No minds were changed here over the course of the last five months. If the ‘No’ campaign had been tougher and the ‘Yes’ campaign had been softer, the result would’ve been the same. And that is to say: dead wrong. But we are a country that is dead wrong about a lot of things, especially on social issues. We love our comfort zones. We love the status quo. We love saying that all people are created equal, but not actually treating them equal. Things is good enough the way they is. That’s a tough nut to crack.

To many in this state, we have just insulated ourselves against having to see two dudes in wedding dresses charge down the aisle of their local church singing, “Here Comes the Bride” and then racing to the local kindergarten to continue the gay recruiting process. (Gotta indoctrinate ‘em while they’re young, y’know—we learned that by watching organized religion.) They have just voted to avoid something icky. You can pick apart the campaign strategies and tactics seven ways to Sunday, but you’ll always come back to that fact: fifty three percent of voters didn’t vote ‘Yes.’ They voted ‘Ick.’ And it is the ‘Ick factor’ (call it the gay version of the so-called “Bradley Effect”) that confounded the number crunchers. It’s easy to overlook—but it’s very real and can be counted on to add a minimum of 3-5 points to the other team’s scoreboard.

You’re ignorance is showing, oh Annoying One. Technology has passed you by. I am friends with two lesbian couples, together for literally decades, who are raising biological children as a family. Then there are the gay parents with children from a previous marriage, who, together with their partners, are the sole or primary care-givers of their children. There are literally thousands of children in this country who don’t have parents, who aren’t cute, white, healthy infants, and who are waiting for permanent homes. I would never deny one of these children a loving home just because the parents happen to be gay. Would you?

What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families?

And how about equal protection under the law, which you are usually so vocal in promoting?

Failing that, people’s prejudices are beaten out of them with legislation and education.

Reading your post AO, I couldn’t stop thinking of Ward Cleaver.

In what universe? Certainly not this one.

You might ask ‘What about my choice? I don’t love this woman, and I wish to love another, as everyone else does.”

And the answer you would receive is ‘Well, traditionally…” and then a recap of How Things Used To Be. It’s not actually clear whether the Way Things Used To Be is any better than The Reality We All Live In Now. But, we are guaranteed that this is how it should work. And to upset this would cause some untold damage to the marriages of thousands of people who neither know you that well, or would ever likely meet you. All they know, is you should marry this ugly chick, or else.

You will be told that the contract is sacred, that breaking it will bring ruin upon you. You will be threatened by strangers, denounced by priests and scorned by the law. The people of this state will basically have their thumb over a rather important aspect of your life. If you did buck them, and refuse the arranged marriage, then you still lose. Any other marriage wouldn’t be recognized, they say. Your decision would be nullified by the will of thousands of strangers that do not know you, but shun you all the same.

But, what about your civil rights? Surely you have some right to be able to marry a person you love, despite this contract? And you are basically told ‘no, you don’t’. The reasons vary, of course, some cite the sacred texts, other mention the damage to society, and still other will say ‘you just haven’t earned it yet’. Any family you raise will not be recognized, no matter how well you work at it, or how happy and successful you are. Your relationship would be unspoken, and you would be forced to dance through loopholes in the law to gain the basic rights you would have if you chose the woman you didn’t want.

Now, you can say ‘I see what you’re doing; you’re equating gay marriage with something totally different, and the analogy falls flat blah blah blah.’ And you would be right – no analogy will be perfect, which is the flaw of this sort of argument. I am pointing out that this analogy could be extended in other directions, say replacing an arranged marriage with inter-racial or inter-religious marriages, and the arguments against them would remain much the same with just a shift in words and emphasis.

Sorry, this homo was all out not loving his family and having sex all night while scheming to destroy the GOP ideal of American circa 1950 that really only existed on television anyway- because that’s how gays roll.

So the “voice of reason” believes that gay people can’t love?

Respect is earned, not created by legislation.

So gay people haven’t “earned” marriage? Who are you to decide that?

The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.

Odd, considering the neighbor seems to have no qualms hurting the gay couple for no reason.

A child learns from it’s parents. They provide the role models that teach a child how to manage as an adult.

Ignoring, of course, that a child can have role models other than their parents.

At very best having a homosexual couple as parents muddles and confuses a child’s views and chances of a normal relationship for themselves.

Of course, like a good conservative, you base this on absolutely nothing.

What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families?

