Monday, September 10, 2007

Sweet arguments from The Iowa Decision (Varnum, et. al. v. Brien)

I'm late in blogging about this, but I finally had time to read through the 8/31/07 decision from the Iowa Judge Robert Hanson, who ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.

Here are some sweet things I noticed:

*Decided that the "expert" testimony from Defendant's expert witnesses would not be admissible at trial.
FYI--These experts were Margaret Somerville (where she is on the McGill University Faculty of Law, and Faculty of Medicine); Paul Nathanson, and Katherine Young (also both from McGill University, where they appear to be some sort of dynamic duo of intolerance). Nathanson was all set to testify "regarding the significance of marriage as a social institution, and the state's role in maintaining it, and related matters."

Likewise, Young sought to testify on "what universally constitutes marriage and why."

The Court rejected all three of these "experts" on the grounds that the Court doesn't believe that "the expected testimony of these individuals is scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence..." Nor were any of these people, according to the Court, qualified to testify as experts in the issue.

Allan Carlson's testimony was also disallowed.

(despite his "impressive" academic credentials, said the Court at one point).

[emphasis mine] I wouldn't be proud to have his credentials.

Some Arguments by the Plaintiffs:

1. "As a result from their exclusion from the civil institution of marriage, Plaintiffs, their relationships and their families are stigmatized and made more vulnerable in comparison to heterosexuals. Through the marriage exclusion the State devalues and delegitimizes relationships at the very core of the adult Plaintiff's sexual orientation, and expresses, compounds, and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, for them and all gay persons."

This sounds much like a heterosexism argument. And "metaphorical lynching."

2. "...Plaintiffs are continually reminded of their own and their families' second-class status in daily interactions in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and other arenas in which their relationships and families are poorly and unequally treated, or are not recognized at all." [emphasis added]

3. "Because their parents cannot marry, minor Plaintiffs are subjected to the historical stigma of "illegitimacy" and "bastardy" which, though of diminished social and legal force, is still a status widely considered undesirable."

4. "Plaintiffs inability to marry their chosen partners is a painful frustration of their life goals and dreams, their personal happiness and their self-determination."

5. "Plaintiffs and their families are harmed in an infinite number of daily transactions as a result of being denied the right to marry, including transactions with employers, hospitals, courts, preschools, insurance companies, businesses such as health clubs, and public agencies including taxing bodies."

6. The arguments go on to list an array of other legal benefits from which Plaintiffs are being deprived (workers compensation from death of a spouse, estate and other economic protections, among others). And the arguments go on to say that while Plaintiffs can have all or most such documents drawn up, "piecemeal" document creation is very costly, and all of these are "automatically afforded to" married couples by law.

7. And just because I think some people may need a refresher course on what it means to be gay: "...One's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships, that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of human identity and life." [emphasis mine]

8. "Nothing about a parent's sex or sexual orientation affects either that parent's capacity to be a good parent or a child's healthy development ('adjustment')." [emphasis mine]

9. "Allowing same-sex couples to marry is in the best interests of and will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples and the couples themselves, without having any detrimental effect on heterosexual couples or their children." [emphasis mine]

Of course most of us know this already. And those who claim otherwise are talking about mere inconveniences (like having to accept that a homosexual couple is now their equal). Not actual harm.

The Court then goes on with a discussion on the history of gay stigmatization in the U.S. I won't go into this. I think we all know how much society has intolerated gays and lesbians. And if you don't remember, then read it.

The Court's Analysis

The Plaintiffs argue that it is a violation of Iowa's Due Process clause that they are denied the right to marry. The Defendants argue that because no other State Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court has declared same-sex marriage a "fundamental right," that this precludes Iowa from doing so, as well.

The Court responds with "such protections 'should not ultimately hinge upon whether the right sought to be recognized has historically been afforded. Our constitution is not merely tied to tradition, but recognizes the changing nature of society.'"

Another finding of the Court: "Though the Defendant cites an abundance of case law indicating that Courts have long considered marriage to be an important relationship, the Defendant makes no argument that promoting procreation, child rearing by a mother and father in a marriage relationship, promoting stability in opposite sex relationships, promoting the concept of traditional marriage or conservation of state and private resources are compelling state interests, despite the fact that it is his burden to do so. "

I would like to see anyone try to prove that.

Further, the Court said that the Defendant failed to prove how banning gay marriage would promote any of the above "interests" like procreation, etc.

I invite anyone to take that to task.

The Court also found that the Iowa marriage statute violates the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa constitution.

my favorite part of the Court's conclusion:

"5. Court costs are hereby taxed to the Defendant."

That's all for now. I'll end with a quote by Justice Scalia:

"...'[P]reserving the 'traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."--Justice Scalia. 539 U.S. at 601, 123 S.Ct. at 2496."

126 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. "As a result from their exclusion from the civil institution of marriage, Plaintiffs, their relationships and their families are stigmatized and made more vulnerable in comparison to heterosexuals. Through the marriage exclusion the State devalues and delegitimizes relationships at the very core of the adult Plaintiff's sexual orientation,

That's an incredibly foolish argument, if you believe that sexual orientation is inate. Marriage is not at "the very core" of heterosexual "orientation." Biologically, monogamy is literally for the birds. Humans and primates do not come to it naturally. Marriage is not natural at all to us. Humans have no more of a natural inclination to settle down and form monogamous lifelong relationships than we have a natural inclination to yield at a crosswalk.

Marriage is a social convention, a development that only occurs in postagricultural cultures.

and expresses, compounds, and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, for them and all gay persons."

This sounds much like a heterosexism argument.


Well it's certainly not a constitutional or legal argument. I'm glad that this judge has the guts to admit (unlike Margaret Marshall) that the judge is just imposing personal philosophical beliefs, rather than interpreting law.

And "metaphorical lynching."

That reminds me of my postmodern lit days, back when everyone would just knod and pretend something meaningful was said every time a student clicked his heels together three times reciting the magic names "Foucault, Irregiray, Lacahn." Please explain your metaphor, if indeed the emperor has clothes. :P

Anonymous said...

Another finding of the Court: "Though the Defendant cites an abundance of case law indicating that Courts have long considered marriage to be an important relationship, the Defendant makes no argument that promoting procreation, child rearing by a mother and father in a marriage relationship, promoting stability in opposite sex relationships, promoting the concept of traditional marriage or conservation of state and private resources are compelling state interests, despite the fact that it is his burden to do so. "

I would like to see anyone try to prove that.


I would to. Not even the Goodridge monstrocity had the audacity to pretend that ssm was a STRICT scrutiny issue, and yet this judge-buffoon demands that the state show a compelling interest? What's your reasoning, your honor? Since when is the right to redefine marriage a strict scrutiny issue? Please prove that fascinating proposition of law.

But if you meant you'd like to see it proved that a child's need for a mom and dad is a compelling state interest, that's easy. Check the U of M law school affirmative action case, where SCOTUS found that a program to increase racial and gender *diversity* in the classroom met strict scrutiny, meaning that the state showed compelling interest.

Obviously, if the state has a "compelling interest" to increase diversity in the classroom, based on the good faith belief and general observation of educators that the students learn better when exposed to different races and genders, then the state likewise has a compelling interest to encourage diversity in the family, i.e. encourage a situation where a child has a mother and a father.

-Christian

John said...

This is my favorite part by far. The court properly ridicules the NY court's insane finding that gay don't NEED marriage because they make better parents:

"Ironically, one of the principal legal authorities cited by [the government] has justified the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by reasoning that, because same-sex couples can only have children by means of adoption or assisted reproduction — processes which require a great deal of foresight and planning and which, therefore, require the prospective parents to be heavily invested, financially and emotionally, in those processes which, in turn, means that they are very likely to be able to provide stable environments in which to raise children — they do not need the encouragement to form a stable environment to form a stable environment within which to procreate and raise children and, therefore, allowing same-sex marriages would not advance the state's interest in responsible procreation by heterosexual couples. While [gays] may appreciate this back-handed compliment, the Court believes [their] parenting abilities are not so good that they couldn't use the benefits attaching to marriage to improve their children's lots in life, to say nothing of their own."

Jane Know said...

"The court properly ridicules the NY court's insane finding that gay don't NEED marriage because they make better parents:"

yeah, i noticed that, too. kudos to Judge Hanson for speaking up about it.

Jane Know said...

"That's an incredibly foolish argument, if you believe that sexual orientation is inate"

It doesn't matter whether sexual orientation is innate. That hasn't been proven or disproven by science yet. Sorry if I don't accept "your" word on it, buddy.

"Marriage is a social convention, a development that only occurs in postagricultural cultures."

And since it "occurs" in our culture for heterosexuals, I think it is only fair for it to "occur" for homosexuals, too.

"Please explain your metaphor, if indeed the emperor has clothes."

I've explained the metaphor adequately in other places. I don't have to meet some anonymous internet commenter's demands.

Jane Know said...

"then the state likewise has a compelling interest to encourage diversity in the family,"

what in the hail??

Ohhhh, that's right. The Opine people define words and phrases differently than everyone else. I should've included that in my Lessons and Lies of the Intolerant.

like "diversity of marriage," which really just means "heterosexual marriage." Which is, as of now, like 99% of marriages. not very diverse, if you ask me.

instead of the way everyone else looks at "diversity of marriage" as meaning "multiple kinds of different familes are okay."

Fannie said...

"Well it's certainly not a constitutional or legal argument. I'm glad that this judge has the guts to admit (unlike Margaret Marshall) that the judge is just imposing personal philosophical beliefs, rather than interpreting law."

Yes, because judges NEVER impose their personal beliefs when deciding other cases.

But really, a judge can decide many cases on the basis of his or her personal beliefs while cloaking them in legal and constitutional "arguments."

That's obvious. But people only complain about judges imposing their personal beliefs when they makes decisions you don't agree with.

Jane Know said...

fannie, exactly.

you can probably find a legit "legal" argument for any belief if you tried hard enough.

Rachel said...

Why did you bother to write this?

"Marriage is a social convention, a development that only occurs in post agricultural cultures."

I feel like the only response to this is, "no shit." THIS is the society in which we live! Are you suggesting that heterosexuals reap the benefits of contemporary society and homosexuals operate under societal norms of the animal kingdom? You did it again! Stop fucking posting red-herrings! It’s totally distracting! That portion of your argument is so ridiculous that I didn't even want to read the rest of your post. If YOU want to behave by the societal norms of the primate world then we can discuss that. until then stop suggesting that gay people live by monkey standards while you live like a "worthy" human being.

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't matter whether sexual orientation is innate."

