we're digging up and burning millenia-old guideposts for approx 1% of the population.

Political correctness is the most evil, destructive force in the Western world.

Anonymous Daniel September 25, 2012 9:33 AM  

Huh. Looks like the replacement refs are moonlighting in France.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 25, 2012 9:38 AM  

"The law merely "abolishes" a legal relationship of motherhood but replaces it"

So, a millennia-old irreducible biological relationship of incalculable human importance, affecting the entire human race, is "abolished" in order to accommodate the recently-invented whims of roughly 2% of any given populace. Nothing to see here.

"The law merely "abolishes" a legal relationship"

The law merely "sets" a "precedent". It's nothing to worry about.

Guess what -- I and my confreres belong to a _different_ 2% of the population: the 2% who are angry giant atomic robots.

I may have a few things I'd like "merely abolished", too.

And I'm pretty sure you won't mind. In fact... [adjusts forearm-mounted laser cannon] I am certain of it.

Blogger Travis Kurtz September 25, 2012 9:57 AM  

Douglas Wilson makes this argument in a recent debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9uTSpq5xJE

Blogger Travis Kurtz September 25, 2012 9:58 AM  

I should be more specific, the argument that gay marriage will in fact impact the liberties and lifestyle of others.

Anonymous Stickwick September 25, 2012 10:01 AM  

Political correctness is the most evil, destructive force in the Western world.

No, PC is merely a tool of the real destructive force, which is humanism. France has long been the bastion of humanism in the Western world, so it's little wonder that this particular form of cultural insanity is starting there.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 10:05 AM  

I mistakenly quoted the wrong passage. Yes, I agree that if the government can create "gay marriage", it can abolish "motherhood".

My comment is more a response to:
"The homogamy advocates often like to ask how government-approved "gay marriage" could possibly affect normal heterosexual marriages. Here is the answer: by eliminating both maternal and paternal status in law."

The elimination of maternal/paternal status in law is matched by introducing an almost identical parental status in law.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 10:14 AM  

So, a millennia-old irreducible biological relationship of incalculable human importance, affecting the entire human race, is "abolished" in order to accommodate the recently-invented whims of roughly 2% of any given populace. Nothing to see here.

Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 25, 2012 10:17 AM  

And once mother and father are both replaced by parent, it becomes easy to add more parents.

Give that citizen a prize. Thus does plural marriage sneak through the back door.

Of course, they will mostly be cases of one powerful man with many female co-parents.

Anonymous Romeny's Tax Returns September 25, 2012 10:25 AM  

"After all, it won't be possible to assume that child custody will be given to the mother, once that position is legally abolished."

Easy answer: The kids become wards of the State. Didn't you ever read Brave New World?

Anonymous The other skeptic September 25, 2012 10:26 AM  

However, the more important point here is the cultural manipulation.

Arguments like "We have to protect women by allowing some men to have more wives," or "We have to protect the children by allowing some men to have more wives" would not fly these days.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 25, 2012 10:31 AM  

Romney's Tax Returns suggest that he is much more competent than the Dark Messiah, which is another reason to hope that he does not gain the Presidency ... The quick road to hell is paved with well-meaning competence.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 10:31 AM  

No, only increasing numbers of normal couples refusing to formally marry.

It will be interesting to see if Christian couples start to marry only in the the church without benefit of a state-issued marriage license.

Anonymous Stickwick September 25, 2012 10:32 AM  

Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child.

The legal distinction is far more important than you realize. The eminent psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, once said: In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined. This is why humanists are inordinately preoccupied with the definitions of words, like marriage, mother, father, human, fetus, discrimination, racism, sexism, rape, etc. Whoever has the ability to define has the power. As foolish as humanists tend to be, they understand this principle far better than anyone else.

Anonymous Starbuck September 25, 2012 10:32 AM  

Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child.-691

I disagree. While this observation is not 100% everyone, but I have noticed a lot of women raising children by themselves when they as children were told "You don't need the father ya know.."

People who agree to new slogans end up making them a reality even if it is in their own lives. What are they telling the present generation of children that will become reality in 15 to 25 years?

Anonymous VD September 25, 2012 10:33 AM  

Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child.

Of course not. Just as changing legal terms doesn't make two men married. You seem to be having some trouble locating the underlying point.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 10:43 AM  

You seem to be having some trouble locating the underlying point.

Which is what?

Anonymous HeligKo September 25, 2012 10:45 AM  

@crude the argument that a mother isn't necessary for a healthy childhood won't ever be played, because it has been proven that they are not. Children usually fair better when there is a single parent situation, if that parent is a father. It would not play out well for the Christian feminist who wants to be anti-gay marriage, but still retain her rights to strip her husband of his children and treasure at some future date. If that argument were evaluated with sincerity in the public discourse the conclusion would have to be that men should be granted default custody. A few albeit inconclusive studies have also shown that fathers are less likely to isolate children from their mother even when they have full custody with limited visitation.

Back on topic. The legal institution of marriage needs to be abandoned by our society. It should never have been a legal institution to begin with. I don't know why the homosexuals want to invite the state into the middle of their relationships after seeing the mess it creates for heterosexual couples.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 10:52 AM  

Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child.

Allow me to explain it more directly for you.

What the elimination of "mother" and "father" does is not erase the distinctions between them. What it does is allow for the shifting of said relationships to biologically unrelated parties.

Consider that, in many jurisdictions, there's a "presumption of paternity"--which is to say, it's assumed that any child born to a married couple is the child of the husband. Right now, homogamy doesn't permit the lesbian "partner" who isn't the mother or the gay "partner" who isn't the father to be counted as a parent.

