President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage did little to shift the nation’s views on the subject, with a new poll finding that the public remains evenly split on the issue.
...The poll found that 42 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, 40 percent support it and 15 percent are neutral. Last August, the country was similarly divided over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to be legally married in their state, with 45 percent opposing, 42 percent favoring and 10 percent neutral.
... posing a potential problem for the president, his announcement also fired up the right — against him. More Republicans and conservatives said they strongly disapproved of his handling of the issue now than before; 53 percent of Republicans said that, compared with 45 percent in August, and 52 percent of conservatives say as much now, up from 43 percent back then.
The issue could compel them to turn out in droves to vote against Obama.
77 Comments
David Blankenhorn has an op-ed in the New York Times today where he promotes many NOM talking points to make his case. Check it out!
And in that op-ed he also admits that the time for fighting against marriage equality has ended.
Unfortunately for the New York Times, the time for fighting pseudo marriage is right now.
This November is the nightmare for pseudo-marriage.
This poll is in line with the recent results in NC. If the fight has ended, NOM supporters have won the most recent battle and every other battle where the people have had a direct say in the matter.
We have marriage equality. There is no orientation test for marriage. What we don't have in most states is redefined or de-gendered marriage.
Many of us believe that the public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their mother and father. This is a view that is shared by both people of faith and of no faith. We say this and then get blasted and called names by the opposition.
Our own Maggie is the perfect example of respectful debate. Yet the opposition attacks her mercilessly b/c they disagree with her and have no valid opposing argument.
Mr. Blankenhorn is misguided in wanting to concede the marriage argument to the opposition. How can he state that marriage unites children to their parents while at the same time agree to redefine it, thus severing this link?
He believes this will bring peace. It won't. It will only open the door to even more conflict and abuse.
Publius,
What governmental purpose is served by marriage between two people who do not have a hetero orientation?
Do you have a daughter? Is this what you would want for her? Or a son? Marriage doesn't change orientation. How many people have tried because of social pressure to devastating consequence for both.
From the same article, "When asked which candidate Americans trust to do a better job of handling social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, there was little change from a poll taken about a week before Obama’s May 9 announcement; 52 percent now side with Obama, compared with 36 percent for Romney."
NOM- you're cherry picking again. 47 approve, 48 oppose.
Great, let's vote and see if the polls were right
Barb
I share your opinion that Mr. Blankenhorn is hoping for a compromise where there is none. You can't have marriage as a gender neutral institution and then say fathers and mothers matter.
Where marriage has been redefined under the misnomer of marriage equality, the demand for "reproductive equality" has followed. In the US, we have more of a mixed bag, some activists seeking "reproductive equality" and then demanding marriage equality. I don't see how the link between marriage and founding a family can be seperated.
Mr. Blankanhorn is a very confused, pathetic and sad man. Maggie said it best of her one time mentor, “I wish you well, old friend.” Get lost! And thanks for nothing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303744/david-blankenhorn-gives-maggie-gallagher?toggle=y
And one of the 40% is the star witness against SSM, David Blankenhorn:
Concerning Proposition 8 ... I took a stand against gay marriage. But as a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
David Blankenhorn even goes further to say:
And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus.
The Values Voters. The key constituency that brought the GOP to historic landslide victories in 1994 with almost 10 million new people voting for the first time.
Will they do the same thing they did back then and bring America back from the brink of destruction?
The drama is just to much Zack! And sadly, its the real life kind.
@Reformed
I have four sons and two daughters. Do you have any children born to you? I have had one and only one sexual partner. How many have you had?
What is the public purpose of marriage and its benefit to society?
Judge Walker offered this public purpose of marriage:
“a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”
This reduces marriage to an economic contract with vague feelings. Contract law can fulfill that purpose without marriage at all. Indeed, contracts are harder to void than no-fault divorce and would provide greater economic stability and ensure more serious commitment.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse offers as the following essential public purpose:
“The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.” See
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/marriage/pdf/77reasonsREAD-ONLY.pdf
Here is an Orthodox Jewish perspective purpose for marriage.
http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/21/rabbi-yoseph-karo-on-the-essential-public-purpose-of-marriage/
I would argue that sustaining the population has secular as well as religious value.
I have argued elsewhere that another public purpose of marriage is to protect women in their asymmetric relationships with men (men can impregnate women, but not vice versa). Women have inherently different biological clocks. De-gendering marriage would weaken the ability of the law to protect women. SS”M” is thus part of the war on women.
Why destroy the valuable purposes of traditional marriage when contract law can fulfill the goal of an economic partnership with “feelings.”