I wholeheartedly agree that it doesn't matter for purposes of civil rights. Religion is not innate, and yet we do not withold constitutional rights because of religion.

"That hasn't been proven or disproven by science yet. Sorry if I don't accept "your" word on it, buddy."

I didn't offer my word on it. I meant simply that the Iowa court elsewhere assumes that homosexuality is innate, thereby undermining its own arguments.

"Marriage is a social convention, a development that only occurs in postagricultural cultures."

And since it "occurs" in our culture for heterosexuals, I think it is only fair for it to "occur" for homosexuals, too.


Meaning isn't about fairness; it's about accuracy. Perhaps it would be more "fair" if same-sex couples could spontaneously produce offspring, but they don't; fairness has nothing to do with it. Marriage exists to deal with the reality that men and women make babies together, and that such reproduction is difficult to predict and synchronize. That's what the NY and Indiana courts were really saying, before the Iowa court mischaracterized them.

"Please explain your metaphor, if indeed the emperor has clothes."

I've explained the metaphor adequately in other places. I don't have to meet some anonymous internet commenter's demands.


Jane, I'm no more "anonymous" than you are. "Please" is a request, not a "demand." Of course you're not obligated. If I said "pretty please with whipped cream on my nipples," would you recognize that as a request rather than a demand? ;)

You've suggested that I should dissasociate myself with Opine. I asked why. You've made accusations against them such as "metaphorical lynching" and "hate speech." So I've asked you for examples.

Of course you're not obligated to answer me, or even to allow me to keep posting here. But if you're serious about persuading me that my participation on Opine somehow gives sanction to "hate speech" and "metaphorical lynching," then I don't understand why you would be offended when I asked you for specifics.

Asking for specifics just means that I'm taking your request seriously. If it was Arturo who said those things, I'd not have asked him for specifics.

-Christian

Anonymous said...

"Marriage is a social convention, a development that only occurs in post agricultural cultures."

I feel like the only response to this is, "no shit."


And that would be a legitimate response, if you failed to look at the foolish statement that I was responding to. I only state the bloody obvious when responding to a statement (like the court's statement) that ignores the bloody obvious.

"THIS is the society in which we live! Are you suggesting that heterosexuals reap the benefits of contemporary society and homosexuals operate under societal norms of the animal kingdom?

You know better than that, Rachel. You know very well that I support SSUs. I'm suggesting that homosexuals continue to develop their own social conventions and norms, and that they reap the benefits of contemporary society, and contribute their own cultural wealth to society.

Marriage is not the only form of family. You rob gays of dignity when you suggest that their relationships cannot be as valid, in their own way, as marriage.

Christian said...

Does this make me "not anonymous" -- you just want me to enter my name in the little field rather than signing it at the end? Or do you require my social security number in order to treat me with equal dignity?

Christian said...

(That last sentence was a joke)

Fannie said...

Christian/Anonymous,

I'm still waiting for your email address. I'd like to address your issues with how I supposedly have harmed your internet honor.

Jane Know said...

christian, i've explained how Opine uses hate speech:

"and yes, by disavowing homosexual relationships as "unequal" and "immoral" and "unnatural," as SO MANY opine bloggers (renee, jose, et. al.) do, that is hate speech. and you and others stand idly by and don't say anything. that is just as bad."

implicit and explicit, this is what Opine does. and it is what you do.

further, i don't know why you continue to beat this dead horse: "Marriage exists to deal with the reality that men and women make babies together, and that such reproduction is difficult to predict and synchronize. That's what the NY and Indiana courts were really saying, before the Iowa court mischaracterized them."

Marriage also exists to protect the interests of both parties in the event that they decide they no longer love each other.

And ya know what else? Even if the ONLY purpose of marriage was to "make babies," Guess what? Gay couples do that too.

I suppose now you will say it is wrong because it is not "spontaneous." Or natural.

I would say most gay parents are way more well-equipped than straight parents, because in most cases, they can only truly have babies if they have the means, the will, the desire, and the love to support them. Precisely because they don't "spontaneously" have babies. There are fewer "accidents," if you will. These people deserve to be protected. And if you don't see that, then yes Christian, you are intolerant.

"You rob gays of dignity when you suggest that their relationships cannot be as valid, in their own way, as marriage."

"I" rob gays of dignity? Good one, now I'm the one invalidating gay relationships.

I know that gay relationships are equal to straight ones. Gay relationships are valid, and deserving of EQUAL RIGHTS.

But when when they are not given equal status under the law, SOCIETY says they are not. YOU say they are not. Opine says they are not. President Bush says they are not. Your whipped cream-covered nipples say they are not. etc. etc.

Rachel said...

Christian,
3 things:

#1. "You know better than that, Rachel. You know very well that I support SSUs. I'm suggesting that homosexuals continue to develop their own social conventions and norms, and that they reap the benefits of contemporary society, and contribute their own cultural wealth to society."

I'm not buying it, dude. It's right up there with the "don't you think that affirmative action is an insult to the innate intelligence of people of color and women?" argument. No. I Don't. i think it's a law to LEGALLY protect people from systematic racism/sexism. You're not listening. I've told you before. It's a shame that language is so powerful but it is. I want the language to normalize me and my family so that my children are protected and feel as normal as they want to feel. language is a big deal and you know it. as we say in the profession, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but libel and slander will make me rich." WORDS. they make and break people. i want the word "marriage." i bought and paid for it with my tax dollars. they just wont let me bring it home.

#2 (not just a coincidence) Check jose's and renee's comments suggesting the gays just stop embracing their gay impulses and couple with the opposite sex. i told you before. that argument sucks the most. it is hate speech. i'm not asking them to start having gay sex to appear more normal to me and my community. it's just plain silly...hateful.

And #3.
"Marriage exists to deal with the reality that men and women make babies together, and that such reproduction is difficult to predict and synchronize."

Says you (the former. not the latter).

Rachel said...

the more time spent on christian's nipples, the better. i'm avoiding the gym and that's a swell distraction.

Christian said...

Thank you for your reply, Jane.

You are RIGHT that "Unnatural" could be construed as hate speech, but you are wrong that I have "stood by" or condoned that usage. I HAVE repeatedly, in public and private, argued against that usage. If some Opine writer used that term on your blog, please point it out, and I'll have a word with them.

Nature is not a valid argument for morality. Rape is natural. Infanticide is natural. Human fidelity in marriage is not natural. I see no correlation between nature and morality.

I support SSUs because I have respect for same-sex couples who are seeking some means of affirming their monogamous commitment and trying to express their love in a moral way.


But saying an activity or relationship is "immoral" is not "hate speech." I hold a number of beliefs and positions that other people will tell me are "immoral" and I've never thought that implied violence. Saying something that hurts someone's feelings is not hate speeech. I've argued privately that arguing that homosexual relationships are "immoral" undermines our argument; I've also argued that there's no direct statement in the bible that states that homosexual relationships are immoral. But that doesn't mean that saying so is hate speech.

As for "unequal," that's neither hate speech nor false. Homosexual relationships are not subject to the same regulations as heterosexual relationships, therefore homosexual and heterosexual relationships are unequal under the law. I cannot imagine how you could construe that statement as hate speech.

Fannie said...

Christian said:

"You rob gays of dignity when you suggest that their relationships cannot be as valid, in their own way, as marriage."


Oh? Now it's gay people who are suggesting that their relationships can't be as valid as marriage?


And Jane,

We've already been over this, GAY PEOPLE are the discriminatory ones. With their attempts at marriage segregation and all!

Can't you just be "rational" and realize that?

Christian said...

Fannie -- I emailed you a few minutes ago, the moment that you told me that you didn't already have my email address.

Christian said...

"You rob gays of dignity when you suggest that their relationships cannot be as valid, in their own way, as marriage."
------------
Oh? Now it's gay people who are suggesting that their relationships can't be as valid as marriage?"

Fannie, do we need to start using the word THOU to specify when we're speaking to individuals rather than smearing whole groups?

Hate to offend Rachel by stating the obvious again, but in terms of sheer numbers, there are more heteros than gays who support ssm. And there are gays who oppose ssm. Bill Maher is heterosexual, and I can't think of any other person who has said more to demean and smear the relationship between husband and wife, father, mother, and children. We aren't all in hetero and homo uniforms, marching in perfect steps.

It's going to take me some time to catch up to a lot of interesting posts above, and I've got some work to do. Thank you for the responses, and please bear with me.

Christian said...

I'm not buying it, dude. It's right up there with the "don't you think that affirmative action is an insult to the innate intelligence of people of color and women?" argument. No.

That would be a good analogy if affirmative action were a program that sponsored artificial skin whitening of people of color, to give them back their dignity. Affirmative action involves REAL remedies. Jobs. Access. I want to give gays the same thing -- equality under the law.

But you're fighting over words and images, Rachel. You're trying to make them equal in appearance, and that's an affront to diversity, completely at odds with the spirit of Affirmative Action.

Rachel said...

yeah, c. if you ignore me we're breaking up...just kidding if my girlfriend is reading this. p.s. can you tell i'm over this bullshit? it's pretty outside. later.

Rachel said...

well since you sent that at the same time as i sent my last post i'll follow with this;
i know my affirmative action. it's a must in my line. and the ACTUAL legislation vs. what the average american thinks it is, is pretty different. i know the actual laws, but again, i'm talking perception. it seems to go much further in everyday life (right or wrong).

Christian said...

"Marriage also exists to protect the interests of both parties in the event that they decide they no longer love each other."

Marriage does provide for such interests. But that's not a purpose that could possibly justify state involvement in a program as personal and intimate as marriage.

And ya know what else? Even if the ONLY purpose of marriage was to "make babies,"

:( No, no, no. You've totally misunderstood me. Please read this article, http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/07/sterility-straw-man-birds-bees-and.html to distinguish what we're actually saying (that marriage is about securing moms and dads for potential kids) from what you're saying (that marriage is about making babies).


Guess what? Gay couples do that too.

Yes. And if a gay couple could act as a mommy and a daddy too, in raising the child, that would really knock down my argument.

I suppose now you will say it is wrong because it is not "spontaneous." Or natural.

It has nothing to do with "natural." Sponenaety is the reason that marriage exists -- the unpredictability of when a kid might pop up. But the real issue is maximizing the proportion of kids raised by a mom and a dad.

"I would say most gay parents are way more well-equipped than straight parents, because in most cases, they can only truly have babies if they have the means, the will, the desire, and the love to support them. Precisely because they don't "spontaneously" have babies. There are fewer "accidents," if you will."

Good. I suggest you read what the NY and Indiana courts said about the facts you just described, without filtering it through the Iowa court's analysis.