But eliminate "mother and father" and replace them with the more generic "parent"? Now you've opened the door either to severing the rights of the child's mother or (more likely) father, or causing the child to have more than two "parents" (as California would like to do).

This is a great deal more serious--and more sinister--than you thought. If the State can declare who a child's parents are, even against the will of those parents, then what real right does anyone have to his own children?

Anonymous PC Geek September 25, 2012 10:58 AM  

It will be interesting to see if Christian couples start to marry only in the the church without benefit of a state-issued marriage license.

I have a question on this for whoever is sufficiently knowledgeable of the related legal matters...

I have heard that even if you marry in a Church and do not obtain a formal marriage license, won't you be considered married anyway, for all intents and purposes, via common-law marriage after having lived together for a certain amount of time, or had children together?

It would seem that even if you choose to avoid the legal definition of marriage in our society, it will catch up to you sooner or later. So attempting to circumnavigate an unbiblical redefinition of marriage may end up right back where you started...

Is my understanding of this ocrrect or was I misinformed?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 10:59 AM  

the argument that a mother isn't necessary for a healthy childhood won't ever be played, because it has been proven that they are not. Children usually fair better when there is a single parent situation, if that parent is a father.

Apples and oranges, though. What you have to compare is whether a child in a father-only household will do as well as or better than a child in a two-parent household. Saying that a car works better with one part missing than with another missing is not a reason to conclude that the second part is extraneous.

Your logic. It needs work.

(And it's "fare", not "fair".)

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 11:00 AM  

What it does is allow for the shifting of said relationships to biologically unrelated parties.

The law already allows for legal guardianship and adoption by mothers and fathers unrelated to the child. My (heterosexual) parents adopted both of my brothers. Stepmothers and stepfathers, godmothers and godfathers often raise children despite having no biological relationship with the child.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 11:00 AM  

I have heard that even if you marry in a Church and do not obtain a formal marriage license, won't you be considered married anyway, for all intents and purposes, via common-law marriage after having lived together for a certain amount of time, or had children together?

It depends on the jurisdiction. In California, it's length of time cohabiting. In Texas, it's instant upon the cohabiting spouses referring to each other as such. Most states don't recognize common-law marriage, though.

Anonymous PC Geek September 25, 2012 11:07 AM  

Most states don't recognize common-law marriage, though.

Thanks for the info Mrs. Pilgrim!

Would your statement above then imply that it states that don't have common law marriage, that a couple could simply marry in the eyes of God alone, not pursue a formal license, and for any legal intent or purpose whatesoever simply be considered two random unconnected citizens?

By the way, did anyone see the very recent spearhead post about feminism vs. atheism?

Anonymous The One September 25, 2012 11:09 AM  

@PC Geek

Yes, but be aware there are consequences. For example you can not pass on citizenship to your "non spouse"

Anonymous The One September 25, 2012 11:11 AM  

Starting to think the Amish have it right, complete separation from the world.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 11:19 AM  

The law already allows for legal guardianship and adoption by mothers and fathers unrelated to the child. My (heterosexual) parents adopted both of my brothers. Stepmothers and stepfathers, godmothers and godfathers often raise children despite having no biological relationship with the child.

- Guardianship is not the same as parental rights; it is a legal standing for the benefit of the ward (so as to give the guardian the ability to see to the ward's needs), but not for the direct benefit of the guardian. This relationship is not specifically parental, as a child (as an adult) may become his disabled parents' guardian, or siblings, or total strangers. Guardians are typically required to account on a regular basis to the court that conferred their standing. If you can't see how this differs from parents, I can't help you.

- Adoption severs the old relationship and creates a new one; it doesn't add more parents to the child's provenance. It also requires a great deal of legal process and fanfare, and is seldom done without the consent of the natural parents. Involuntary severance of the relationship requires extraordinary circumstances.

- Step-parents are not considered parents. At most, they are viewed as assisting the parents in the raising of the children. Any "rights" they have are at the sufferance of their spouses.

Because you fail to understand the intricacies of family law, you fail to understand what this move by France entails.

Anonymous Starbuck September 25, 2012 11:25 AM  

The legal institution of marriage needs to be abandoned by our society. It should never have been a legal institution to begin with. I don't know why the homosexuals want to invite the state into the middle of their relationships after seeing the mess it creates for heterosexual couples.

I have thought about this. What I hear from gay couples wanting the right to marry, is that they want all the legal benefits that married couples get. Rubbish. What they are doing and will keep doing until they get their way is to force the government to reconize them so that then the government will force the churches to reconize them and marry them. Which they think they are forcing God to reconize their sin as ok. i.e. they are attempting force God to behave the way THEY want him to. They can't deal with the fact that God said that homosexuality is an abomination before him. They don't like that and they call God a hater for saying such a thing.

in otherwords it is pure arrogance on thier part.

I really would not want to be in their shoes when God announces enough is enough.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 11:29 AM  

Would your statement above then imply that it states that don't have common law marriage, that a couple could simply marry in the eyes of God alone, not pursue a formal license, and for any legal intent or purpose whatesoever simply be considered two random unconnected citizens?

In theory, it would deny married status to unlicensed spouses. But I can't speak to the laws of all fifty. I would certainly recommend that before anyone assume this is a cure-all in their state, you'd better know very well how the law works and whether there are any legal issues you might get tangled in.

I'd say to consult an attorney licensed in that state, but that's a crapshoot. Too many of them are total incompetents.