Great points, Barb and AM.
David Blankenhorn has caved. In his article, he basically admits that he feels the same about ssm as he did when he wrote his book, "The Future of Marriage"--that this endorsement of ssm isn't a retraction of past thoughts.
So why endorse it? Well, he seems tired of the fight, and admits that he doesn't have much stomach for "culture wars." Basically, because 1) young people and elites support ssm at the moment; 2) some people against ssm hate gay people; and 3) marriage continues to decline through this current battle, he feels it’s time for him to embrace ssm.
The reasoning is pretty flimsy, and makes him look flimsy.
As Barb noted, such capitulation will not bring the peace he hopes for. But that’s not the only point of naiveté in his thinking.
What’s really sad is that Blankenhorn pathetically hopes that, in the case of legalized ssm, we could all embrace some basic things to strengthen marriage and protect children. The people that have fought him vehemently for years are now going to accept that marriage is supreme to cohabitation, children should come after it, and that we shouldn’t cruelly prevent children from knowing their biological origins by using artificial reproductive technologies?
Yeah right!
If he’s willing to step aside for the deinstitutionalization of marriage, then so be it. But it’s pretty lame to think that the family diversity radicals will now hear him out on other issues because he gave way to them on ssm.
As you both noted, the philosophical underpinnings of marriage advocates and the pro-ssm side are irreconcilable. There is no compromise in this war.
As Maggie said, "farewell, brother." The rest of the pro-marriage crowd is far more sturdier than Blankenhorn.
@Publius,
You should not be confusing these miscreants with the facts. The facts will not held these heathen satisfy their want and they run contrary to the 'Alice in Wonderland' world in which they reside - in their minds.
If you were a Godless whore wouldn't you want the meaning of words changed so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity; I know I would.
I am just glad that Maggie and Brian are still in this worthwhile fight while David B. has decided that he becomes another Neville Chamberlain all will be well.
And how might you know that, Randy, hm?
@Bryce
"And how might you know that, Randy, hm?"
It is called Empathy Bryce. Something a marriage corruption supporter such as yourself could not possibly understand because it would require you to allow things to not be about you for five seconds.
Empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this
Well your empathy seems to be a tad off. But thank you for playing.
Interesting to note that the original story that the post at the top of this thread also had this to say...
"But the AP-GfK poll suggests that voters, at least nationally, didn’t flee the president.
When asked which candidate Americans trust to do a better job of handling social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, there was little change from a poll taken about a week before Obama’s May 9 announcement; 52 percent now side with Obama, compared with 36 percent for Romney."
and
"Indeed, support for gay marriage remains a more popular position with younger voters: 50 percent of people under age 35 said they would favor allowing same-sex couples to be legally married in their state, compared with 36 percent of those ages 35 and up.
Among those under 35, overall approval of the president’s handling of same-sex marriage has held steady, but those who back him do so more strongly now. His “strong” approval numbers have doubled, jumping from 17 percent last August to 34 percent in the AP-GfK survey."
Great, so let's vote and see if the polls were right
When you consider the fact that AP has proved to be just another marriage corruption cheerleader you can count on a fifteen point bias for redefinition; coupled with the fact that the undecided vote normally goes about 90% in favor of traditional marriage you will see that the actuals are much closer to the original poll taken on this subject back in the 1970's with 68% opposed to changing the meaning of marriage and 32% in favor of.
You know the numbers are bad when even the media whores are incapable of messaging the numbers enough to report majority support for these heathen.
Fram Rasmussen 6.23.12:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%."
"Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22 "
I love your indiscriminate use of the word "whores," Randy. It's very empathetic.
I think the term "media whores" is really altogether unfair.........to whores.
The rapid unravelling of the Obama campaign- notably in the face of his gay marriage gambit but certainly also in the face of the economic tsunami building up in the global financial system, and the Fast and Furious episode- is very good news indeed for marriage defenders.
The defeat of Obama is absolutely indispensably necessary for the preservation of marriage in the USA.
Garret,
You are confusing Empathy with Sympathy. You can have a sense of Empathy for someone without Sympathizing with their plight. My sense of Empathy leads me to believe that you have nobody else to blame but yourself; that you are a perpetrator and not a victim.
Garret again just proved my point that these miscreants are seeking to redefine every word in the English language that shows their depravity in the proper light.
Whore: somebody who is regarded as willing to set aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives
Cheering judicial findings that violate the rights of your fellow citizen because said ruling appears to benefit you is the very definition of a whore.