These people deserve to be protected. And if you don't see that,

I do see that, and that's one more reason why I support SSUs. Why don't you? These people deserve to be protected through SSUs, not used as pawns and human shields in an assault on the meaning of the word "marriage."

Christian said...

Rachel, I don't know the Affirmative Action statutes that well, but I have carefully followed how the Supreme Court interprets those statutes. And SCOTUS looks very favorably on "discriminatory" programs where the intent is to increase *diversity* within the student or faculty body.

Christian said...

"yeah, c. if you ignore me we're breaking up...just kidding if my girlfriend is reading this. p.s. can you tell i'm over this bullshit? it's pretty outside. later."

No kidding. I can't believe that I sat and wrote all this stuff while my wife was painting the house topless. (Kicks self)

Fannie said...

"Fannie, do we need to start using the word THOU to specify when we're speaking to individuals rather than smearing whole groups?"


Christian, don't attribute idiocy to me for misunderstanding your unclear writings.

Why, that's just.... dishonest.

Jane Know said...

christian said:

"These people deserve to be protected through SSUs, not used as pawns and human shields in an assault on the meaning of the word "marriage.""

the fact that you believe we are "attacking" the word marriage, and using gay people as "pawns," is just as bad as me saying you are "metaphorically lynching" us. do you really think there is a conspiracy out there to assault the word "marriage?" what purpose would that serve?

by making "marriage" more inclusive, it is harming no one. by not making marriage more inclusive, people are harmed. what about that don't you get?

see, moments like this, when you let down your "i'm so open-minded and respectful" guard, is when your intolerance truly shines through.

Rachel said...

No Supreme Court talk. People. Normal people. This comes in two parts. Protection by the law (during our "marriages" AND ((God forbid)) our divorces). And the quest for normalcy. Cite all the cases you want (that's a generalized "you"), but let us remember the human beings behind the cases. Interpretation and perception by the public counts for a lot. The legislation needs to keep in mind how the everyday man will interpret it. When I spoke of affirmative action I wasn't just talking about in the academic world, but in the corporate world. Just because legislation doesn't include quotas it doesn't mean that the American public doesn't believe quotas to be a part of it. I used the analogy as a model of public perception and how even when it's negative, as long as the law stands by the protected class, there's really nothing those who disagree can do about it (without going through the proper channels). and I also brought it up b/c I think people that use the "black people are smart too, just let them earn it like I did." in opposition to affirmative action are full of shit and either A. racist assholes who are too cowardly just to say, "I don't like black people/women/etc...). B. fearful that they'll lose their spot in line and are attempting to continue to suppress the disenfranchised so they can continue to horde what they have most likely NOT earned. And/or PROBABLY C. Both. Back to my original point in this post; right now the EVERYDAY man is interpreting the existing law as straight people can marry because they deserve it. This translates into supremacy. Making gay people inferior. Conscious or subconscious that is the effect of the current legislation. I don't think we should have to prove what makes us equal, but rather you (your camp) should prove what makes us inferior. And I say inferior because if you "deserve" marriage, then its opposite is that I DON'T "deserve" it. If you claim to believe that you and I are equals as human beings, why not eliminate the word marriage entirely from political language and leave it up to the church? Have the gov't only recognize civil unions? And then you and your (general "you", again) church can talk all day long about marriage, God, and procreation. Anyway you slice it. There’s a VERY STRONG implication of inferiority by granting one part of the population use of a word that is looked upon so favorably and denying another part of the population use of the word based on sexual orientation. Sounds like discrimination to me. America is supposed to frown upon that sorta thing.

Christian said...

""Fannie, do we need to start using the word THOU to specify when we're speaking to individuals rather than smearing whole groups?"

Christian, don't attribute idiocy to me for misunderstanding your unclear writings."

I didn't attribute "idiocy" to you, and I've acknowledged repeatedly on Jane's forum that my writings are sometimes, despite my best efforts, unclear about the very point where I've criticized you and her for being unclear. WE (that means me as well as you) are having a communication problem. WE tend to lump each other and say unfair things about each others groups, and then get offended when someone does it back to US. I grew up speaking Spanish which has a you-singular form of speech, and while I was being facetious about using "THOU," I'm serious that the language makes this issue difficult, and that it's not entirely your fault or my fault.

"Why, that's just.... dishonest."

I hope that finding some other excuse to attack my honesty made you feel good about yourself, Fannie. Particularly since you'd publicaly just asked me to take that argument to private email. Is there anything else that you need to get out of your system, in public, or would you rather wait until some pretext makes it seem reasonable for you to hurl the insults that you've got saved up for me?

The pattern here is that when I say something complimentary or innocent to Fannie, Fannie takes it as an insult, and when I actually deliberately insult Fannie personally, everyone assumes that I'm making a slur against women/lesbians/strong women, etc. This is perverse.

Christian said...

"If you claim to believe that you and I are equals as human beings, why not eliminate the word marriage entirely from political language and leave it up to the church?"

Because marriage serves a critically important secular purpose -- to maximize the proportion of kids raised by a mom and a dad. We don't have to pretend that school teachers are firefighters to affirm that school teachers and firefighters are equal before the law.

Rachel said...

firefighers and school teachers have equal protection under the law...if they're hetero-that is.

Fannie said...

"The pattern here is that when I say something complimentary or innocent to Fannie, Fannie takes it as an insult, and when I actually deliberately insult Fannie personally, everyone assumes that I'm making a slur against women/lesbians/strong women, etc. This is perverse."


The problem is that people don't hear the tone of a writing. There's no way for the reader to know if you're joking or what. In addition, if you (Christian) want to make a statement about people in general, say "people" not "you" in the context of a debate.

In addition, in a debate, I would prefer that you (Christian) don't try to make jokes with me or play this buddy-buddy game WHILE arguing with me. Because you sometimes end with pejorative statements like "that's perverse." You send a lot of mixed signals in your comments. And, when I, personally, am debating, I'd rather just stick to the debate and not hear about, for instance, your nipples.


you also say:

"I hope that finding some other excuse to attack my honesty made you feel good about yourself, Fannie. Particularly since you'd publicaly just asked me to take that argument to private email. Is there anything else that you need to get out of your system, in public, or would you rather wait until some pretext makes it seem reasonable for you to hurl the insults that you've got saved up for me?"

You attribute far too much malice to me. For you to think that I even think about you often enough to save up insults for you is kind of funny (and dramatic). That you repeatedly questioned my honesty really pissed me off, and that's why we're having a private conversation about it. But in the meantime, when I observe what I believe to be dishonesty, I'm going to call people out on it.

I'm sort of over arguing with you.

Christian said...

Fannie calls me dishonest with no basis for the accusation, and then gets angry when I imply that her response is malicious?

You've repeatedly questioned my honesty too, Fannie, and your accusations have no reasonable basis. It's incredibly hypocritical of you to ask me to bring my discussion of your seemingly dishonest statements to email, while continuing to make public accusations of dishonesty against me here.

I said: "The pattern here is that when I say something complimentary or innocent to Fannie, Fannie takes it as an insult, and when I actually deliberately insult Fannie personally, everyone assumes that I'm making a slur against women/lesbians/strong women, etc. This is perverse."

No, Fannie, that usage of the word "perverse" is not a slur against you. You've inferred a personal insult against you when I said, hopefully, that you and I seemed to be making progress in our communications. That is a perverse interpretation. I've complained about how you treated me, and you accused me of picking on you because you're a woman. That's a perverse intepretation.

I'm sorry that you can't deal with a man that treats you like an equal. I don't know what happened to you to make you this way, but I think that it's a tragedy for the whole human race, because you're smart, you're original, but you're incapable of seeing past your prejudice.

You win. Have a nice life. I'm sorry for wasting both our times.

Fannie said...

"I'm sorry that you can't deal with a man that treats you like an equal. I don't know what happened to you to make you this way, but I think that it's a tragedy for the whole human race, because you're smart, you're original, but you're incapable of seeing past your prejudice."

Wow. That really came from nowhere and is entirely baseless.


"but you're incapable of seeing past your prejudice"

As are you Christian. As are you.

Jane Know said...

rachel,
thank you for your above comment.

i feel like i've been trying to say that same thing, but only get shot down repeatedly. i'm sure the anti-SSMers will find some way to try to knock it down, but i love the way you framed that argument.

Jane Know said...

"Because marriage serves a critically important secular purpose -- to maximize the proportion of kids raised by a mom and a dad."

oh, is this the reason? says who? you? your opine friends? and every time i refute this argument, you then switch your main argument to "well, some people are going to get sued if they choose not to recognize gay marriage. so we better not allow gay marriages to protect those people who don't agree with gay marriage."

Christian said...

"Because marriage serves a critically important secular purpose -- to maximize the proportion of kids raised by a mom and a dad."

"every time i refute this argument, you then switch your main argument to "

I must have missed the refutation, Jane. I apologize. Could you link me?

Unless this is what you meant by a "refutation."

oh, is this the reason?

I can't think of another one. If that's not the reason, then why is it that every postagricultural civilization in human history until the 1990s defined marriage as some sort of lifelong union between man and woman? Since several civilizations arrived at their version of marriage independently, but they all contained those specific elements.

Are you familliar with evolutionary niching? Like when whales and fish independently evolved with fins?

When you see the same structure evolve in the same situation, independently, that means that the structure conveys a survival advantage in that environment.

What possible survival advantage can you identify for an word that distinguishes the union of man and woman for life from all other relationships?


"says who?"

Says me, and says you, implicitly, :P if you cannnot identify an equally or more probable survival advantage that the specific union of man and woman for life would offer every single multispecialized postagricultural civilization of the last 8000 years.

If you refute that, and I "change the subject," please slap me. :P

Jane Know said...

those are your opinions of what marriage is. there are no laws that say the purpose of marriage is provide 2 parents of opposite sexes for potential children. sorry.

"When you see the same structure evolve in the same situation, independently, that means that the structure conveys a survival advantage in that environment."

you are trying to apply a law of nature to humans and society. as i've already discussed in my "are homosexual unions unnatural?" blog, humans and society do not operate according to laws of nature. where does that leave any room for rationality, intellect, free will, compassion, or morality to enter the picture? you know, the things that separate us from the rest of nature (which is a completely different discussion). societies change because PEOPLE's ideas of things change. not according to evolution of the species.

you are attempting to disguise a "tradition" argument in a science cloak, and i'm not buying it.

what it still comes down to is you placing nearly all your eggs in the tradition basket.

and for me, what it comes down to is tolerance and acceptance of different lifestyles, and giving them equal status.

John said...

"When you see the same structure evolve in the same situation, independently, that means that the structure conveys a survival advantage in that environment."