Hospital visitation rights, for one. Also, what about straight couples that aren’t families? What about adopted children, do they not “count”? God, Farris, just admit that you hate gay people and be done with it.

Dennis, just say “teabagging.” Paul_D accused you of “teabagging.”

“That’s the big shortcoming of same sex unions, all sex/no kids.”

Hilarious. You’ve obviously never met a gay family, but you certainly don’t think they exist so how could you, right?

Well, we do exist and the last thing we want is your respect. You don’t deserve it.

“The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.”

Right, so mind your own business and I’ll mind mine.

Yeesh. It’s 2009? Hard to tell sometimes.

Now go on with your regularly scheduled posting.

“No, historically it has been about the ownership of women and the recognition of legal heirs for the transfer of property (and all of the rights that entails).”
‘
You’re almost correct but you just couldn’t help a little dig about ownership to take yourself off track. It’s not ownership of women but responsibility for women. While it will pain you to consider the biological imperative inherent in the built in tension between men and women, the spread your seed vs pick the best seed diacotomy leaves women and society at a bit of a disadvantage after the deed is done. With no outside force to urge responsibility, a man driven to spread his seed has no real reason to stick around and maintain the mother and child. Raising children alone has always been a tough row to hoe for women and there was a good chance society at large would be tasked with maintenence for both mother and child. Marriage forces the man to do the right thing, bringing some measure of security to both mother and child, releaving society from the tab, and giving the offspring a better shot at success. A dramatic example of this exists today with our underclass being over represented in families being raised by single mothers to the detriment of child, mother, and society.

Your second point about inheritence and the transfer of property is much closer to the mark. Marriage provides legitimacy to the offspring and helps to minimize a messy transfer of property and position upon the death of the man.

” And don’t feed us that BS about marriage being about procreation and providing stable homes for children, unless you are willing to (1) deny the right to marry to anyone who is infertile or past child bearing years, and (b) forbid divorce among couples with children.”

See the above regarding the abandonment of women, keeping society from being tasked with bastard maintence etc. etc. etc. Fertility was not a testable thing way back when but a woman being barren was sometimes grounds for annulment. Marriage past childrearing years really means past a woman’s childbearing years, men being fertile much longer than women, as you well know. Again marriage keeps the old crones that lived from being abandoned. Many women died in childbirth and it was not uncommon for men to have large families from multiple mothers. Often the prior children still needed mothering, serial marriages were a pragmatic solution that once again minimizes the costs to society.

“Not to mention the existence of thousands of gay and lesbian families which aren’t recognized under your antiquated, patrician definition of marriage.”

Actually we are talking about homosexual couples not families. That’s the big shortcoming of same sex unions, all sex/no kids. Adoption can bring children into the fold of a homosexual couple but that should be a case of last resort for the unfortunate orphan. A child learns from it’s parents. They provide the role models that teach a child how to manage as an adult. A kid’s best shot at learning normal coping mechanisms comes from having both a mother and father teaching them how the world works. At very best having a homosexual couple as parents muddles and confuses a child’s views and chances of a normal relationship for themselves.

“What we are talking about are the modern legal privileges that go along with marriage (which I think you know perfectly well, and just choose to ignore).”

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Homosexuals want the subsidies and courtesies extended by society to families. Which brings us back around to one of my earlier points about subsidizing one’s sexual partner. And original question, What civil right is being abridged by denying the rights and priviledges extended to traditional families to homosexual couples which are not families? No one raises a fuss about singles or expects society to subsidize them.

“And, perhaps even more importantly, the recognition by society that one’s loving, committed relationship is just as valid and just as worthy one’s neighbors.”

Interestingly enough what is perhaps most important to you is not the subsidy but the recognition or respect of society. Respect is earned, not created by legislation. The validity and worth of your relationship is a matter between you and your other half, not you and your neighbors.

“Jeez, you are a piece of work.”

Thank you, It’s hard work being the voice of reason here, often unappreciated, but I try my best.

Don’t take that as a personal attack, though.

I’m not going to any lengths to keep from admitting anything; I’m just stating the obvious.

I recommend Blogger. It’s a lot easier than WordPress so even you could probably handle it.

He might or might not vote for a public option there is still hope.

Paul_D accused me of being a practitioner of the act placing my nutsack in another person’s mouth, or vice versa. I don’t think my reply was any worse than what he said to me. Do you have anything to say to him? Or any one of about a thousand things Jaim has said to me? Or anyone else?