@Randy,
whore: a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
I'm not sure where your definition is coming from, but you shouldn't be using your own made-up definitions of words to support your theory that SSMers are trying to redefine words. If anything, your post shows an attempt on your part to redefine the word "whore".
empathy (by the way, empathy and sympathy do not require capitalization): the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
If you were really experiencing Garret's feelings, thoughts, or attitudes, you would have some sort of understanding of them. You evidently do not. I, for one, lack empathy for you, because I do not at all understand your thoughts or attitudes, and cannot pretend to experience them (If I wished to pretend, as you do, I could say something along the lines of "my sense of empathy leads me to believe that you have no soul and only a deep burning hatred of homosexuality". That wouldn't make me right, and wouldn't mean I am feeling empathy). You should stop pretending to have empathy, and stop capitalizing the word.
@Jon
"I, for one, lack empathy for you, because I do not at all understand your thoughts or attitudes, and cannot pretend to experience them "
How does confirming my understanding of the selfish nature of your depravity refute it? You truly are living in a 'Alice in Wonderland' world where up is down and down is up.
News Flash: This is not 'Wonderland' and you are not Alice; wake up.
“I'm not sure where your definition is coming from”
Encarta
"With reasonable men i will reason; with human men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter" William Lloyd Garrison
Marriage corruption supporters are tyrants and must be afforded no quarter.
Quarter: mercy offered to a defeated enemy
@Randy
Two gay men fall in love. Are they tyrants?
The two men try to become married but are denied. One gets sick and the other is denied visiting rights. Is the government being tyrannical?
tyrant: any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.
Their marriage would not prevent you from being married, or living a normal life, as you see fit. William Lloyd Garrison didn't mean "person struggling for civil rights" when he used "tyrant"
To perverts demanding the public change the meaning of a word so as to lend an appearance of public acceptability of their depravity are tyrants.
Correction:
Two
Any two people can enter into a legal contract that allows for visitation rights without any need for the redefining of words for everybody else. You are being disingenuous when you claim the redefining of a word central to the Judea/Christian faith will not affect anyone else.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain" did not work on Dorothy and it most certainly no work here because everybody here already knows how that movie ends. I have no sympathy for those that put themselves in that position.
@Randy And if they don't have immediate written proof of that legal contract, their visitation rights will be denied.
In order to be a tyrant one must be in a position of power. Gays being denied the right to marry are not in a position of power. Redefining the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex partners will not redefine the religious meaning of the word for the Judeo/Christian faith for religious folks, except for cases in which religious employers use their "religious freedoms" to deny the legal rights of gays. Sorry if I don't consider it a religious freedom to discriminate against one's employees as a corporation in the United States.
All of this babble about redefining words, etc. though is really besides the point. It comes down to the fact that you consider homosexuality depraved, immoral, and you believe homosexual behavior should not be accepted by society. I, on the other hand, do not believe that homosexuality is depraved, immoral, etc. Because your beliefs are based in faith, I do not think there is any way for me to convince you otherwise. The best I can hope for is for you to grudgingly accept the fact that your religious beliefs are not the basis for law in the United States, and that treating people and their relationships with their partners equally is not tyrannical.
These words were defined in the 14th century. "Homosexuality" was depraved, corrupt, immoral, and perverted long before "Homosexuality" was "Homosexuality" - coined in 1865; four hundred years after the fact.
"The best I can hope for is for you to grudgingly accept the fact that your religious beliefs are not the basis for law in the United States"
So the best you could hope for is that I believed you over my damn lying eyes?
"All men are CREATED equal" dictates that our CREATOR dictates the definition of equality. "Endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights" again dictates that the CREATOR dictates was said rights are. The U.S. Constitution was written so as to realize the promises made in the Declaration of Independence were the founding fathers pledged their fortunes and their very lives in defense of their God given gift of freedom. First came the belief that our freedoms were God given and then came the fight to preserve said rights claimed in the Declaration of Independence.
You do not have language or history on your side; which probably explains why you are completely dependent upon falsehoods and blatant lies in defense of your demands for new rights.
@41 The CREATED, CREATOR ant KING
Wow. King had been tolerant and patient; but now he had to speak up. And make things clear and simple for those disrespectful at hand. And expose the naked foundation. To be shown solid, anchored, firm and unmoving. Simple. Simplified. And simply the way it was written.
“Can you not see it my brother?” “Its there in front of you.” “Unmistakable.” “Why do you spit on it, and call yourself American?” “And for nothing better than for immodest things such as sex in the street, and sex in the classroom.” “Come on brother. Don't fight it. Be an American – and be an honorable man.” “And get off the back of the man-woman couple who want to be known under a distinct name, marriage.”