That isn't even true in nature. There are lots of species that have evolved traits that are detrimental to their survival.

Christian said...

You are mistaken about nature and society, Jane. Language and culture follow the same courses of genetic evolution, e.g. the founder effect.

If it's not a survival advantage, then why does marriage (most details vary, but it's always some union of man and woman for life) appear independently in every postagricultural specialized civilization?

If marriage reflected genetic behavior, then it would appear in hunter gatherer societies, and we'd probably see it in some primate species as well.

Christian said...

You have not addressed the independent evolution point, Jane.

"That isn't even true in nature. There are lots of species that have evolved traits that are detrimental to their survival."

Yes, but only as a single group. But where in nature do multiple groups of the same species *independently* acquire the same detrimental genetic trait?

Humans existed on six continents *before* any human groups developed the marriage institution. How did all human groups beyond a certain technological level just happen to develop a social institution that involved a man and woman committing to stay together for life?

Dogs across six continents are still all one species -- they can all interbreed. A species cannot "evolve" as a whole species, without interbreeding, and a language or culture cannot be transmitted without contact.

Jane Know said...

well, thanks for that enlightening history of heterosexual marriage. but i already get it. i think we ALL know that heterosexual marriages have been around for a long time. and different versions of it have existed in multiple cultures for hundreds of years ("independent evolution," as you put it). i have never said otherwise.

i'm sure this is a result of the majority of people being heterosexual and a direct result of the persecution of gay people throughout history. gays haven't gotten married across cultures because they were usually too busy being killed, or at the very least, hiding who they were or living extremely unhappy lives married to the opposite sex.

i agree that it probably is a survival advantage for opposite-sexed humans to co-habitate, form a life-long commitment together, and create little lambs of God together. but gay couples can, and do, do that as well. and, as i think i have said before, what better chances of survival does a child have than 2 super-committed parents who have the means, money, and motivation (like gay couples who want children)? there are no "accidental children" with gay couples.

and in matters of tradition, the majority often rules (even if unjustly) for a long time until the rights of the minority are considered.

as i said before, marriage is a cultural and moral issue, not a "law of nature," as you insist. you can't attribute laws of evolution to marriage and society.

you are still using your trusty old appeal to tradition.

Christian said: "You are mistaken about nature and society, Jane. Language and culture follow the same courses of genetic evolution, e.g. the founder effect."

ps- the "founder effect" does not speak for human society and social customs. the marriage debate is something that science can't solve.

for we, as humans, have our rationale to tell us when our "Founders" were incorrect. Or when their views need updated, varied, or adjusted to keep up with the times.

people who have inherited dangerous recessive traits as a result of a small gene pool from their "Founders" do not have this option.

Christian said, "Dogs across six continents are still all one species -- they can all interbreed. A species cannot "evolve" as a whole species, without interbreeding, and a language or culture cannot be transmitted without contact."

i'm not sure i understand your point. or is this just another law of nature/cultural traditions analogy?

Jane Know said...

"as i said before, marriage is a cultural and moral issue, not a "law of nature," as you insist. you can't attribute laws of evolution to marriage and society."

to add on to this, who is even claiming that gay marriages will take away from ANY of this?! i doubt if gays are given the right to get married, heterosexuals are going to stop getting married.

John said...

I live in Massachusetts, and I can vouch for the fact that my marriage is exactly the same as it was before gays were allowed to marry.

All of this sophistry is bunch of bullshit.

Christian said...

"to add on to this, who is even claiming that gay marriages will take away from ANY of this?! i doubt if gays are given the right to get married, heterosexuals are going to stop getting married."

What does that have to do with what I said? I support giving ssus all of the rights of marriage. I only oppose [b]changing the definition of the WORD "marriage."[/b]

"appeal to tradition."

No, Jane. An appeal to tradition is ethnocentric, whereas I'm pointing to all cultures above a certain tech level -- thousands of cultures representing 99% of human beings that lived and died in the last 8000 years. I'm pointing to evolution. An appeal to tradition is based on the assumption that one culture is superior, whereas I presume that what all complex cultures share in common, and developed independently, probably conveys a survival advantage.

"you are still using your trusty old appeal to tradition"

You (Jane) are referting to *our* rusty old groupspeak, lumping me with others. (You have caught me making the same mistake, so now we're even :D) On this blog, on Opine, and on Fannie's, I have never used an appeal to tradition with regard to the marriage topic.

the "founder effect" does not speak for human society and social customs. the marriage debate is something that science can't solve.

for we, as humans, have our rationale to tell us when our "Founders" were incorrect. Or when their views need updated, varied, or adjusted to keep up with the times.


OH! Is that the misunderstanding that led you to believe I was using an appeal to "tradition?"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Unfortunately that article doesn't mention that the same pattern and other genetic -population dynamic models have been measured in language change. For example of the founder effect as applied to language, the English spoke by Shakespeare is actually closer to the modern Canadian dialect than the language spoken anywhere in modern England.

the "founder effect" does not speak for human society and social customs.

"Marriage" is a word. A word is part of language. Language has been shown to be affected by the founder effect, and by a number of other models that directly parallel the genetic population models. I've shown how the appearance of marriage in different cultures can be explained by an analogy to ecological niching (whales and fish developing similar structure).

I have asked you (plural, everyone reading this blog) to think of an alternate explanation for this extraordinary "coincidence" of a word like marriage (always meaning some sort of commitment for a lifelong union between man and woman, although other details vary) appears in every specialized postagricultural civilization. So far you cannot offer any other explanation. That's OK. Take a few days if you need to. This isn't a contest. If you show me I'm wrong, I'll thank you. It would not be the first time that I changed a political position because I'd learn new facts that made my previous position untenable.

Christian said...

"("independent evolution," as you put it). i have never said otherwise."

On the contrary, you do say otherwise when you call that evidence an "appeal to tradition." Independent evolution is not tradition. It's proof of either coincidence, or causality. UNIVERSAL independent evolution (imagine if every single animal species living in the sea had fins) makes coincidence infinitessimally unlikely.

Christian said...

"I live in Massachusetts, and I can vouch for the fact that my marriage is exactly the same as it was before gays were allowed to marry."

Really? Since we're talking about legal marriage here, and since you say that your marriage is exactly what it was before Goodridge, would you please explain the exact current workings of the MA rule of marriage that used to be called "Presumption of Paternity", and is now called the "Presumption of Parenthood"?

Your Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said that it would work just the same, except without gender distinctions, and she called it the "Presumption of Parenthood."

Before Goodridge, the "presumption of paternity" meant basically the same as in other states: If your wife gets pregnant, that you, her husband, are presumed to be the father of her child. It's legally your child, until proven otherwise.

How does this rule work when you take out the gender distinctions?

Jane Know said...

"All of this sophistry is bunch of bullshit." i agree with John.

i've already made all of my points.

for example:

"i'm sure this (different cultures having words for heterosexual unions)is a result of the majority of people being heterosexual and a direct result of the persecution of gay people throughout history. gays haven't gotten married across cultures because they were usually too busy being killed, or at the very least, hiding who they were or living extremely unhappy lives married to the opposite sex."

i just find it extremely hard to believe that your ONLY objection to gay marriage is that gays may be able to use the word "marriage."

To me, being able to use the word "marriage" to signify my relationship, would for once validate it. To family, friends, employers, the law, and society-at-large. It would mean that my relationship, even though it is with a woman, is just as deserving as the rights and protections of a heterosexual marriage. It would mean that I am worthy of such protections. And that my wife and any future children were, too. It would mean, finally-FOR ONCE, that I am normal, too. That I don't need some special distinction of "legal homosexual relationship" or "civil union." Nor do my children have to be the products of the same. It would make homophobes, who perhaps use hate speech or tell gay jokes, or call people "fag" as an insult, start to realize that they are wrong. There would probably be a decrease in people who think that, because gays can't get married, they aren't as good as the rest of the population; or that they are, perhaps, just a little less deserving of happiness than everyone else because they don't get to be "married." I think it would do a lot of good for a lot of us. These are the major reasons I think gays should be allowed to get "married."

What harm to anyone do you think would happen if gays are allowed to get "married?"

And further, what benefits will YOU have if heterosexuals remain the only ones allowed to get married?

Jane Know said...

"How does this rule work when you take out the gender distinctions?"

i can't really think of a scenario where this would cause a problem. especially in heterosexual marriages.

John said...

"How does this rule work when you take out the gender distinctions?"

Huh?

How could it not work? Might I have to prove that she didn't get knocked up be her girlfriend?

Good grief, how do you come up with such bullshit?

Christian said...

Jane, what you can can't imagine can hurt you. The case law is peppered with cases where the husband, wife, or a third party sues for paternity over the wife's child.

The presumption of paternity is just one of over a thousand laws, rules, and regulations that affect marriage or distinguish married persons from single persons.

To my knowledge, not a single person has gone through all of them to see which ones work with same-sex couples, and which ones don't.

I've identified two specific laws, PoP and (in some states) and annulment for when a marriage has not been "consumed" (defined as sexual intercourse in the full biological sense of the word), that can't reasonably apply as written to same-sex couples.

And I've proved that John didn't know what he was talking about when he said that his marriage had not changed since Goodridge. The fact that he doesn't care about that one particular change, or that it probably (knock on wood) won't affect him, does not change the fact that he spoke ignorantly: the legal fine print of his marriage contract has changed from a clearly defined law, to a blank spot to be filled in by the judges who figure out how the fuck the "presumption of parenthood" actually works when some poor shleps end up in court.

If you really eliminate the gender distinctions and apply it, wouldn't it mean that if Joey and Craig are "married" in Massachussetts, and Joey gets Jenna pregnant, then CRAIG is the baby's legal father, right? :D

"i just find it extremely hard to believe that your ONLY objection to gay marriage is that gays may be able to use the word "marriage."

Is that really what you think that I said? No, Jane. You're already free to use the word "marriage." I don't want to take your free speech from you. I just want to protect the current set of rules which do not permit you to sue others who refer to gay unions as unions or partnerships rather than marriage, or (as happened in Canada) to sue a church organization for refusing to host a ceremony for an ssm, or to sue a printer for refusing to use the word marriage while printing invitations to an ssm. You're not free to get a teacher fired or a judge disciplined for saying, off the job, that marriage is the union between man and woman. (Under ABA rules, Judges can be disciplined for supporting "invidious" policies even in off the job statements).

You don't believe me? Try me. Start a thread discussing the constitutional amendment that I discussed -- defining marriage as union of man and woman, and REQUIRING all states to recognize Same-sex unions, which give identical legal rights to same-sex couples as to married couples.