Anonymous oregon mouse September 25, 2012 11:30 AM  

So if you have a radical feminist who's weak-kneed Nancy husband finally gives up on her and turns gay, who gets the kids in the divorce? Alimony? How would they justify the decision? It would be a fascinating special interests death match.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2012 11:30 AM  

I think that the folks who are against gay marriage are missing the point. If legalized nationwide it offers a great opportunity for heterosexual white men to easily gain entry to protected class status.

Marry your frat buddy who lost his job or is broke after his divorce to get him free healthcare. Marry your old army buddy so he can get your social security or military surivorship benefits. Or just plain marry the guy in the next cube so you go to the head of the promotion or hiring line and the rear of the layoff line. Threaten lawsuits if denied that job or promotion. Also great for girlfriends who are hassling you to get married.

Instant access to the protected class. I want it.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 11:34 AM  

in otherwords it is pure arrogance on thier part.

Or a desperate effort to stifle their conscience. Law is often viewed (by secularists) as a reflection of the majority's approved "morality".

Anonymous Scoobiator: Angry Giant Atomic Robot From the Future September 25, 2012 11:37 AM  

"Changing legal terms does not affect the biological relationship of mother and child, only the legal distinction between that relationship and the relationship of father and child."

Legal distinctions exist so that they can be used to cause actual concrete effects, through the orders of a court, in people's lives. That's what courts are _for_, remember? If the court erases the distinction between father and mother, then in a given case, this will have a defined, concrete impact on the relation between mother and child.

It's not nice to fool with Parent Nature.

Furthermore, you're not taking into account the basic human condition of conceptual drift. Once you unmoor a word from its fundamental meaning --and no word could be more fundamental than "mother", except for maybe "sun" and "moon" and the numbers 1, 2, and 3-- its meaning can and does drift all over the place, given sufficient time. What will "parent" mean in 30 years? In a hundred?

Remember back in the 1980s, when "diversity" simply meant "let's get a few more blacks into this classroom/boardroom/faculty lounge"? Now, only a few decades later, "diversity" means "anyone except a white man, even if we have to import them from some foreign country that has had nothing to do with our history and culture."

I generally assume that people who wrote what you wrote are evil, but perhaps you are merely stupid. If the latter, I offer you the following hypothetical...

Good news! Now that you've had about seven years to get used to your new Global Identification Card, we're going to switch your self-described Religious Affiliation from "atheist" to "Non-Muslim." What are you worried about! The two words denote the same thing! After all, if you're an atheist you can't be a Muslim, and vice versa, right? Oh, and also, about seven years from now, after you've gotten used to that, we're going to change it again, from "Non-Muslim" to "kaffir". Don't worry, it's the same meaning, except in Arabic... don't you like other cultures?

Blogger JDC September 25, 2012 11:38 AM  

Quote: I have heard that even if you marry in a Church and do not obtain a formal marriage license, won't you be considered married anyway, for all intents and purposes,

I know that when I perform a marriage ceremony, I must fill out the marriage license, and get witnesses, the bride and groom to sign the document. Then it goes to the clerk. Until the clerk stamps the form as completed - the marriage isn't legal. I have made mistakes on the form in the past, and had the document returned. I could literally sprinkle the couple with goats blood, do a dance, and then have the form signed. The state cares not about the ceremony -just that the person performing is somehow ordained (this varies from state to state). So, no license, no marriage. No tickey, no laundry.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 11:40 AM  

Instant access to the protected class. I want it.

So you're willing to have sex with other men just for the cash and prizes?

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 11:41 AM  

- Adoption severs the old relationship and creates a new one; it doesn't add more parents to the child's provenance. It also requires a great deal of legal process and fanfare, and is seldom done without the consent of the natural parents. Involuntary severance of the relationship requires extraordinary circumstances.

I don't see how changing terminology will make it easier to "[sever] the rights of the child's mother or (more likely) father" or why "involuntary severance of the relationship" won't still require "extraordinary circumstances". Please explain.

Anonymous Edjamacator September 25, 2012 12:06 PM  

I have thought about this. What I hear from gay couples wanting the right to marry, is that they want all the legal benefits that married couples get. Rubbish. What they are doing and will keep doing until they get their way is to force the government to reconize them so that then the government will force the churches to reconize them and marry them. Which they think they are forcing God to reconize their sin as ok. i.e. they are attempting force God to behave the way THEY want him to. They can't deal with the fact that God said that homosexuality is an abomination before him. They don't like that and they call God a hater for saying such a thing. - Starbuck

Exactly. It's entirely spiritual, whether they know it or not. If it was just about "marriage," they would only appeal to the state for civil unions. They want to make sure churches (who they view as representatives of God) justify their decisions so they can feel justified by God.

If they didn't care about that, they wouldn't be pushing the issue. I don't give a single s*it for what Allah may or may not like because I don't believe in him (and he doesn't exist as "God"). These gays do care what God thinks even if they claim not to believe in Him. His law is written on their hearts and they are trying to get past it. Good luck.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 12:09 PM  

I don't see how changing terminology will make it...

691, since you haven't done so, it might save a lot of time if you simply explain, precisely, what you think the whole point of merely changing the legal terminology is.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 12:20 PM  

I don't see how changing terminology will make it easier to "[sever] the rights of the child's mother or (more likely) father" or why "involuntary severance of the relationship" won't still require "extraordinary circumstances". Please explain.

Very simple. If the State may declare that having a (presumably) sexual relationship with a parent is sufficient to confer parentage even in the face of biological realities and not with intent to protect the actual rights of the presumed parent, then it may sever or confer parentage wherever the finder of fact pleases.