Only if the government is preventing them from exercising visiting rights.
The oft-refuted "visiting rights" canard is trotted out yet again.
A simple contract can establish the patient's wishes in this regard.
And we are supposed to destroy the only institution of the human race which binds mothers and fathers to their children....
for this?
Pseudo-marriage is not only incredibly dishonest in its arguments and tactics....
It is an insult to the intelligence.
@Rick, while a "simple contract" may be good for many situations, the visiting rights issue becomes a problem in emergency situations where there is no time to find a contract document or read it as the patient is taken in to the hospital. It is this situation where there is no question when the husband/wife of the patient says "that is my husband" or "that is my wife", and are allowed to go with them. When one gay man says "that's my partner", the response can and has been "sorry, only family is allowed". I'm sorry if this argument has been made many times before me, but it's a common argument because it's a good one.
@Randy, so you admit then that this really is just about your Christian God and Christian morality. For when man was "created", he must have been created by the Christian God, and not the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Gods. If you really believe that U.S. law should be dictated straight from the Bible, then I wonder what your argument is for all of the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, agnostic, atheist, etc. citizens of the U.S. Or should they not be considered equal in the U.S.? While the Constitution was grounded in Christian principles, it was written to protect the equality of all peoples, of all colors, of all religions. It's not a prescription to follow the words of the Bible, it is a prescription to treat others equally. Now I ask that you treat homosexuals equally, although I know that you never will, for you have only hatred in your heart.
@Rick, You say "pseudo-marriage" is "an insult to the intelligence". You talk about the "destruction" of marriage. These are some pretty strong fighting words -- does this mean that you believe marriage has been "destroyed" in the states that have legalized SSM? Do you think marriage has been "destroyed" in the European countries that have legalized it? Or are heterosexuals still marrying at will, living their lives exactly the same way as if SSM hadn't been legalized (because, what do you know, it's not harming their marriages to let others get married too!)
Do you think that all SSM supporters (the majority of the youth in America, >40% of the entire American population) has no "intelligence"? If they did, surely they would be insulted by SSM, no?
Your doomsday rhetoric is inappropriate and dishonest. I'm trying to engage in a thoughtful debate, but the NOM supporters here apparently don't wish to engage in one. I am instead greeted by claims of "dishonesty", defending "miscreants".
@Randy, homosexuality was considered "depraved" for a long time, that is true. Slavery was considered acceptable (or even morally righteous) for hundreds of years as well. Women were considered inferior and denied the right to vote for many years. Over time, people have become more accepting of those who are different than them. Are you really basing your opinion of homosexuality being "depraved" on the beliefs of the same people who thought blacks deserved to be enslaved and women were too stupid to vote?
@jon,
Your ignorance is showing.
The genius of the founding fathers is in that they knew their faith to be a self evident truth; that by providing unobstructed access to the source of our freedom eventually all would come to recognize these truths as they had. The beauty of the U.S. Constitution is in that you are free to not believe, but once you lay claim to your God given gift of freedom you have relinquished the right to demand that everybody else bow to the power and glory that is you.
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator." Thomas Jefferson
To be a real Christian is to declare affinity to the prophecy of the Christ as foretold in scripture.
@Jon #46
"does this mean that you believe marriage has been "destroyed" in the states that have legalized SSM"
>> That would certainly seem to follow from my words, would it not?
I am not like a pseudo-marriage advocate, Jon.
I say exactly what I mean, and I recognize the logical consequences of what I say.
Keep this in mind in future in order to save time.
"Do you think marriage has been "destroyed" in the European countries that have legalized it?"
>> Why would the European countries be any different?
"Or are heterosexuals still marrying at will, living their lives exactly the same way as if SSM hadn't been legalized (because, what do you know, it's not harming their marriages to let others get married too!)"
>> All marriages in pseudfo-marriage jurisdictions are legally pseudo-marriages; that is, they are a redefined counterfeit of marriage, from which the essential constitutive aspect has been removed.
These pseudo-marriages are, under the law, governed by laws which insist that mothers/brides can be male, fathers/husbands can be female, and children have no right at all to have society respect their interest in being raised by their male fathers (it is the nature of fathers to be male) or their female mothers (it is the nature of the mother to be female).
So, yes, all such pseudo-marriages represent a total novelty, an innovation and triumph of social engineering never before known to any civilization i9n all of human history.