I will bet you dollars to donuts that most of the people who come screaming and threatening you will be heterosexual "cultural liberals" and promiscuous gays. I'll also bet you that monogamous gays with kids, most ssm opponents like the sort you met on Opine, will be cool with you, even if some of them disagree, it will only be moderate disagreement.

John said...

"If you really eliminate the gender distinctions and apply it, wouldn't it mean that if Joey and Craig are "married" in Massachussetts, and Joey gets Jenna pregnant, then CRAIG is the baby's legal father, right? :D"

I think you need a good bong hit.

Jane Know said...

""If you really eliminate the gender distinctions and apply it, wouldn't it mean that if Joey and Craig are "married" in Massachussetts, and Joey gets Jenna pregnant, then CRAIG is the baby's legal father, right? :D"

I think you need a good bong hit."

haha. i agree, john. this is idiotic and insulting. no one said same-sex marriages are going to be perfect, or that it will come without problems. but denying rights based on possible, unlikely, problems that may arise? you're holding gays to a higher standard than you hold straight people if you think that gay marriage would be enacted without any hitches at all.

Anna Quindlen writes about this double-standard here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4270436/.

("Like the naturalized citizens who are expected to know more about America than those of us born here, gay couples are being held to a standard the denizens of Vegas chapels and divorce courts have never had to meet: to justify the simple human urge, so taken for granted by the rest of us, to fully and legally come together. Just as it's common to see an immigrant take the oath and then kiss the ground, the result of all this enforced soul-searching may well be a fervor that will honor an embattled institution. Gay people are being asked to form a more perfect union. In the process, perhaps they can teach us something that we casual citizens and spouses badly need to learn.")

show me that in Massachussetts more people have been harmed because of gay marriage than helped. THEN we'll continue the discussion. but do not insult us with petty arguments and what-ifs that read more like a law school examination than real life.

Jane Know said...

"And I've proved that John didn't know what he was talking about when he said that his marriage had not changed since Goodridge."

I think John is the better judge of how certain laws affect his own marriage than you are, Christian.
I'll take his word for it.

Christian said...

"I think John is the better judge of how certain laws affect his own marriage than you are, Christian.
I'll take his word for it."

I never claimed to be able to judge what the "presumption of parenthood" means. It's baffling. If John is the expert on the state of his legal marriage, then why can't he answer my question about what the fine print means?

John said...

I am not a lawyer so I can't tell you what the fine points are. It is unimportant. There is no goddamn way that my marriage can ever be impacted the fact a very good friend mine of married his partner of 13 years last month.

I don't care one whit about the presumption of parentage; is is not a real issue; it is figment of your imagination.

Oh, I'm sure you can construct a scenario where it might throw a monkey wrench into well settled law, but what so what?

I know a couple personally who are illegally married in the state where they now reside, but were legally married in the state in which they took their vows.

I can well imagine that well settled law could become quite unsettled if their new state tried to enforce its crazy law.

Again, so what?

You are groping at straws; here's the bottom line.

The relationships of LGBTI people are absolutely identical in every pertinent way to heterosexual relationships and therefore should be treated identically under the law.

Jane Know said...

"If John is the expert on the state of his legal marriage, then why can't he answer my question about what the fine print means?"

Are you REALLY claiming to know more about John's marriage than he does? Really? Hmm, interesting. I would guess that since he's the one who is in his marriage 24/7/365, that HE is the expert. And he knows how he is affected now that the gays can get married in his state.

The fine print you speak of is bullshit. Is he really affected in any major negative way (or minor way) by the MA law? Is anyone? No. Plain and simple.

You (and Opine) are making mountains out of... well... nothing, in a thinly-veiled attempt to hide your disapproval of gays getting married.

John said...

Really, how could my marriage change at all?

Even considering the foolish argument that there is some new definition of "presumption of paternity". How could that mean anything to me?

If my wife got pregnant, the law would still assume me to be the father. (The law would be wrong, because when I get my annual hard-on she gets her annual headache).

John Hosty said...

I'm here to add my two cents to this argument, and that is all this is. I discussion would be where we can have a conversation with our intellectual opponents and have both sides walk away with a higher understanding of the truth. Our opponents are not interested in the truth however, and to prove that I am "outing" Christian as being Ghengis Cohen on the knowthyneighbor.org blogs. Posting under multiple names is the hallmark of dishonesty, and of the opponents of equality here in Massachusetts. Time and time again we catch them posting under multiple names and call out such dishonesty so that people know not to trust them. If you catch a lie, all else said by the same person is suspect, is it not Christian?

The real heart of the issue against gay equality comes from the root. GLBT people are not seen as individuals as our country promises by bigots because of their intolerant upbringing. Our laws are secular, written to uphold the idea that we are judged by our individual actions and not as a collective. By saying "all gay people" deserve ssm over equal marriage what you are saying is that you have looked past the individual and seen only the stereotype that comes to mind. I afford no one such latitude, and demand that they tell me what I did personally to deserve being treated as less than equal.

Massachusetts sees past the stereotypes thrown before them. They see past the fear mongering meant to keep people controlled. As in Black rights and women's rights Massachusetts will be the beacon for others to see that we can in fact live in a highly diverse society as equals without one person's rights interfering with the next person.

If you wish to say that the social evolution of gay equality is bringing harm to our society you should remember your responsibility to prove your charges. I have been in this fight for years and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to this point from "Ghengis Cohen" Christian or anyone else.

Jane Know said...

"Massachusetts sees past the stereotypes thrown before them. They see past the fear mongering meant to keep people controlled. As in Black rights and women's rights Massachusetts will be the beacon for others to see that we can in fact live in a highly diverse society as equals without one person's rights interfering with the next person."

Thank you for the interesting revelation and your insight, John Hosty.

And I agree completely. The opine people and other anti-SSM'ers keep talking about how they will "lose marriage," if gay marriage is legalized. Yet, what exactly are they losing? How is allowing gay marriage STOPPING anyone else from getting married?

Christian said...

John Hosty is by far my favorite person on KTN. He's a brave soul who tries to keep an open mind, and that's the highest compliment that I can give anyone based only on an internet relationship.

You've often said that my answers do not satisfy you, JH, but I assure you that it's not for lack of effort.

I do not recall seeing this question before, and I apologize if you've posted it and I failed to respond:

If you wish to say that the social evolution of gay equality is bringing harm to our society you should remember your responsibility to prove your charges.

I do not wish to say that the social evolution of gay equality is bringing harm to our society.

I do not believe that the ssm movement is a product of the social evolution of gay equality, any more than I believe that Virginia Slims cigarrettes are the products of women's rights. To be certain, the ssm movement capitalizes on the gay rights movement, just as Phillip Morris uses its Virginia Slims brand to subvert and capitalize on the women's movement. But that's about labeling, not about evolution.

Do you think that having a Mothers' Day is a means of marginalizing Fathers? Do you think that Fathers' Day is a means of marginalizing Mothers? Then why do you think that marriage, as it has been understoood universally for the last 8000 years in every specialized civilization, is some sort of attack on gays?

Rosevelt proclaimed Mothers' Day back during WWII, and there wasn't a Fathers' day until years later. No one talked about expanding the definition of Mothers to include fathers. We just created a different day. Is that "separate but equal?" Be reasonable, John! Why would you deny American same-sex couples in 45 states the joy and rights that you have today, and pass an election to another Republican President, just over a word?

My best wishes to your partner. That's a very chipper picture.

Christian said...

"I am "outing" Christian as being Ghengis Cohen on the knowthyneighbor.org blogs"

No, JH, you are not "outing" me. I've already told these good people that I've posted on KTN under the name "Ghengis Cohen."

But it's the thought that counts, JH. I will not forget your broken word, since I told you my name in private, and you promised to keep it private. I'm sorry that you would dishonor yourself to expose me as "dishonest."

It makes you look foolish to imply that a sig like "Genghis Cohen" was "dishonest." As if anyone would actually believe that was a real name. As if I hadn't publically stated that it was a sig. As if I hadn't publically acknowledged later that my name was Christian.

What happened to you, John Hosty? Last time you spoke, you claimed that your victory had brought an end to the conflict and bitterness. And yet hear you are, more angry than ever, trying to stamp out the last of the resistance like Franco's men in Pan's Labyrinth.

I want to tell you a story about what anger did to a civil rights activist who strayed from the path of King and Ghandhi.

He earned a law degree in 1962, and founded the Chartered law firm in 1964. His first notable cases were of a civil rights nature. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says. His daughter says, "We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were nigger lovers." At one time, his law firm made up one-third federal docket of civil-rights cases in the state of Kansas.

He took cases on behalf of African American clients alleging discrimination by school systems, and a predominately black American Legion post which had been raided by police, alleging racially-based police abuse. His law firm obtained settlements for some clients. His law firm, which consisted of himself and family members, also represented non-white Kansans in discrimination actions against Kansas Power and Light, Southwestern Bell, and the Topeka City Attorney, and represented two female professors alleging discrimination in Kansas universities. He received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP for his work on behalf of black clients.

In 1977, the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for him on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which he had requested the transcript, he still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, he called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom he wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand. He lost the case, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, because he turned the case into a "vendetta ... against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant."

In an appeal, he prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that he had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady; he had committed perjury.

On July 20, 1979, he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas.

His name is Fred Phelps.

-----------

You've had years to get to know me, John Hosty, and you know better than to call me a liar. I believe you were a good and honest man. I realize that even good men have bad days, especially when they are fighting what they believe to be a good cause. But your anger has gotten the better of you increasingly over the time I've known you, and now, for me, you've crossed the line. I hope that it's not too late for you.

John Howard said...

So far, John's hetero marriage has not changed due to same-sex marriage being legal in Massachusetts, but it is definitely being threatened by people asserting that his marriage doesn't guarantee him the right to conceive children with his spouse using their own gametes. If we pass an "egg and sperm law" like they did in Missouri or like the PCBE recommended Congress should do in 2004, that will seal the deal and strip conception rights from John's marriage, unless we also convert same-sex marriages to civil unions that do not have conception rights.

Christian is right that you are all being very unreasonable by insisting on the word marriage and on equal conception rights, instead of conceding that same-sex couples shouldn't have conception rights and that all marriages should, and therefore accepting civil unions instead. The civil unions should be defined as being exactly like marriage but without conception rights. You could still call them marriages, you could still say you were "getting married", but it technically wouldn't be, on the books. But in terms of equality, it would be a great advance, because there might be 50-state recognition and federal recognition, which would finally bring real security and equal protections. If you forgo that in order to insist on conception rights or to insist that marriage doesn't guarantee conception rights, it's crazy! It'll elect another Bush and keep same-sex couples from having equal protections.

John Howard said...

