"Wow, my wife passes away from leukemia and it’s held against me? Why is it so hard for homophobes to believe that a middle-aged widowed man can be passionate about equal rights for all citizens?"

you know, I wasn't going to say anything about Kevin always changing his story, I thought it was just you know, politics at play, but SERIOUSLY? This guy has some problems. Why does he hang around telling stories and making things up? He has no scruples obviously. Why should we believe anything else he says? The guy's pathological. He didn't even blink or blush or anything, just keeps right on posting like nothing happened. lol.

There is no difference. So, where should we draw the line? Perhaps we shoudn't draw any and create a moral anarchy.

Consider two brothers or two sisters wanting to get married. If two homosexuals can, why shouldn't they? Brother and sister? You can say the child could have all sorts of medical problems due to incestuous procreation. But, according to homosexual activists, procreation is not part of marriage. Moreover, since when is our society concerned with child welfare? It allows homosexuals to raise children, which constitues child exploitation, plain and simple.

If homosexual "marriage" is allowed, you cannot logically prevent incestuous marriages.

“Just because I can’t help who I am attracted to.”

Becca,

Pedophilies also claim that they cannot help who they are attracted to. Nevertheless, they are not given any special legal rights on that account. Or, do you think they should?

Your responses (#s 81 and 82) speak for themselves. Nobody here is interested in your private life. But if you choose to lie about who you are to add some credibility to your baseless arguments, at least be smarter about it, if you can.

That is called eliding the disagreement; and then choosing to bash religious beliefs. It is also known as anti-religious bigotry and it is a central theme of the SSM campaign's rhetoric.

It is constitutional to discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. There is nothing in the US Constitution that would require society to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. Thus, the marriage law necessarily deals with marriage as distinct from other stuff.

The other stuff is nonmarriage. And SSM argumentation fails to supply the essentials that would distinguish SSM from nonmarriage. But they do rely on empty rhetoric -- by insisting that the mere use of a term like 'gay marriage' means that this is indeed marriage.

SSM does not stand for 'same-sex marriage' but for the specious substitution of marriage. That is what the SSM-merger is really all about. The aim is to replace marriage recognition with recognition of something else.

The SSMer relies on gay identity politics to suppress the core meaning of marriage. He insists that gayness is the factor that requires society to treat a subset of the nonmarriage category as more special than the rest.

That would not be equal protection. When pointing at children, the SSMer would discriminate against children whose nonmarital households are not defined by gayness. This is unjust discrimination on the basis of gayness.

That directly contradicts the SSM campaign's rhetoric about equality and about removing unjust discrimination from the law. Instead of remove gayness as a factor, the SSM campaign and its argumentation insists that gayness be read into the law.

The SSMer will point at the license as bestowing physical health improvements. It goes to show that when the argumentation is weak, and the SSMer understands that the pro-child defense of marriage is powerful, that he must strain to appropriate that which distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage. So he just makes stuff up and hopes no one will ask him questions that deflate his bubble.

And so he returns to his first resort: namecalling. To disagree with him is an act of bigotry and hatred, he yells to all and sundry. This is his most cherished of incantations with which he hopes to cast a spell and to curse those whose clear-eyed view of marriage he despises.

He admits its and we should believe him: "I mean, what more persuasion do you people need?"

Persuading is not the same thing as convincing.

When challenged with reason, the SSMer will hurl bucketloads of wet emotivism. When challenged with passion, the SSMer will pose as one with superior reasoning and yet his own stated standards of argumentation destroy his assertions for the SSM-merger.

Hence the SSMer begins, and ends, with a predrawn conclusion. But it is only dressed-up as a type of conclusion; it is really an axiomatic belief.

An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true; it is not proven but it is taken as the basis for an inference or as the foundation for an argument.

Of course, if the axiom is wrong, the inferences and the arguments drawn from it are also wrong. As is the case with SSM argumenation.

But you will always hear the SSMer denounce the simple statement that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Why? Because, he will say, it is just wrong.

So the SSMer's inference is really another axiom.