In simpler terms: If a law can say, "Heather has two mommies" for no good reason, then a judge can say, "Heather has three mommies and two daddies" because he feels like it. When reality is legislated away, insanity must reign.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2012 12:22 PM  

I have reason to believe that you did not interview me, hire me, promote me, grant me the transfer I requested, rent me that apartment, give me a good price on my truck because I am in a gay marriage.

Pay me.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Blogger Spacebunny September 25, 2012 12:23 PM  

Anonymous - pick a name, any name or your comments will begin to be deleted.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 12:28 PM  

No, the marriage is a sham. No sex. You don't even have to live together these days. Just be married in the eyes of the state.

So you're willing commit fraud in order to get cash and prizes, while also having the added benefit of everyone thinking you're having sex with other men.

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 12:33 PM  

Yes I am willing to commit fraud to get a good job and a piece of the pie that I have contributed to for so long.

Once you reach critical mass or even have two guys in a movie or television show do the same, people will realize that you are not gay. Under the law however, they will be powerless to stop you.

There was a situation like this in Canada recently I believe. Elderly war widowers were getting hitched in name only to their male friends to share or pass on benefits after death.

Why not? As a white male what other benefits am I afforded other than being a plow horse for the rest of society, women included?

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 12:40 PM  

Do you remember the television show "Bosom Buddies" with Tom Hanks? He and his friend dressed in drag to gain access to inexpensive housing. Hilarity and hi-jinx ensued.

No need to buy a new wardrobe and wear heels now. Just have Tom go to town hall and get the paper signed. He can walk around in boxers with a beer in his hand and date all he wants and still get the housing.

Married? Sure I am. He lives in Chicago. Additionally we have grown apart emotionally and geographically and are no longer demonstrative with our dwindling affection as well. What's not to love?

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 12:47 PM  

VD wrote:

"The homogamy advocates often like to ask how government-approved "gay marriage" could possibly affect normal heterosexual marriages. Here is the answer: by eliminating both maternal and paternal status in law."

And yet the status "parent" won't be eliminated. Which is both key and obvious.

There's nothing terrible or wrong going on here. All that's happening is the acknowledgement that in civilized societies some children's parents are two women or two men or a man and a woman. Yet they are parents nonetheless.

No one's marriage is harmed. No heterosexuals how have been married are impacted. There is, as always, no impact on one marriage as a result of two other folks marrying.

Yet, some can still dream of the day when bigotry rules the day.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 12:48 PM  

691, since you haven't done so, it might save a lot of time if you simply explain, precisely, what you think the whole point of merely changing the legal terminology is.

I'm not sure why you quoted that particular sentence; it was specific to Mrs Pilgrim's point and didn't extend to anything else I've been arguing. I'm interested in exploring her argument because I am not a family law expert, so I asked for elaboration.

It's amusing to see the commenters here project opinions onto me that I neither hold nor argued for here.

My original argument was simple: the proposed French law does not, in fact, eliminate motherhood.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 12:49 PM  

VD Wrote:

"No, only increasing numbers of normal couples refusing to formally marry"

We saw this trend long before gay marriage was on the agenda.

Anonymous Bobo September 25, 2012 12:52 PM  

George, of course heterosexuals are harmed. Now there is no more "mother" and "father". That has implications, even in basic nomenclature. That does impact me. It's dishonest of you to say it does not.

Or perhaps you wish to tell me you know better. But I don't see how you can know better.

All your arguments amount to this "I don't see how..." or "I don't see that ..." but that's your personal position. If fed a turd sandwich I'm sure a coprophiliac would agree that one is not harmed in being fed such a sandwich, but I would mind.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 12:55 PM  

Stilcho wrote:

"It will be interesting to see if Christian couples start to marry only in the the church without benefit of a state-issued marriage license."

They would do this only if they did not want to take advantage of any tax benefits that the law confers upon married couples. Or if there is a domestic partnership status and it confers benefits, they might take this route. Of if for some reason they feel they need none of the benefits that might be granted, they would need to have no government recognition.

In the end it doesn't matter. What's nice is that they have a choice of what to do. Marry in the church. Marry in the eyes of state don't marry. It's merely the kind of choice that enlightened folks have been asking for for some time no matter what the configuration of the couple.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 12:57 PM  

bobo:

I do, apparently, know better than you. Were this law in place here in America, and had you already been married, you would be impacted in no way whatsoever. You would still be married to the same person. If a parent, you would still be a parent. You would still know your gender.

It's only a rhetorical acknowledgment that good people know that both straights and gays ought to have the same right to have their status recognized by the state.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 1:00 PM  

It's merely the kind of choice that enlightened folks have been asking for for some time no matter what the configuration of the couple.

Why draw the line at "couples"?

I'm generally not fond of invoking the slippery slope argument, but, in this instance, there is no escaping it. Are incestuous intersexual polygamists "born that way"? Do they deserve to be afforded protected status as a class?

If parents want to marry their adult children and have orgies in the privacy of their own home and then marry the resulting grandchildren when they come of age, who is to say they will be any less qualified than a more conventional couple at parenting?

Where do you draw the line for acceptable sexual deviance and what are the justifications for drawing any lines at all between consenting adults?

Anonymous Bobo September 25, 2012 1:01 PM  

George you obviously do not know better than me. You're an ideologue and you're closed minded.

I want my mother to remain a mother, and I want my father to remain a father, and I want my wife to remain a mother of my children, as does she. Obviously I no longer have that biological luxury.