I will not forget your broken word, since I told you my name in private, and you promised to keep it private.

And John, didn't you tell me in person that you were going to tell the BMG editors that you thought I should be allowed to post there again? Instead, you went on there and insulted me, knowing I couldn't respond. It's not too late to make amends on that one. I'd like to see you make a post saying that equal protections are more important than equal conception rights, and pushing for civil unions now is smarter than pushing for equal marriage.

John said...

"If we pass an "egg and sperm law" like they did in Missouri or like the PCBE recommended Congress should do in 2004, that will seal the deal and strip conception rights from John's marriage, unless we also convert same-sex marriages to civil unions that do not have conception rights."

Holy shit, Batman, you are insane.

Christian said...

I don't think that John Hosty is going to hang around here, John Howard. I suspect that Aaron Toleos pressured him into this. John Hosty has taken a huge amount of flack from those on KTN who are seeking violence and hatred. People threatened to leave and withold donations from the site unless he stopped talking civilly to me. Until today, he always resisted them.

I even told him that I'd understand if he started insulting me, just to keep some of the leftwing nutcases from tearing his eyes out. I hope he realized that my offer did not extend to his saying things that he knew are not true in order to paint me as a liar.

Christian said...

"Revelation" my ass, Jane. I told you already that I'd been on KTN as "Genghis Cohen."

Oh, and John Hosty -- you were all paranoid of why I disappear for months at a time and then pop up for a chat? I have a life, man. Last big stretch I was gone, I was getting ready for the Nevada Bar Exam. Put it together, man. It's not a conspiracy against you.

John said...

I know John Hosty-Grinnell, and he is one of the finest people on the planet.

John Howard said...

John, please explain how we can have SSM without either allowing same-sex couples to conceive together with their own gametes, or stripping the right to conceive together from marriage.

John Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christian said...

"I know John Hosty-Grinnell, and he is one of the finest people on the planet."

Yes, he was when I knew him too. He also used to be a Christian. Hell, you saw how I greeted him, before I read the message that Aaron sent him to deliver. (And he calls pseudonyms dishonest!)

But I don't know this new son of a bitch.

Jane Know said...

Christian said:
"To be certain, the ssm movement capitalizes on the gay rights movement, just as Phillip Morris uses its Virginia Slims brand to subvert and capitalize on the women's movement"

That's not what the SSM movement is to most of us true supporters of SSM. I agree that some politicians are dishonestly using the SSM in that way to gain votes. But to me and my friends, it is very much a part of the gay rights movement and equality. What other purpose would I have in supporting gay marriage? I am an individual with no political ties or motivation. I am pro-family and pro-marriage, I just happen to believe that I should be able to marry the love of my life the way that you have.

Christian said...

John Hosty-Grinnel knows very well that I only took a pseudonym on KTN because people would assumed that I was trying to represent Christianity. My name was a distraction from my 100% secular defense of marriage.

That's not what the SSM movement is to most of us true supporters of SSM. I agree that some politicians are dishonestly using the SSM in that way to gain votes. But to me and my friends, it is very much a part of the gay rights movement and equality. What other purpose would I have in supporting gay marriage? I am an individual with no political ties or motivation. I am pro-family and pro-marriage, I just happen to believe that I should be able to marry the love of my life the way that you have.

I believe you, Jane. If I did not believe that already about you, I would not be here trying to explain my point of view to you.

That's why I've never seen you or Fannie my true opponents in this debate. John Hosty, either, even though it appears that he's sold his soul to become their stooge. And I know group dynamics well enough to know that even if I did persuade you that the word was not worth the fight, that you'd be afraid to say that in public, because it would make you a target to former friends.

Everyone paints this debate as a two-sided issue, but I've counted at least four sides.

Christian said...

"I am not a lawyer so I can't tell you what the fine points are."

That's fine. If it's not important to you, then don't make an issue of it by claiming that it hasn't changed. It has changed. We don't yet understand how it's changed, but we know that it has. And it will take decades for the courts to discover all of the gaps in the new law, and figure out how to interpret marriage in the light of the neuter fatwa. Not to mention how this will affect the culture.

Christian said...

Here we go again with the Empereror's new clothes story:

"The relationships of LGBTI people are absolutely identical in every pertinent way to heterosexual relationships"

pertinent to what?


That's a marvelous example of how jackboot political correctness leads us to say things that we *know* are utter bullshit. Stop and think about what you said, will you? No two heterosexual relationships are "exactly identical." How can other relationships be "exactly identical" to all hetero relationships, when hetero relationships aren't exactly identical to each other?

John said...

"John, please explain how we can have SSM without either allowing same-sex couples to conceive together with their own gametes, or stripping the right to conceive together from marriage."

Easy. If science and medicine determine that same-sex procreation is dangerous, then it can be banned.

That's it.

Procreation of any type really has nothing to do with marriage law.

You know what, I just thought something; I am an idiot.

I am now responding to nonsense.

Jane Know said...

"That's fine. If it's not important to you, then don't make an issue of it by claiming that it hasn't changed. It has changed. We don't yet understand how it's changed, but we know that it has. And it will take decades for the courts to discover all of the gaps in the new law, and figure out how to interpret marriage in the light of the neuter fatwa. Not to mention how this will affect the culture."

but why is change a bad thing in this case? again, i agree that SSM will cause some problems, but are those relatively minor problems worth depriving others of equality? if so, then you are holding gay marriages to a MUCH higher standard than heterosexual marriages... who often have many, many problems. and are often the cause of "societal" problems themselves. further, hardly any marriages these days fit your utopian image of marriage that you are fighting to "protect."

John Howard said...

John, that would strip conception rights from marriage. There would be, for the first time in history, a marriage that did not have a right to attempt to combine their gametes to conceive a child together. Banning same-sex conception bans same-sex couples from combining their gametes together. Can you name any marriage in history where the couple were banned from conceiving children together? It's the sine qua non of marriage, it is what it means to be married.
You want geneticists studying you and your wife's genes and determining if you should be allowed to conceive together? Or do you think you should be allowed to conceive together even if there might be some flaw in your genes?

Christian said...

but why is change a bad thing in this case?

Because the status quo is generally pretty good, and the product of thousands of years of trial and error. We've gone forward and backwards and sideways, but overall, the body of marriage laws and the culture associated with it, is a strong benefit for most individuals in it, for the children raised in it, and even useful, as a point of reference, for folks outside it.

By making a massive change to the core definition of marriage, changing an aspect that's never been tampered with through all of recorded history, we're essentially giving judges a blank check to reinterpret and rewrite the whole damned thing. We're exchanging a working system for a pig in a poke. Sure, there's an odd change it might end up better, but then we might win the lottery.

Back to the evolution metaphor -- radiation and other factors cause random DNA changes. Most of them are bad, but without some of this random change, we might all still be trilobites, or more likely, procaryotes. But it doesn't follow that if a little bit of radiation has an overall good effect, that a whole lot of it isn't probably going to be lethal. Massive fundamental changes all at once -- not friendly to life.

again, i agree that SSM will cause some problems

I don't think the changes are minor. How would you feel about a constitutional convention? If the states all sent their delegates to make changes to the constitution. Trouble is, that a constitutional convention's never been done since 1789, and the delegates would have power to write the whole constitution over from scratch. They promise you that it will all be improvement. Do you trust them? I don't. Hell no. THe constitution isn't perfect, but it works, and I don't want to exchange a working system for a big stinking unknown.

I don't want to hand a blank check over to a bunch of judges that I don't know.

if so, then you are holding gay marriages to a MUCH higher standard than heterosexual marriages... who often have many, many problems.

Jane -- do you really think that my objections have anything to do with gay relationships? You are not the problem here. The problem is the people who get the blank check.

hardly any marriages these days fit your utopian image of marriage

Utopian? No. You could not be more wrong about me. I've got no such illusions, and I am NOT a fundamentalist. I want marriage to continue to evolve and adapt -- SLOWLY, by trial and error. It's the wild-eyed utopians that I'm trying to save marriage from. The folks who want to rewrite the world from scratch, like Pol Pot or Gloria Steinem, as well as the folks that want to take us back into the mythical past, like the fundies.

Won't you join me in the present?

Jane Know said...

Well, MA has yet to reach apocalypse. Neither has the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Canada, or Belgium. Let that be your first sign. I doubt it ever will (as a result of gay marriage, anyway). The only thing different how is that 2 unrelated men or 2 unrelated women can now go get married at the courthouse and have their relationship legally recognized exactly the same way heterosexuals do.

"do you really think that my objections have anything to do with gay relationships? You are not the problem here. The problem is the people who get the blank check."

And why would I be any more willing to let the Opine people write that check for me? YOU, christian, may not be homophobic, but it's obvious that many of your cohorts are. You can say I play the homophobic card too much, but at some point the essence of this issue eventually boils down to people being uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex couples.

And it makes me sick that people use gays and lesbians to their political advantage, and the ones who get left behind are the ONLY ones that this issue directly affects. It's utter bullshit.

Christian said...

"Well, MA has yet to reach apocalypse. Neither has the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Canada, or Belgium."

Jane, none of those countries are near the tipping point. Run a survey and ask them what marriage means, and I'll bet you that most of the population will say something about man and woman. And I bet you over 99% will at least be aware that some folks hold the concept that marriage means, exclusively, a man and woman*** promising to be together for life.

The "apocalyptic" danger is, particularly in the US where everyone is so damned litigious, that when people are unaware that a concept even exists of a special lifelong unity of man and woman -- without which we are not complete*** that you've essentially blotted out the northern star of civilization. And the social scientists are working hard on blotting out the idea completely.

***(Incidentally, the word "wife" in English used to mean "woman." The ceremony isn't "unequal" -- it's just archaic English for "I now pronounce you man and woman." Because it was a rite of passage. You weren't considered an adult until marriage).

I'm not saying that everyone or even most people need to buy into the idea, or live it. But just understanding the idea makes civilization work. Lesbian couples with kids, often go out of their way to find some godfather figure for their kids, since they know, deep down that a child needs a dad as well as a mom. So even same-sex couples and their kids benefit from having an idea of real marriage floating around there.

Christian said...

"And why would I be any more willing to let the Opine people write that check for me?"

I understand your position. And I hope that you now understand mine. Even if my offer of compromise does not interest you, if enough people understand both reasonable sides of the issue, and shut our ears to the fanatics on each side, maybe someone, or all of us together, will be able to work out some compromise that we can all live with.

Christian said...

And it makes me sick that people use gays and lesbians to their political advantage, and the ones who get left behind are the ONLY ones that this issue directly affects. It's utter bullshit.