1. The man-woman basis of marriage is unjustly discriminatory against the group identity, i.e. "gay".

2. Society must swap the basis of marriage for the basis of "gay marriage".

When the SSMer is shown that item #1 is mistaken, he will repeat the incantation that to disagree -- even based on the strong evidence that item #1 is wrong -- is itself an act of bigotry. This is a dubious claim on the part of the SSMer for it means that the evidence is to be discarded.

Discarded for what purpose?

For the assertion of item #2, of course. In fact, this is to be assumed so as to make item #1 'true'.

The circular thinking is blatant and has zilch to do with justice and zilch to do with marriage.

But it has everything to do with the goal of asserting supremacy in the name of the gaycentric version of identity politics.

And identity politics is the most reliable source of injustice, unjust discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and, yes, violence. It corrupts governance and it undermines all that it touches. That is what supremacy means, and it is what they intend, so we might as well believe them when they so openly admit it.

The SSMer knows his errors have shattered his complaint about the marriage law. But he will only stoop, pick-up the shards, and carry-on as if his complaint had not been fairly refuted.

See items #1 and #2. The SSMer stands on on foot and pivots in circles. All his handwaving about how anyone who disagrees with him is just a big meannie, well, it is really his admission of a religious-like leap of faith in items #1 and #2. A leap into quicksand.

And that makes it all the more boorish that the SSMer makes remarks that are steeped in anti-religious bigotry.

"...plan to encounter angry people."

Couldn't have said it better myself because your continual misuse of "homophobe' for anyone supporting NOM and marriage, whether religiously affiliated or not, speaks volumes of the SSM campaign and their supposed tolerance.

Yet again, you insist that someone who practices their "faith" by opposing SSM is a religious bigot underscores your disatisfaction with those who practice what they preach. What, you would be happier if we were hypocrites? Non-committal? Non-existent? Really, now can what I believe be compartmentalized to the extent that it has no bearing on my life whether public or private? If so, why claim "belief" at all? Surely, "faith" is more than just intellectual assent in God and/or a belief system that results in a corresponding change in behavior. If not, then "faith" is superfluous.

* * *

Please see:

Posted September 14, 2009 at 12:16 am
http://nomblog.com/?p=426#comment-7518

And:
Posted September 14, 2009 at 1:15 am
http://nomblog.com/?p=426#comment-7527

So if there is no difference in a OSM and a hetero coupling, then why do people get married? There must be something more to it then, right? More than just the rings, the ceremony, the reception, etc. And if this is all there is to marriage, then why do you want to claim that for yourself? In other words, your musings don't actually entice someone to come off the fence and get married. As Chairm has said so well, what makes SSM deserving of special status that it needs the stamp of approval from the State? What is at the core of SSM that elevates it above any other "love relationship" that isn't afforded the same treatment. Furthermore, your insistence that non-married hetero couples is normative, I'll ask again, why get married if they essentially are the same? Can it really be all about the benies?

“No, Kevin is a widower, whose wife did not die.”

November 17, 2007, of pancreatic cancer. Would you like me to post her death certificate? Would that please you?

“Kevin also envisions (and fantasizes) that homosexual “marriage” will pave the way to “sexuality days” in public schools where homosexual recruiters will given ample opportunity (with booths and pamphlets) to tout the “virtues” of homosexuality to young children.”

He does? Must be another Kevin because this Kevin said, as a joke after someone insisted that human sexuality was something one chooses, that maybe someday adolescents will attend sexuality fairs and discuss which sexuality to choose with their parents. You seem to have dropped the “parental discussion” part of my post. I’m sure it was accidental, Laura.

“It appears that Kevin’s personna is as coherent and legitimate as this radical “marriage equality” campaign. But we should all be grateful to Kevin and others for giving us a taste of what is really behind this assault on marriage.”

My persona is indeed coherent and legitimate. Marriage equality is hardly radical; nothing like giving women the vote or emancipating slave, that’s for sure. The assault on marriage is coming from rampant adultery and divorce, not same-sex marriage. But NOM appears to be doing nothing about adultery and divorce, oddly enough. I guess it’s hard to raise money on a platform of criminalizing adultery or outlawing divorce.