You see I can buy that gays (and I know a ton of them) want to marry, fine. But don't affect us - straight folks. Once things have to change for us, even in the tiniest of ways, it does affect us and harms us, even if only for the reason that mother and father as terms go out the window.

That's not fair. You have no right to ram your morality down my throat, George. You're a hateful bigot for that.

Anonymous HeligKo September 25, 2012 1:01 PM  

@George, are most people in their 20s and early 30s really worried about tax benefits as a reason to marry. The rest if people really want to grant the powers given in marriage, can be done through other means. I know it played no part in my desire to marry. I didn't make enough then to even worry about it. Other than a select few, I would say that the tax benefits view of marriage is an experienced man's view of what the youth should be considering, not the reality of what they are considering.

Anonymous Bobo September 25, 2012 1:03 PM  

George buddy you lack compassion. You're a narrow minded bigot.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 1:06 PM  

It's amusing to see the commenters here project opinions onto me that I neither hold nor argued for here.

I'm not projecting anything onto you. Now, answer the question, please.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 1:08 PM  

Yes I am willing to commit fraud to get a good job and a piece of the pie that I have contributed to for so long.

Well, since it's such a plum deal, I'm sure you're already doing it.

I'm really sure.

Because I'm convinced that you have the courage of your lack of convictions. I mean, it's not like you'd actually lie in order to get other people to help you with your agenda.

It's not like the Left has always represented the next step towards a power grab as if it were going to benefit everyone, or appealed to people's feelings of bitterness and entitlement.

And it's sure not like you've actually said that you don't believe that telling the truth is as important as having your way, even at the expense of others.

Gosh, why shouldn't we take what you say at face value?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 1:17 PM  

Guys, you have to remember: George defines "good" as "stuff George likes". When he says "good people" and "enlightened people" and such, he's only saying "people who agree with me and do what I want." You'd have to attack him on the most basic level, and get him to acknowledge that he is not the center of the universe.

Worth the effort? Your call.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:19 PM  

IM2L844 wrote:

"Are incestuous intersexual polygamists "born that way"? Do they deserve to be afforded protected status as a class?"

I don't know if they are or if they are not. The science of DNA and genetics is a young one.


"If parents want to marry their adult children and have orgies in the privacy of their own home and then marry the resulting grandchildren when they come of age, who is to say they will be any less qualified than a more conventional couple at parenting?"

Well, one would have to question their judgement in determining if they are qualified to be good parents. But there has never been an requirement that good judgment be demonstrated before two people can have a child. That said, it's doubtful we will see any move of any significance to include 2 siblings among those that can get a marriage recognized by the state. I'd oppose it only on the grounds that the resulting children would be too likely to be damaged genetically. Of course, that isn't a consideration with homosexual marriage.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:21 PM  

Bobo wrote:

"You see I can buy that gays (and I know a ton of them) want to marry, fine. But don't affect us - straight folks. Once things have to change for us, even in the tiniest of ways, it does affect us and harms us, even if only for the reason that mother and father as terms go out the window."

I'm unclear on how a change in language used on official state papers impacts you, your wife or your children. Will the relationship between you and your spouse be harmed? Will you love them less? Will you be less committed to them? Will you fail to thank them for their gifts? I don't see it. Please explain.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:24 PM  

HeligKo wrote:

"are most people in their 20s and early 30s really worried about tax benefits as a reason to marry. The rest if people really want to grant the powers given in marriage, can be done through other means. I know it played no part in my desire to marry."

It's very doubtful that many who marry are concerned about tax benefits of marriage...until they start having children or make a certain income. Then they become pretty intimately familiar with the benefits via their meetings with their tax attorney or tax consultant. Though I have known folks who lived together for many years as husband and wife, did not marry,but eventually did for tax reasons.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:29 PM  

Bobo wrote:

"You have no right to ram your morality down my throat, George. You're a hateful bigot for that....George buddy you lack compassion. You're a narrow minded bigot."

I'm not sure I'm ramming anything down anyone's throat. I and others have a perspective on the issue of marriage equality. That view is reflected in policy that is determined by representatives. On marriage, policy is slowing changing to acknowledge the growing acceptance that gays' relationships ought to be similarly recognized just as straights' are. We would see none of these changes were larger members of the society not finally enlightened on this particular civil rights issue. It's a good thing.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:30 PM  

Mrs. Pilgrim wrote:

"Guys, you have to remember: George defines "good" as "stuff George likes". When he says "good people" and "enlightened people" and such, he's only saying "people who agree with me and do what I want." You'd have to attack him on the most basic level, and get him to acknowledge that he is not the center of the universe."

Same as you do, Ms. Pilgrim....Same as you.

Anonymous Anonymous September 25, 2012 1:30 PM  

Haven't had time to read all the comments, but in a related case,

Two Iowa Mothers

Never mind reality, both women are now the biological parents according to this demented judge.

farmer Tom

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 1:31 PM  

So, no license, no marriage. No tickey, no laundry.

So, as a pastor, what is/would be your position on a couple who requested that you marry them without a state license because they objected on religious grounds to the involvement in and control over a religious sacrament by the state? Will you perform the ceremony or not?

Anonymous Roundtine September 25, 2012 1:35 PM  

This is equally as silly as the argument that changing the legal term from "rape" to "sexual assault" in criminal law, as many states did several decades ago, means that rape is no longer a crime.

You unwittingly picked the perfect example to make the case against your argument. Lots of sexual crimes are now equal to rape, because they're all sexual assault, and therefore the penalties are all more severe. When a 6-year old boy plays "butt doctor", he is now charged with sexual assault.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 1:35 PM  

Same as you do, Ms. Pilgrim....Same as you.