I agree. :( You are not the first people to have their families used like pawns and human shields, but that's cold comfort, I'm sure.

Here's to a better world -- but slowly, since I'm not willing to shoot craps with the current one.

John Howard said...

Christian, since you agree same-sex couples should have equal protections via civil unions (unlike most opiners), do you support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise?

It bans all forms of conception that are not the union of a man's sperm and a woman's egg, preserves the right of every marriage to conceive with their own gametes, and establishes federal recognition for state civil unions that are defined as exactly like marriage except not granting a right to conceive with their own gametes.

Christian said...

I understand what you're proposing, John Howard. What I don't understand is why.

John Howard said...

To preserve equality and human dignity and individual conception rights, and re-prioritze our public spending away from funding a government-regulated eugenic reproductive industry and towards basic health care and infrastructure care. And, to give same-sex couples the same mutual security and legal protections and benefits as any both sex marriage.

All of those seem like good things to me. Why would anyone oppose it? If it is because they want to allow genetic engineering and same-sex conception, then that is where the debate should be. If it is because they don't want to allow people to reproduce their bad genes, then that is where the debate should be.

Can you see that we've advanced the debate? Now, the question about same-sex marriage is about whether we should develop same-sex conception technologies, and whether all marriages should be allowed to conceive children with their own gametes or not.

In order to allow all marriages to conceive together, and to not be forced to develop same-sex conception technology, and to affirm the right of every person to conceive naturally, we have to not allow people to marry someone of the other sex. Civil unions should give all the equal protections that both-sex couples get in marriage, but stop short of requiring same-sex conception technology to be allowed, let alone "safe and affordable" as radical groups desire.

Christian said...

I don't see how it's a "compromise." Neither side of the debate even has alternate reproduction methods in mind. The legal and cultural issues are too involved, toss in a technological argument and it's not even a viable discussion.

John said...

"Can you name any marriage in history where the couple were banned from conceiving children together?"

Yes, it's rather common even today in the United States.

Several States have laws allowing cousins to marry provided that can't conceive.

John Howard said...

John, those cousin marriages are allowed to conceive, actually. It was only assumed that they won't, which was why those states decided it was OK to let older cousin couples marry, since other neighboring states would have let them marry anyway. Those laws were all written in the days of natural conception, pre-IVF, and they don't make any mention of prohibiting the couple from attempting to conceive. If they did somehow conceive, either today through IVF or back then through a surprise, the child would have been legitimate and the couple would still remain married. So they don't actually violate the principle that a marriage gives the couple the right to attempt to conceive. If those states do want to prohibit the couple from attempting to conceive, then these civil unions would be a more appropriate way to give them the protections of marriage without giving them conception rights.

Can you imagine if Virginia had proposed to allow the Lovings to marry but only if they submitted to being sterilized, or were otherwise prohibited from conceiving? No one would have considered that a real marriage, right? That wouldn't have satisfied the Lovings, who were asking for the right to conceive together. That is the right that is in question again, and we should not give anyone the right to conceive with someone of the other sex.

John Howard said...

I don't see how it's a "compromise." Neither side of the debate even has alternate reproduction methods in mind. The legal and cultural issues are too involved, toss in a technological argument and it's not even a viable discussion.

Well, maybe it is more of a "deal" than a compromise, since a compromise usually implies meeting halfway and neither side being happy. In this case, both sides get what they want, and in the process, we stop genetic engineering also. Since no one supposedly is demanding genetic engineering, it ought to be easy to get people to agree to enact the compromise. Same-sex couples get full equal protections, including federal recognition, which they otherwise don't have and might not get, and we preserve marriage as a man and a woman. Those are the main things each side wants, and the egg and sperm law is what makes it principled and permanent. Without the egg and sperm part that prohibits same-sex conception, the compromise won't fly, that is the state we are in right now with people proposing civil unions. Well, why haven't they been able to get them done? Because there is no principled distinction, they are "marriage in all but name". No one likes civil unions as they are currently being proposed. So the egg and sperm law provides a permanent distinction and would be the catalyst to achieving resolution.

If you were the president and that package of laws came to your desk, would you sign it? Is there any part of it that you don't want to sign? Do you not want to prohibit genetic engineering? Do you not want to preserve marriage's conception rights? Do you not want to give federal recognition to same-sex civil unions?

Why not say you support the deal and help get it accomplished? If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but that's no reason to withhold support for it.

John Howard said...

Also, Christian, all of those aspects have to be done, it would be bad to accomplish any one of them without the others. The egg and sperm law without changing SSMs to CUs strips conception rights from all marriages. Fed recognition of civil unions without an egg and sperm law doesn't prevent a brave new world scenario, and we are shockingly close to that, and if same-sex conception is legal, then we should insist on marriage, not civil unions. Preserving marriage as a man and a woman without an egg and sperm law implies that we don't care if people get married before conceiving together, it separates conception rights from marriage as much as the opposite scenario of enacting an egg and sperm law with SSM does. We need to restore that connection and get everyone seeing the SSM debate as about one thing - should we allow same-sex couples to conceive children together, using their own gametes?

Rachel said...

C- "Lesbian couples with kids, often go out of their way to find some godfather figure for their kids, since they know, deep down that a child needs a dad as well as a mom."

A dad or a positive male role model? I did not have a father, but my grandfather, uncles, and male friends of my mother were very present in my life. Some say "it takes a village..." I say my "village" was pretty awesome...and now, so am I.

Rachel said...

C-
"Do you think that having a Mothers' Day is a means of marginalizing Fathers? Do you think that Fathers' Day is a means of marginalizing Mothers? Then why do you think that marriage, as it has been understood universally for the last 8000 years in every specialized civilization, is some sort of attack on gays?"

If mothers asked for a father's day and fathers asked for a mother's day (not that I remember that debate ever popping up), wouldn't it make sense just to have one parent’s day. I mean, it's honoring a parent right? I move to have "Parents Day"

The hypotheticals are starting to suck. We must first handle our realities. Gay people asking to for marriage rights…within that, the word marriage. Can’t we handle all of the pedophiles, necrophiliacs, incest advocates, and halmark card bogarts if/when they come wielding their axes?

Christian said...

Rachel, that begs the question of what sort of village. The existence of the idea of marriage encourages people to seek out some sort of designated opposite sex godfather/godmother.

Christian said...

Speaking of which [joke], did you hear that someone dug up an old porn film starring Hillary Clinton?

It's titled "it takes a village to conceive a child." :P

OK -- I'm all jokes this morning:

Do you know why Helen of Troy turned down the contract to be the Metamucil spokeswoman?

Christian said...

"If mothers asked for a father's day and fathers asked for a mother's day (not that I remember that debate ever popping up), wouldn't it make sense just to have one parent’s day. I mean, it's honoring a parent right? I move to have "Parents Day"

Well, from a neutered marriage point of view, that would make sense.

But if you believe, like Piaget, Erickson, and most of the human beings who have lived on this planet, that a child derives distinct benefits from a father and from a mother, it makes more sense to honor them separately

John Howard said...

The hypotheticals are starting to suck. We must first handle our realities. Gay people asking to for marriage rights…within that, the word marriage.

Rachel, people should not have the same rights with a person of their sex that they have with a person of the other. With the other sex, we should have a right to conceive children together, but that should not be allowed with someone of our same sex.

Same-sex conception is not a hypothetical, it is a real area of research that could be attempted today and is something that people currently are demanding be made safe and affordable.

Also, the lack of federal recognition and that of most other states is not a hypothetical.

Why not get behind a plan that could get equal protections right now? All it takes is someone to start the ball rolling for people to take this deal seriously.

Rachel said...

C-
"But if you believe, like Piaget, Erickson, and most of the human beings who have lived on this planet, that a child derives distinct benefits from a father and from a mother..."

I don't believe that. I believe a child derives distinct benefits from positive male and female role models.

Rachel said...

JH,
The hypotheticals to which I was referring were in other threads in which Christian was involved (not all of which, if any, he suggested, but those on opine). The ideas that legalizing ssm would lead to mothers marrying daughters, a surge in polygamy, the legalization of necrophilia, and now an analogy equating ssm to holidays to which no legal benefits are attached. They’re distracting from the actual debate and pointless.


and on your other point about getting the ball rolling; I am receptive to what you are saying, but stand by my call for "marriage", based on my forecast that conscious and subconscious discrimination will still occur…if not institutionally than socially. If gay people are equal to heterosexual people, then why would they not be allotted the same legal language? I understand what you're saying, but the underlying message will create a less than thou image of gay and lesbian individuals among the general public.

Jane Know said...

john howard, i'm asking you to please stop the discussion of your agenda on my blog. it's getting weird.

John Howard said...

Isn't it your agenda we are talking about here, Jane? I think your agenda should be to seek equal protections rather than equal rights, and I think we should continue to discuss it, with all its implications and possibilities.

Rachel, the rights should be different, so the names should be different. Otherwise, if the name is the same but one group publicly doesn't have a certain right, then that means that marriage doesn't give that right. That is a very bad thing, much much worse than worrying about attitudes people might have because same-sex couples have a different legal name and different legal rights. People might have worse attitudes towards gay people if same-sex couples insisted on safe and affordable conception technology, so that whole "attitude" angle cuts both ways. I think attitudes would improve with a firm and sane resolution, people would be more tolerant and less fearful.

John said...

John Howard,

You worry about the god-damnest things.

Jane Know said...

Christian,
if your main arguments against gay marriage are solely the legal ramifications of "neutered" marriage and how those technicalities and word-changes/pronoun changes would lead to the destruction of society as we know it, then you and Opine people have done very little to portray that amidst your plethora of anti-gay material. this is something that i have said before (in not as many words), and i have yet to get answer.

i just think that your side would do better to argue these points than continually posting anti-gay articles.

you see, that's what makes it so hard for many of us to take Opine seriously. because it is so obvious in its anti-gay agenda.

not that i give a rat's ass if you and/or Opine argue in what i think is a more effective way. more power to us if you don't.

Jane Know said...

when you repeatedly fail to provide anything beyond mere tradition and (what you deem) "evolutionary" arguments, it further proves to us that if your stance had any moral or legal backing you would already have provided it by now.

John said...

Jane, I think you hit the nail on the head.


Every time I have gone over the Opine Editorials, I will read something that makes me feel sick.

I can not read past the hate, and shovel through the mounds of horseshit trying to find some reasonable point.

Jane Know said...

"Every time I have gone over the Opine Editorials, I will read something that makes me feel sick."

So true. It makes me feel sick, too.

And it's not in "oh-man-they-proved-me-wrong-way."

it's in a "wow-i-can't-believe-these-people-actually-believe-in-this-horseshit" way.