Whatever these things are, they are not marriages.
Perhaps "Registered Friendships With Benefits".
Hope this helps.
Jon,
Slavery was considered acceptable for over ten thousand years and is still alive and well today; thank you very much.
People have not become more accepting they have become indifferent; like a ship without a rudder. Your demand for the mandated acceptance of sexual depravity at the expense of our connection to the source of our freedom is a step too far.
@Jon
You are “prejudiced”. This forces you to see people who have homo relations as different from people who have hetero relations. Why do you do that? When they are not different. How one satisfies ones sexual urges and needs does not make him different from others. Everyone has to satisfy these needs in one way or another.
The man-woman union will most often naturally produce much different results than that of the man-man or woman-woman union. A result that satisfies another human need, that of the need to have children. Our children should be raised and educated from the earliest age to see and understand these natural inherent and life changing differences, for their own good, well being and independence. A unique name to identify these two different unions (not different people) is needed. This is not motivated by hate or prejudice, but only natural observation.
The injustice of our times, done to all of the citizens and children, is that the unique name that identified the man-woman union is being taken away from our language.
"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
John Adams
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams from Thomas Jefferson, April 11, 1823
@Randy I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say about slavery. Yes, slavery still exists today in many forms, but I was talking about the American enslavement of blacks, which is not "alive and well". Are you trying to say that people have not become more accepting of African Americans since the 1700s, they are just more indifferent? I would like some clarification of your point of view on that one.
About your John Adams quote -- he is talking about the "general Principles of Christianity" written into the Constitution about man's inalienable rights and liberty. Homophobia and the hatred of homosexuality is not a fundamental or general principle of Christianity (at least, there are some Christians who do not believe it is a principle, perhaps you think it is central to being a Christian).
You say that homosexuality is "sexual depravity". My challenge to you is to give me a rational argument (that is, without quoting the Bible or just saying "because God says so" or "because people thought so for a while") for why homosexuality is depraved, immoral, etc. I will pose a hypothetical situation for you:
Two homosexual men meet, fall in love, and engage in a consenting, homosexual relationship.
My questions for you are:
1) Why is their love for one another inherently a bad thing (is not consenting love between adults something to be cherished?)?
2) Why are their sexual acts demonstrating their love inherently immoral, deprave, etc?
3) Is anyone being hurt by their love, or by their relationship?
I am not a Christian and do not believe in your Christian God or that the words of the Bible are inerrant. I also believe that the beliefs of those before us (see my previous post) are not inerrant as well. People for centuries thought the Earth was flat, then they thought the Earth was the center of the universe (some folks like Rick still do, but that's a discussion for another forum), and they thought you could measure intelligence by measuring head size, and a whole lot of other really wrong, ignorant things. I challenge you to give me a reason to believe you besides "my God told me so" or "people believed it for thousands of years".
@Good News I'm not quite sure what your point is. I understand there is a biological difference between male-female relationships and same sex relationships. I don't see why this requires different words for a legal contract between the members of the relationship. Allowing same-sex marriage is not the same as biologically equating heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It is simply a legal recognition of the equal validity of homosexual relationships. This doesn't mean children can't have the same sexual education about how babies are made as they have now (or lack now in many schools).
Also, I'm not sure why you are using quotes around "prejudiced", as nobody else in these comments has used the word. Seeing a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is not "prejudiced". It's simply observing a difference in sexual orientation. Prejudice would be having a preconceived notion about a group of people (e.g. homosexuals) that is not based on fact or reason (e.g. Randy's Biblical opinion that homosexuals are all morally corrupt).
@Rick OK I will take your words literally from now on (to me the literal interpretation is a bit... absurd... which is why I asked)
I guess my point is this -- while on a philosophical level for you marriage has been "destroyed", on a practical level heterosexual couples ability to marry and raise kids has not changed. You place a lot of importance on a child's desire to be raised by their biological parents, but there is currently no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are any unhappier than children raised by their heterosexual parents. The reality is that same-sex couples being married and raising children has only been a good thing for kids (especially those who have been adopted who would have no parents otherwise). Thus, I think your view of "destruction" and "social engineering" is actually a step forward for mankind, towards more equality, diversity, and love for all people.
@Jon:
"while on a philosophical level for you marriage has been "destroyed", on a practical level heterosexual couples ability to marry and raise kids has not changed."
>> This is the key to the whole lie, right here. Call the truth "philosophy", and the lie "practical", and hope that your target is stupid enough not to notice.
Marriage is what it is, Jon, and sophistry cannot change that.