Oh look, solipsism!

Blogger Doom September 25, 2012 1:37 PM  

All parents are equal. But some parents are more equal than others. Don't even think that will change.

Blogger JDC September 25, 2012 1:38 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:41 PM  

Ms. Pilgrim wrote:

"Oh look, solipsism!"

Or, put another more accurate way: The truth.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:43 PM  

Anonymous wrote:

"George, you and your elected representatives can not ever change reality, you can only pretend. Get a life, you're not fooling anybody here."

However, we can certainly change public policy.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 1:45 PM  

I will.

Good for you. Embodied in those two simple words are the seeds of a revolution.

Blogger JDC September 25, 2012 1:46 PM  

So, as a pastor, what is/would be your position on a couple who requested that you marry them without a state license because they objected on religious grounds to the involvement in and control over a religious sacrament by the state? Will you perform the ceremony or not?

In this instance I absolutely would perform the ceremony.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 1:48 PM  

Oh look, solipsism!

George gazes at his navel and believes he sees the entirety of the universe. In other news, dog bites man.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 1:51 PM  


However, we can certainly change public policy.


George is setting himself up for an existential conflict here: is George god or is the state god? How can George have it both ways? Enquiring Georges want to know.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 1:54 PM  

Ms. Pilgrim wrote:

"Oh look, solipsism!"

Or, put another more accurate way: The truth.


I think someone needs a dictionary.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 1:55 PM  

Stilcho wrote:

"George is setting himself up for an existential conflict here: is George god or is the state god? How can George have it both ways? Enquiring Georges want to know."

There is no god, either divine or state based. There is merely this and us. And we make of this what we deem necessary or prudent. Public policy is a reflection of the views of those who choose to form a binding community. There is no need to bring "God" into it. It's best to simply bring yourself to the table.

The really encouraging thing is that where the rights of all people are concerned, that table is getting larger.

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 2:02 PM  

From what I can see, getting things that you don't deserve from others is the new "killing it". The modern American dream so to speak.

Am I rationalizing and/or attempting to justify my duplicity? Yup, and doing a pretty good job of it.

In state tuition for illegal immigrants. 62% of births in Arizona paid for by taxpayers. Sandra Fluke expecting others to pay for her birth control. You only have to hit me on the head a couple of dozen times before I see the light.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 2:18 PM  

You only have to hit me on the head a couple of dozen times before I see the light.

Brain damage would explain your belief that most men wouldn't mind being mistaken for gay, yes.

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 2:23 PM  

How would they confuse me for being gay when I hit on women at the local watering hole after work? Remember I am in an open marriage. Did anyone mistake Elizabeth Warren for being a native American? Nope, but she still got tenure didn't she?

Everyone can know that I am a fraud, but how would a court prove it? Would they annul all marriages in which nobody is having sex? That would surprise a few million heterosexual people I think.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 2:32 PM  

How would they confuse me for being gay when I hit on women at the local watering hole after work?

Maybe because you'd be openly married to a dude. Bi is still gay.

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 2:38 PM  

You are purposely not understanding. I could claim that I was gay for a day and got married before converting but didn't believe in divorce. I could claim that space aliens forced me to marry against my heterosexual nature. What is important in the eyes of the law is what can be proven. And proving that I am not gay or heterosexual pretending to be gay or gay pretending to be heterosexual is impossible.

Now where are my gimmiedats?

Blogger Spacebunny September 25, 2012 2:40 PM  

Everyone can know that I am a fraud, but how would a court prove it?

Because no one has ever gotten into legal trouble for fraudulent marriages in the US. Maybe you could ask the INS for details on how it can be proven in court that your marriage is a fraud.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 2:40 PM  

Anyway, bud, put up or shut up. Don't go trying to coax people to do something you're not willing to do yourself.

There are states that allow homogamy right now. Many insurance companies cover "domestic partners". All those benefits are right there, right now. Go for it. If it's really that much greener over the fence, there's no reason for you to wait.

Anonymous Jeffrey Quick September 25, 2012 2:44 PM  

Bill 777...the step beyond 666.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 2:45 PM  

Because no one has ever gotten into legal trouble for fraudulent marriages in the US.

Shhh! Hollywood told him he could get away with it, and actors would never lie!

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 2:48 PM  

Jeez, I guess Rock Hudson, Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise and the like are in deep legal trouble then. Have you notified their agents?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 2:50 PM  

Jeez, I guess Rock Hudson, Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise and the like are in deep legal trouble then. Have you notified their agents?

See? Actors, SB! Actors! Hollywood is the source of all truth!

Anonymous Pro gay marriage guy September 25, 2012 2:55 PM  

Easiest entry to victim and protected class status in the world. $70 and a blood test to make yourself bulletproof in the workplace.

I understand if that makes you angry and undermines the legitimacy of your argument. You can even curse me if it helps you vent. Of course that would result in a trip to HR on my part and a trip to the unemployment line on your part. I am safe now.

Anonymous Bobo September 25, 2012 3:17 PM  

George: I'm not sure I'm ramming anything down anyone's throat.

Yes you are. In the very least you upset what many of us find value in. You are changing what we love and what works for us, to suit your ideological ends. You are forcing your view of things on us, and it has nothing to do with allowing two guys to get in front of a magistrate and sign a marriage agreement.

George: I and others have a perspective on the issue of marriage equality.
You have your particular view. It is not more right than mine.