The way they tag-team the opposition with multiple illogical arguments and put-downs under the pretenses of "love" or "famiy" just isn't right.

I doubt any good families want to be "defended" by them.

John Hosty said...

"if your main arguments against gay marriage are solely the legal ramifications of "neutered" marriage and how those technicalities and word-changes/pronoun changes would lead to the destruction of society as we know it, then you and Opine people have done very little to portray that amidst your plethora of anti-gay material."

Well said Jane. Through years of back and forth I have heard all the arguments, and they all sound like the words of a bigot.

To this day I have not seen one person come forward and be able to verify how gay equality has inconvenienced them, let alone harmed them. Until someone is able to succinctly deliver an example I am inclined to believe that their fears are unfounded.

Christian said...

"But if you believe, like Piaget, Erickson, and most of the human beings who have lived on this planet, that a child derives distinct benefits from a father and from a mother...[rachel snips the context, i.e. "then it would make sense to honor mother's day and father's day separately.]"

I don't believe that. I believe a child derives distinct benefits from positive male and female role models.


Even if that's all that you believe, being raised by a father and a mother would still probably provide those benefits. And most of the rest of the conutry believes that there's a distinct benefit from specifically being raised by a father and a mother. Therefore in answer to your previous question, yes, it does make sense to have a separate father's day and mother's day. If you wish to proselelytize your beliefs on the rest of us, then use missionaries, not the strong arm of the state. Or if your view actually has scientific backing (as opposed to the groupthink of collective social scientists) then cite the data

Jane Know said...

i wonder who this "Weapon of Mass Instruction" person is. What an asshole. And anti-SSMers wonder why we think they are homobigots.

http://praisingfool.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheist-christian-discussion.html

Weapon of Mass Instruction posted at 12/15/2006 10:57:00 AM
We're much more interested in a person's inside, than their reproductive organs. Funny that you should be so obsessed with such things.

"Ha! If I were obsessed, I certainly would be a homosexual like you.

No thanks. You can have your aids-infested lifestyle."

Jane Know said...

"If you wish to proselelytize your beliefs on the rest of us, then use missionaries, not the strong arm of the state. Or if your view actually has scientific backing (as opposed to the groupthink of collective social scientists) then cite the data"

I suggest you follow your own advice, pastor "christian"

Christian said...

"I suggest you follow your own advice, pastor "christian"

I don't see how it applies, since I'm not trying to persuade you to believe what I believe. I'm just trying to explain to you what I, and most Americans, believe about marriage, fatherhood, and motherhood. Because your constructions of the motives of marriage defenders is based on a ghastly misconstruction of our beliefs.

"i wonder who this "Weapon of Mass Instruction" person is. What an asshole."

Glad that you read his site. Do you now understand why I'm so pissed off about Hosty and Aaron spreading the lie that I am the same person as WMI?

Did you see Hosty's latest bitch on KTN?

http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2007/09/when-a-koch-bec.html?cid=82943945

Hosty says: Chrisitan (If that is your real name), you posted under anonymous instead of your given blogger name. By doing this you confuse readers into thinking you are not the Christian that blogs for Opine Editorials. This is a deliberate act, and you are called out on it. If that is not proof enough of your lies ... [goes on to citing a fictional persona's opinion that I am WMI]"

So how do you like that, Jane? Have I deceived you into thinking that I am another Christian than the one that posts on Opine? Do you think that I'm intentionally deceiving people, pretending that I'm not the same Christian who posts on Opine?

How the hell could I be deceiving anyone about that, when the whole point of my posting here, on Fannie's etc., was to clarify my own position and Opine's position against what I see as an unfair characterization?

Christian said...

"if your main arguments against gay marriage are solely the legal ramifications of "neutered" marriage and how those technicalities and word-changes/pronoun changes would lead to the destruction of society as we know it, then you and Opine people have done very little to portray that amidst your plethora of anti-gay material."

Please link to one article that I've written on Opine that wasn't about the word or idea of "marriage", other than my latest exchange with John boy.

Fannie misread my article by assuming that I was talking about gays getting "married" when I talked about dire results, but if you look at what I was actually saying, it's all about the neutering of the marriage word and concept.

Hosty knows my arguments having argued with me for ages on KTN, and in the past he defended me against the charge of bigotry. All that's changed is that he's got new marching orders from his puppetmaster Aaron.

Jane Know said...

Christian,
having read Jose's latest installment of bigotry over at Opine, and the rest of the gang's acceptance of it (minus the scolding by On Lawn that did nothing) how can I not believe that you are just more adept at disguising your intolerance and bigotry than the rest of them? You have been respecful to me on my blog, which is more than I can say for any of the other Opine people. But the fact still stands that in my eyes you are still my enemy. Any way you wanna phrase it, you are anti gay-marriage, and I'm pro gay-marriage.

You've failed to show me how gay marriage results in more harm than good. So I still believe that there is something more behind your reasoning. It seems like the issue with you has to do with some sort of idiotic power struggle over the "neutering of marriage" or the "right to use a word" or something that I will probably never understand, as someone who only wants equality, not "power."

Christian said...

I see. So you know that I'm not WMI, but you evade the question because it's all such a holy war to you that truth in accusations does not matter? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Jane Know said...

christian,
i don't know who you are or what other monikers you go by on the internet. nor do i really care. someone claimed that you were WMI and i followed the links to see what WMI has posted. you claim you are not WMI. WMI appears to be an asshole. you, thus far, haven't. i don't know if this is because you are more adept at knowing what to say to not get banned from blogs, or if you truly are a different person.

what i do know is that i'm not interested in pursuing a vendetta against you, which is why i have largely stayed away from discussions on who you were.

the focus of my blog is, and will continue to be, issues that affect gay people, women, and public health. turn it into a mockery, call it a "holy war" if you must, but i call it a fight for equal rights.

John Howard said...

Jane, to Christian: You've failed to show me how gay marriage results in more harm than good.

Jane, I've tried to show you how gay marriage results in a lot more harm than good, especially compared to Civil Unions that are exactly like marriage but do not give conception rights.

Gay marriage will mean either we have to allow same-sex conception, or that no marriage is guaranteed a right to conceive with its own gametes anymore. Those are both terrible outcomes, and completely unnecessary. Also. insisting on gay marriage will make it much harder to get equal protections, civil unions could get immediate federal recognition and greater state enactment of civil unions, if there was only a principled distinction that made them substantially different from marriage - conception rights should be that distinction.

So again, SSM would either force us to allow same-sex conception, including making it safe and affordable by funding research and funding each attempt, including all the surrogates required (Kaguya required hundreds of surrogate mothers, 360 of the embryos implanted did not survive to birth), or it would strip conception rights from every marriage, making it possible to prohibit a marriage from conceiving together using their own gametes.

Fannie said...

"if your main arguments against gay marriage are solely the legal ramifications of "neutered" marriage and how those technicalities and word-changes/pronoun changes would lead to the destruction of society as we know it, then you and Opine people have done very little to portray that amidst your plethora of anti-gay material. this is something that i have said before (in not as many words), and i have yet to get answer."


Jane, that's a perfect assessment of Opine.

John said...

"Jane, that's a perfect assessment of Opine."

Batshit insane is just as good an assessment.

John Howard said...

Have you seen how Jose and Marty and On Lawn feel about the Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise? They refuse to support it, because it doesn't condemn homosexuality or something. Even though it preserves marriage, that isn't enough for them. I think they truly are frauds, sock-puppets that were created just to overwhelm arguments such as mine with insane intolerance, as per the After The Ball strategy.

Please stop giving them your attention and take on the challenge of achieving the Compromise, for equal protections.

Christian said...

WMI appears to be an asshole. you, thus far, haven't. i don't know if this is because you are more adept at knowing what to say to not get banned from blogs, or if you truly are a different person.

Give me a break. Look at the time-stamps, Jane. I've been posting on KTN for 2 years. And I got banned on Fannie's, despite my current style. I was banned from Democrats.com within 5 minutes of joining, when I quoted President Bill Clinton's statements in support of the FMA. Getting banned has nothing to do with whether WMI and I are the same person. It's a bullshit argument and you know it.

It's sad that you can't admit the obvious when it would involve contradicting someone on "your side." That's the difference between places like this and Opine, where we're allowed to have individual opinions and disagree with each other.

" i have largely stayed away from discussions on who you were."

Largely, yes, but you did thank Hosty for that "informative and enlightening" whatever, despite the fact that I'd already TOLD you that I'd posted on KTN as Genghis. I'm glad you haven't gone full fledge in promoting this lie, but I'm dissapointed that you even wink at it.

If you believe in your cause is a cause for equal rights, then you should not believe that you need to accept, disseminate, or even tolerate lies in your good cause.

Equal rights have never been and never will be built on lies.

Jane Know said...

"Equal rights have never been and never will be built on lies."

Nor are equal rights built on the presumption that one blogger is posting under different monikers, which is why I've largely stayed clear of it. It distracts from the arguments themselves.

However, I've allowed a great amount of leeway in what other bloggers post on my blog (in the hopes of facilitating a decent discussion eventually). I thanked John Hosty because he is my ally, and I believe he was trying to help me. His help, and help from others, comes much appreciated when a large part of my time here is spent refuting asshole-ish arguments from your friends.

I don't know what the truth is about this WMI business. Nor have I made any accusations about who you are.

Does anyone else thinks it's ironic that a main contributor to Opine Editorals is lecturing me on how to fight for equal rights?

John said...

"Does anyone else thinks it's ironic that a main contributor to Opine Editorals is lecturing me on how to fight for equal rights?"

I do.

It's downright weird.

Not just the equal rights part of it, but the nature of same-sex attraction itself.

I often hear straight people say that homosexuality is a choice, or that LGBTI people don't "need" marriage rights.

How exactly do they know?

Christian said...

"Not just the equal rights part of it, but the nature of same-sex attraction itself."

When did I ever argue that homosexuality is a choice? I was just arguing a similar issue with Jose on Opine.

"Does anyone else thinks it's ironic that a main contributor to Opine Editorals is lecturing me on how to fight for equal rights?"

Life is full of little ironies. Since you appear to still be looking for other people to affirm your prejudice, it's a lecture that you've earned, Jane.

Jane Know said...

First, this was written before our discussion today on Opine, where you sorta defended gay people to Jose. I appreciate that. It's the first time I didn't feel completely attacked over there.

I'm learning the game.

Secondly, I never said that you said homosexuality was a choice. Fitz, in his article, seems to assume that our entire argument and fight goes away if science proves that it IS a choice.

I don't know that I am looking for people to affirm my prejudice. I'm not sure what you mean by that, it's hard to tell over the internet.