An example of how philosophy determines practicality, is the indoctrination of innocent children in homosexualist propaganda in schools- a necessary "practical" consequence of your "philosophical" perversion of marriage.
"You place a lot of importance on a child's desire to be raised by their biological parents, but there is currently no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are any unhappier than children raised by their heterosexual parents."
>> Let all parents with children in schools in states where pseudo-marriage is on the march read, very carefully, the above excerpt.
I hope it is beginning to sink in where this insanity is headed.
After all, if you can redefine marriage, you can certainly redefine parenthood.
It is time to defeat these people, for our children's good.
Jon, I want to thank you because you have confirmed, in a very chilling way, the true radicalism of the pseudo-marriage movement.
This movement is at war with every value upon which this nation was founded, and every value upon which families are based.
It is good to be able to see deeper into what you folks have in mind.
I sincerely hope Blankenhorn reads Jon @#43. This is what he caved to.
Disgraceful.
@#53
@Jon
There is a reason that America (and Europe) does not want any one single word, among the plethora of words in our dictionary, to name, and so single out the man-woman life long union to its citizens and children. The reason has nothing to do with laws and rights, it has to do with psychology, money (and manipulation of the people).
Try to add that idea to the equation, you will only find the subject more interesting.
Ask yourself the question: why does our civilization refuse to give (or invent) a word to name the man-woman union?
If you want to weaken or destroy something, a useful step is to eliminate the word for it. Make the concept into an almost forbidden thought, a thought that it can’t even be articulated as easily as it once was. If the PC crowd gets their way, “marriage” as our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. knew it will not mean what their dictionaries said it meant, and no single replacement word will be available to their descendants.
In #16 I commented that simple contract law is an entirely sufficient and appropriate vehicle for economic partnerships (with or without “feelings” per Judge Walker). Family law has recognized that a male-female union uniquely raises issues of responsible procreation (both maintaining the species and attaching children to parents and vice versa) and protecting women in their relationships with men, since women are at a natural disadvantage--only women bear the burdens of pregnancy. Heterosexual marriage is the institution society (virtually every self-sustaining society) created to address these issues. De-gendered marriage will be less able and quite possibly unable to address these issues. Why destroy centuries of English Common Law and American law to turn family law into mere economic contract law? This is part of the war on women and arguably a war on children.
Publius,
Do you really think that the population is going to die out because of marriage equality? Do you have a projected time frame for this? This is actually a very anti-biblical view. As you know, the bible's illustrations of the end times are sufficiently peopled.
On the other hand, we see the effect of over population. China's one child policy is a good example, but certainly not the only one.
As you know, marriages where one partner is infertile or beyond child bearing age contributes to responsible procreation because exclusivity prevents the other partner from procreating children accross multiple family lines (and prevents the spread of stds). Marriage equality also fulfills this role by promoting exclusivity.
Thanks for trotting out your exclusivity credentials, although I am not sure of their relevance to my question. I do wish you had asked me that just a few years back when I was about the age of 35. You would have been far ahead of me in that respect. But alas, I believe in relationships, and have recently failed at one. Not sure what I can do about that now. I am a little Maggie Gallagheresque in that respect. But no children, I do believe in reponsibile procreation and I didn't go through any, you know, stages or anything. But thanks for sharing. So how is it if you would like to elaborate?
Publius,
Let's count the strawmen, incidents of bias, and other propaganda elements . . .
1. "want to weaken or destroy" (marriage). Seems that more people are clamoring for marriage rights than ever before.)
2. "make the concept into an almost forbidden thought. What? Marriage a forbidden thought? (or marriage equality a forbidden thought?).
3. "no single replacement word" (The horror!) (Try retaining the word marriage.) (or marriage in scare quotes, that always seems to work, so i don't see your point.)
4. "can’t even be articulated " (Let's sound it out in an example . . . "Morgan and Taylor are getting married.)
5. "contract law is an entirely sufficient". (Have you ever heard of a marriage contract or prenuptial aggreement?)
6. "This is part of the war on women". (as apposed to the war on gays?) "This is part of the war on children" (as apposed to the war on the children of same sex couples.) By the way, presumption of paternity in this day and age is basically a war on men. But that can be an equal opportunity injustice for all married couples, straight or otherwise).
7. "Heterosexual marriage is the institution society (virtually every self-sustaining society) created . . " Where were the marriage equality advocate when all this got decided? Dead? or just running for their lives.) I doubt that their interests (or their childrens interests for that matter) were well represented when society put that on the ballot.