George: That view is reflected in policy that is determined by representatives.
The same people who let the Wall Street bankstas off the hook. Who died and made them perfect?

George: On marriage, policy is slowing changing to acknowledge the growing acceptance that gays' relationships ought to be similarly recognized just as straights' are.

That's fine. But you're not doing that. You are redefining straight marriage and ultimately the family, which is a long term progressive ideal. Look, have your civil gay marriage but don't force your morality or the way you think people should live especially non-gay people.

George:
We would see none of these changes were larger members of the society not finally enlightened on this particular civil rights issue. It's a good thing.
George: Nonsense. This is not about enlightement. Don't be a bigot and paint your opposition as backward. That's not the case.

You are an ideologue, moralist who wants to force other people to behave differently even when their behavior does not affect other people. Sorry pal, you're a fascist. You want people to conform to the ideal which you happen to find most pleasing but is not any more correct as no objective measure exists for moral correctness. I am not hurting anyone in having my traditional family, why do you hate so many billions of people George? People like me who actually help gays and blacks on a daily basis. Why George, why do you hate so much?

The fact that you don't consider other peoples' point of view means you lack empathy, George. You don't even realise that gays could have full marriage rights and terms mother and father could be used unaltered by those who so choose with no-one favouring one side over another. No compassion from you, pal. Are you even human?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 3:27 PM  

PGMG has finally slipped into his fantasy world, where he is now acting out his devious schemes unopposed and enjoying smashing success in his own mind. No doubt he will soon start telling us about his harem of Victoria's Secret models and the gold-plated Olympic-sized swimming pool the government issued him upon his vowing to love, honor, and cherish his husband.

This is what comes of watching too much TV after a head injury, boys and girls. The more you know...!

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 3:52 PM  

Well, one would have to question their judgement in determining if they are qualified to be good parents...That said, it's doubtful we will see any move of any significance to include 2 siblings among those that can get a marriage recognized by the state.

What standard would you use in making that determination, George? 50 years ago, just about anyone you asked would have said that it would be unlikely they would see any move of any significance to include 2 people of the same sex among those that can get a marriage recognized by the state, but here we are.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 4:29 PM  

bobo wrote:

"Yes you are. In the very least you upset what many of us find value in. You are changing what we love and what works for us, to suit your ideological ends. You are forcing your view of things on us, and it has nothing to do with allowing two guys to get in front of a magistrate and sign a marriage agreement."

Couldn't the same thing be said in response to ANY public policy one or a group opposes? I don't see how this is anything more than representational government and I didn't see you screaming about something being forced down someone's throat when it was someone else's throat that was being force fed.

"That's fine. But you're not doing that. You are redefining straight marriage and ultimately the family, which is a long term progressive ideal. Look, have your civil gay marriage but don't force your morality or the way you think people should live especially non-gay people."

Bobo, if this issue of gay marriage should have taught you anything it is that "family" doesn't have a single definition. That said, you are NOT required to marry someone of the same sex and you are not required to approve of gay marriage. Have your morals. Live by them. But in issues of public policy, it's pretty clear that those morals of yours are moving into the realm of the minority.

"The fact that you don't consider other peoples' point of view means you lack empathy, George. You don't even realise that gays could have full marriage rights and terms mother and father could be used unaltered by those who so choose with no-one favouring one side over another. No compassion from you, pal. Are you even human?"

Of course I consider other's views. Then, I adopt them or dismiss them as correct or incorrect....just like you do. The change in the use or non-use of the term "mother" and "father" by the state does not alter whether you are a father or a mother. It merely alters how the state states the terms of parentage for recording purposes. Get over it.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 4:32 PM  

IM2L844 said:

"What standard would you use in making that determination [that there won't be a big movement for siblings to marry], George? 50 years ago, just about anyone you asked would have said that it would be unlikely they would see any move of any significance to include 2 people of the same sex among those that can get a marriage recognized by the state, but here we are."

Call it a hunch that siblings have probably and will probably have had enough intimacy together already. It's a fine slippery slope argument. But some slippery slope arguments are better than others. This one you are trying to suggest isn't one of the better ones.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 4:51 PM  

But some slippery slope arguments are better than others. This one you are trying to suggest isn't one of the better ones.

I chose the extreme case so the point wouldn't be lost on you, but I can see that once you have committed to abandoning logic, you don't go about it in a half assed manner. Your tenacity is admirable even if your reasoning is abhorrent.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 5:34 PM  

Your tenacity is admirable even if your reasoning is abhorrent.

George is not merely too short for this ride, he's the freakin' shop steward of the Lollipop Guild!

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 25, 2012 5:48 PM  

George is not merely too short for this ride, he's the freakin' shop steward of the Lollipop Guild!

Don't insult the Lollipop Guild. They represent, yo.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 5:49 PM  

Now, answer the question, please.

I did. I repeated exactly what my argument is.

Anonymous 691 September 25, 2012 5:51 PM  

Lots of sexual crimes are now equal to rape, because they're all sexual assault, and therefore the penalties are all more severe.

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. How does codifying new crimes and increasing punishments for other existing crimes mean that rape is no longer a crime?

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 6:00 PM  

IML2844 said:

"I chose the extreme case so the point wouldn't be lost on you, but I can see that once you have committed to abandoning logic, you don't go about it in a half assed manner. Your tenacity is admirable even if your reasoning is abhorrent."

The only logic involved here is your contention that approval of gay marriage might make approval of sibling marriage more likely. It's hard to disagree with that. However, what I've dealt with is the LIKELIHOOD that any move to allow siblings to marry will arise. Neither you, nor anyone else, has suggested that any such movement exists or is likely too.