When the majority is against SSM, SSMers insist that the majority is the mob or is tyrannical.
When SSMers imagine that the majority favors SSM, suddenly the majority is the demoracia and is the enlightened masses.
This is the established pattern whether the majority is comprised of fellow citizens writ large, or of legislators, or of judges. This is the proSSM pattern of contempt for the principles of good governance.
The SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea. It is a lousy idea promoted with ways and means that are bigoted ... fueled by progay bigotry and a poisonous hostility toward morality and civil society.
@Reformed
You didn’t answer either question. How many sexual partners have you had and how many children?
Words do mean something. Read Orwell. Read Bill Clinton’s testimony. What did he mean by “sex?” What is his meaning of “is?” Redefining words is a cheap way to win any argument, but it is an affront to clear and honest thinking. Suppose “sexual exclusivity” were redefined? How could we even discuss the concept? The new meaning of the word gay has destroyed the old meaning. If string quartet is redefined to mean any musical ensemble, it will weaken if not destroy the concept of string quartet. We can say the words, but they won’t mean the same thing. It will be harder to promote the sounds that only string quartets can produce. Redefining marriage will also redefine father and mother and a host of other terms.
As quoted elsewhere on this blog
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." –Confucius
The fertility rate has fallen below replacement levels in virtually every developed country. The result in the West at least is not depopulation, but the massive immigration from countries with higher levels of fertility and traditional marriage cultures (the two go hand in hand). Even with that influx, Western countries are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their social security systems with fewer workers supporting increasing numbers of retirees. (Population size has been fueled by greater longevity.)
Any government program would reward procreative couples cannot be equally available to same sex couples and would be unconstitutional under politically correct notions of “equality,” thus making it that much harder for government to address the decline in population among the native citizens.
Moreover, children and attaching children to their parents will become legally divorced from the new concept of marriage. On the level of legal theory, the state, not the natural fertility of heterosexual couples, will determine whom children belong to. Children will effectively become wards of the state, not the possession of the naturally procreative family.
@Publius language is always evolving and there has always been arbitrariness in what is said (read about elementary linguistics if you don't believe me).
What this debate really comes down to is your underlying hatred for homosexuality because you believe it is immoral, deprave, etc. My challenge for you is to give me a rational argument for why the mutual love between two homosexual men or two homosexual women is immoral. Personally, I think mutual love is a beautiful thing and it should be cherished. Why do you think otherwise?
Remember, you won't convince me (or any other non-Christian) if your argument relies on the Bible or the claim that "that's what people have believed for a long time". Who is hurt by homosexual love? Why is it inherently bad?
If marriage is de-gendered, it will be much harder to fulfill the functions formerly fulfilled by marriage. Marriage will become purely an economic partnership with “feelings.”
If marriage becomes purely an economic partnership with feelings, the resulting conversion of family law to contract law will inherently work to the disadvantage of women. They are more vulnerable than men in their relationships. It is inherently an unequal partnership. They have a weaker bargaining position. Only women bear the burdens of pregnancy. Women have a different biological clock than men. See also http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Miriam-Grossman/dp/1595230459
Of course, the wealthy and the well-lawyered, will be able to protect themselves to some extent with pre-nuptial agreements, but even those can be challenged in court if they give a woman a claim that is not available to a man in a world where male-female relationships are legally de-gendered. This will accelerate the trend towards the feminization of poverty.
@Jon
“your underlying hatred for homosexuality because you believe it is immoral, deprave, etc.”
You are framing any disagreement as underlying hatred. It seems impossible for an extreme leftist to believe that those who disagree with him do so because they are rationally convinced of the truth of what their arguments. And the same thing happens on the extreme right. It is the mark of extremism to input unsubstantiated evil motives to those they disagree with.
Please show where I have argued on the basis of “depraved behavior.” Please show me where I have argued from the Bible.
As for pliant definitions hurting women, I recommend this from a very PC campus:
In a conversation with a normally nonjudgmental and mothering friend, I alluded to the date rape of someone we both knew; my friend rolled her eyes and asked, “What does that even mean?”
http://broadrecognition.com/sex-health/why-yale-students-dont-understand-date-rape/
Please read http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Miriam-Grossman/dp/1595230459
Jon,
There used to be rules to the evolution of language; rules designed to protect proceeding generations form the enslavement of popular culture; rules that required a generation before words expand their definitions.
Your haste paints you as desperate; as someone who is afraid that their time is running out; that their window of opportunity is closing faster than they ever imagined.
@Publius You talk about a war on women, but the only war on women that I know is the war on women's access to healthcare (championed by conservatives). Please explain how expanding marriage to include same-sex couples will somehow disadvantage women in heterosexual marriages. From a legal standpoint marriage will not have changed for heterosexual couples whatsoever. I don't understand how Yale students' opinions on date rape is related (date rape is complicated, and it's interesting that the male is always painted as the aggressor and rapist in discussions of drunk sexual interactions. Is it an impossibility for the drunk male to be date raped by the female? Not everyone fits perfectly into societies notions of gender roles. Anyways, I digress)
Also, Randy and Rick openly admit their hatred of homosexuality as immoral, deprave. Do you, instead, not believe homosexuality is immoral, etc.? If not, then I apologize for lumping your opinion together with other NOMers. You have not posted either way on this, I was unfairly grouping you with other NOMers.
For Randy and Rick, I'm still waiting for a rational argument about the immorality of mutual homosexual love. All you have said recently is "don't change the meaning of words!!" Randy, there are no rules about the evolution of language. Language is defined by the understanding of the individuals who speak it, and meanings of words evolve as people use them differently. English now is quite different than English 250 years ago. All that aside though, I'm waiting for you to explain to me why homosexual love is wrong.
@Jon
Apology accepted.
My view is that political correctness has worked seriously to the disadvantage of women. Pretending women are just like men has left them increasingly vulnerable to men. Read Miriam Grossman’s books. Integrating women into the military ranks has led to shocking levels rape in the military. The levels of rape on supposedly enlightened and politically correct campuses like Yale are shockingly high. Women are selectively aborted at a higher rate then men. No fault divorce has lead to the feminization of poverty. The left either can’t see these things or imagines there can be no connection, but PC thinking in my opinion has resulted in a real war on women.
I am surprisingly libertarian regarding public policy (including health care issues). I also I believe there is a strong secular libertarian case to be made for traditional marriage. I also believe Randy and Rick are entitled to their opinions just as much as you are entitled to yours.
Jon, if you claim that same-sex sexual behavior is moral, ever, then perhaps you can provide the sound argument that convinced you of that claim.
I anticipate that you were not convinced by reason. You begin with your predrawn conclusion which was based on something other than reason. Please clarify.
If you began with a feeling and then have proceeded to rationalize that, how is your feeling sufficient as a starting place regarding the morality of same sex sexual behavior?
Jon, your use of the phrase, homosexual love, Is vague. Please define the term without contradicting your earlier remarks (here and elsewhere on this blogsite).
Please state whether or not you have commented here under any other moniker. If you have, please list all of thoe monikers. Your credibility would depend on your response.
Hmmm. Jon a sock puppet?
Why, that would be so....unexpected......
Jon has left the building, I guess, even as his own comments have put him on the hook to explain how "homosexual love" is right.
And he did not really mean love; he referred to consensual love and by that he clearly invoked same-sex sexual behavior. Surely he would not sever such behavior from his position that "homosexual love" is right.
Where is the sound moral argumentation to support the asserted moralism of Jon? Has he even started with a moral view or is he really an advocate of an amoral view of sexual behavior?
Until Jon backs-up his asserted moralism, readers will not have answers to the questions that arise directly from his comments -- and from the pro-SSM view to which he subscribes with such stated certitude.
Jon wrote:
@Randy, homosexuality was considered "depraved" for a long time, that is true. Slavery was considered acceptable (or even morally righteous) for hundreds of years as well...Over time, people have become more accepting of those who are different than them. Are you really basing your opinion of homosexuality being "depraved" on the beliefs of the same people who thought blacks deserved to be enslaved and women were too stupid to vote?
@Jon
You're not dragging the tired "homosexuality = being Black" saw. As a Black man, let me explain why so many of us resent that comparison.
When America was founded, White men no matter who they has sex with were considered full human beings with full constitutional rights. Many Black people at the time including my great-grandfather were considered LIVESTOCK (i.e., slaves). Read more here:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/10/30/race-and-lifestyle-choice-a-blood-boilingly-bad-comparison/
http://pfox.org/african_americans.html
So, a homosexual shouting "I'm oppressed because I can't 'marry'" sounds as offensive to a Black people as Bill Gates complaining to a homeless man "I'm poor!" The fact that so many homosexuals like Tim Gill are billionaires vindicates this skepticism among Black people. After all, truly oppressed people lack wealth and political influence that often comes with it.
In short, please quit mocking over the TRUE oppression my great-grandfather endured to guilt White people into affirming the sin of homosexuality. Your actions as heartless as they are clueless.