Now, I know. "50 years ago no one thought that gays would ask for marriage rights." Indeed. But that doesn't dispel the fact that you are trying to suggest that because gays are asking for marriage rights, it's equally likely that siblings, dogs, cats and even ants will one day ask for marriage rights.

I find your argument and logic lacking.

Anonymous Stilicho September 25, 2012 7:38 PM  

Don't insult the Lollipop Guild. They represent, yo.

Pipe down. That's quite enough from the Lullabye League.

Blogger IM2L844 September 25, 2012 7:42 PM  

I find your argument and logic lacking.

I'm surprised you're able to find anything, George.

Let me try and put this in simple terms you can comprehend. My "contention" is that the imminent LIKELIHOOD of some other group of sexual deviants demanding their legal right to not be discriminated against is a 100% certainty. I expect run of the mill (non-Mormon) polygamists will be next followed by bi-sexual polygamists followed by anything goes between any number of consenting adults followed by anything goes for anybody.

Of course, the answer to genetically malformed offspring is post-birth abortions. The point you keep failing to recognize is that once you start moving the goal posts, there is no rational justification for not moving them further and further every time some tiny subset cries foul.

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 25, 2012 9:14 PM  

RE: redefining legal terms

Why, if we just legalize EVERYTHING, we'll have a crime rate of -0-

Brilliant!

Anonymous The other skeptic September 25, 2012 9:39 PM  

My "contention" is that the imminent LIKELIHOOD of some other group of sexual deviants demanding their legal right to not be discriminated against is a 100% certainty. I expect run of the mill (non-Mormon) polygamists will be next followed by bi-sexual polygamists followed by anything goes between any number of consenting adults followed by anything goes for anybody.

Nope. I expect NAMBLA will have hands up next.

Blogger JD Curtis September 25, 2012 9:47 PM  

Meanwhile, over in Minnesota..


Campaign Opposed to Marriage Amendment Uses Social Media Site to Stalk Marriage Amendment Supporters

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 10:16 PM  

IM2L844 wrote:

"My "contention" is that the imminent LIKELIHOOD of some other group of sexual deviants demanding their legal right to not be discriminated against is a 100% certainty."

I think you are probably right. However, I think you ought to consider what the odds are that these folks will find support among their neighbors. If you do your calculations correctly, you'll likely come to the conclusion that the sort of alternative lifestylists you fear will ask for acceptance are about as likely to find support from their neighbors as dogs are from the cats.

My point being, your slippery slope argument, while an argument indeed, suffers from a lack of rudimentary consideration.

Anonymous George September 25, 2012 10:20 PM  

Skeptic wrote:

"
Nope. I expect NAMBLA will have hands up next."

You have no need to be concerned with who puts their hand up next. Your concern should be with how their neighbors respond. And I'm going to out on a limb here and suggest that the NAMBLA folks won't get too much support.

Blogger IM2L844 September 26, 2012 12:03 AM  

My point being, your slippery slope argument, while an argument indeed, suffers from a lack of rudimentary consideration.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a little while because I thought there was still an outside chance that you were deliberately feigning a purblind demeanor, but I've now come to the conclusion that you actually are too obtuse to grasp the full extent of the implications inherent in the exponential sociological rate of change under way.

So, rather than spending hours drawing you pictures that you will inevitably be unable to grok, I'll just leave you to your psychopathy and pray that something eventually clicks allowing you to have an ah-ha moment.

Anonymous map September 26, 2012 1:07 AM  

The purpose of gay marriage is another assault on men. First, it will reduce the cost on women for cheating on their husbands. Gays practice open relationships which they plan to enshrine in existing marriage law. A woman will not face any consequences for introducing another man into your marriage.

Second, gay marriage undermines a man's status as a father because it divorces parenthood from its biological basis.

These modifications will be used against men, not women.

Anonymous Roundtine September 26, 2012 3:28 AM  

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. How does codifying new crimes and increasing punishments for other existing crimes mean that rape is no longer a crime?

But rape is no longer rape, it is sexual assault.

"Don't be so paranoid ... you didn't mean to take it seriously when we said we intended to build an entire wall. What's the matter with this one brick?"

Blogger IM2L844 September 26, 2012 10:32 AM  

I did. I repeated exactly what my argument is.

No, you didn't. Repeating an argument that is completely irrelevant to the question is not tantamount to answering the question. WTF is wrong with you people?

Blogger IM2L844 September 26, 2012 10:56 AM  

Nope. I expect NAMBLA will have hands up next.

NAMBLA already has their hand up, but the objections to NAMBLA remain more justifiable, in the wake of official sanctioning of gay marriage, than any of the possible relativistic justifications for objecting to bi-sexual polygamy between consenting adults. On the other hand, NAMBLA is guaranteed to have their day in the sun a little further down the road, once society becomes supersaturated with moral relativists.

Anonymous Luke September 27, 2012 4:45 PM  

Never to be forgotten in debates of this sort:

http://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?poemnumber=710351&sitename=vulgerlove&poemoffset=0&displaypoem=t&item=poetry

"Children from a fatherless home are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Anonymous MaMu1977 September 28, 2012 2:32 PM  

I'm pro-"parent" for one reason: if my mother and father had been listed as "parents", my father's last-ditch appeal to gain custody of me wouldn't have ended with (paraphrased) "Yes, his mother is a drug addict and a felon. But, she isn't a violent drug addict or felon, and we have to support the 'Tender Years' doctrine." For clarification, I was 14 years old at the time.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts