Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. @DHOWARD4,

   if we are going to deal in generalities, same sex couples are more productive economically than heterosexual dyads. same-sex couples tend to earn more than their straight counterparts, and thus pay more into the public till. and, as you say, since gay couples don't procreate, they do not contribute to the financial drain on society of unwed mothers, absent fathers, and illegitimate children. they do no not produce crack babies and other special needs children. indeed, gay couples generally, when given the opportunity, adopt the unwanted kids -- the flotsam and jetsam of irresponsible hetero-behaviour.

   further, what makes you think that being in a committed same sex marriage precludes procreation? i would venture to say that my sperm is as potent as yours, and that lesbian vaginas are as fecund as straight vaginas. it is the prudent use of these that make gay pairings desireable. if society in general was more circumspect about bumping uglies, it would serve to lighten the tax load on homosexuals.

   i see where you are coming from now; you are opposed to "sane-sex" marriage (your words, sweets). all in all, your argument against same-sex marriage is as sterile and barren as you suggest that gay pairings are. as i said earlier, people like you, with their false logic and sham good-will are a dime a dozen.

   Posted by: nic | Jul 17, 2009 10:27:57 AM

   
   

2. ugh. is there anyway to see more of her answer of the distinction between making the law and interpreting the law.

   Posted by: Wayne | Jul 17, 2009 1:18:20 PM

   
   

3. To NIC:

   I will accept the hit for the typo. CUTE.

   I will also acknowledge that two working individuals have greater earning power than most single individuals and the tax burden does tend to increase with income.

   As for your litany of other social ills, those are separate issues from marriage. I will agree that promiscuity, sexual ignorance, and drug abuse do indeed rank right up near the top. But I will not agree that these have solely heterosexual origins.

   Greater circumspection would indeed benefit us all.

   I will also agree that in heterosexual relationships we all have about the same shot at fertility. However, my statement stands, homosexual unions are patently sterile. Same-sex partners cannot produce children together, not even accidentally.

   Yes, there are far too many unwanted children who are just looking for a family to fit into. Even single persons have been permitted to adopt on occasion. Let us not throw these children yet another curve.

   By the way, have you checked out what is going on in the arena of same-sex divorce? That is a real mess. Adding in adopted children only compounds the problems and all of the children of same-sex couples are adopted by one partner or the other if not both.

   Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that society as a whole must find a reason to allow.

   There is no inherent need for society to promote same-sex unions.

   Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 17, 2009 3:32:23 PM

   
   

4. DHOWARD4,

   you seem to agree with me on everything. once i persuade you to come over to the good side on the nettlesome marriage right/privilege question, i will hear chapel bells ringing for you and for me.

   as i recall, there is a document that says "all men are created equal". not all heterosexual men, but ALL men are created equal. the state is not endowed by it's creator with certain unalienable rights, the people are. to wit, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

   society does not have the privilege to deny or bestow rights. otherwise, we might still have slavery. moreover, society's acceptance of same-sex marriage does not equal promotion of it. now, if you argue that a church has a right to deny marriage to gays, i concur.

   so, when do we go look for tuxes?

   Posted by: nic | Jul 17, 2009 6:34:50 PM

   
   

5. I find it really strange that someone who says he's straight would spend so much time on a gay site. Do you honestly think you'll change any of our minds, and that we'll suddenly say, Oh gosh I was looking at this all wrong---please deny me a basic right based on a convoluted, inaccurate economic argument. As though children don't cost society an absolute fortune.

   Posted by: Paul R | Jul 17, 2009 6:48:02 PM

   
   

6. PAUL R,

   "Oh gosh I was looking at this all wrong..."
   hahaha! good one.

   Posted by: nic | Jul 17, 2009 7:31:48 PM

   
   

7. To Paul R and NIC:

   "All men are created equal," I guess we are leaving out the womenfolk as well.

   No, I do not really expect to change any minds here. I expect you will wrongly continue to perceive marriage as a basic civil right. And you will continue to be upset that it is not. Why else would it be necessary to purchase a license? No amount of reason can clear a determinedly fogged mind. But still, the seed of doubt has been planted and in the fertile minds it will grow.

   Society does bestow rights. I think there have even been a few wars over that issue, you know, society claiming or protecting its rights; seems to me that one of them was just a few generations ago. Oh, and slavery, I think society might have fought a war over that issue as well.

   I am satisfied that we can agree to disagree. Though I wish you had not given up so quickly.

   I hang out at a gay cite because it is no fun trying to argue with those who agree with you. And it is even worse when they start thumping their bable and misquoting superstitious myths. I need intelligent conversation and NIC you almost came close to offering some.

   By the way, NIC, I found your short post (09 7:31:48 PM) to be the more sincere than the one preceding it.

   Enjoy life! That is all any of us can try to do.
   Live as freely as you can afford to.
   And you only can find happiness within yourself.
   If you are successful then who needs a license?

   Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 17, 2009 10:54:28 PM

   
   

8. DHOWARD4,

   if we are going to communicate, may i just type 'D4'? your nom-de-blog has become bothersome to type out.

   it is inherent (you like that word, don't you?) in the word "men" that it means mankind. me, give up? not hardly. not before i get into your manties, anyway.
   lol.

   "I hang out at a gay cite because it is no fun trying to argue with those who agree with you." i think you meant to say: i hang out at a gay SITE because it is no fun to argue with someone who agrees with ME. word of advice, proofread, bato.

   you seem like a reasonable guy. i would not bother dealing with you if you were not somewhat up to intelligent discourse. see, i can be condescending too.

   what is your fixation with licenses and permits and such? nature happens with or w/o a permit. society bestows privileges, not rights. society gives privileges to the already privileged. that does not make it right. it seems to me that you are conflating rights with privileges.

   yeah, you come from a sitch where everyone tells you, "you da man," for sticking it to the fags. but when you are confronted with something other than a me-to attitude you have to work at it.

   still and all, i like you. you have a way with words. you are not an ideologue. i can work with that.

   Posted by: nic | Jul 17, 2009 11:53:24 PM

   
   

9. D4,

   hello? well, we all have to sleep sometime.

   Posted by: nic | Jul 18, 2009 3:12:31 AM

   
   

10. NIC:

    Is cool, a rose by any other name still stinks. Condescension acknowledged. Criticism acknowledged. I like a lot of words.
    As for hanging out at this SITE, I have no situation. My son is "Worried" about me and the only other person who really gives a hoot is my daughter, and she is neutral.
    As for the word men I was just playing your own spin back at you. But you knew that.

    I have neither conflated nor confused Rights and Privileges.
    During the revolutionary war American society was fighting to earn those rights we now take for granted.
    During the unCivil War, American society nearly tore itself apart, but only partly to end slavery and confer those same rights upon the former slaves. Actually that was more of an economic war, the mechanized North against the feudal South.
    Next, I was referring to the second world war, actually WW1 part 2, where our society helped some of Europe and some of Asia cast off the yoke of Fascist and Imperial slavery and regain their former rights.
    Privileges on the other hand are, sadly, pretty much as you have stated.

    I understand that nature happens on its own and I do not believe I have said anything to the contrary.

    Simply stated, and probably re restated (not a stutter), I do not believe marriage to be a right, otherwise it would not be necessary to secure a license to get married; I do not know if that is a fixation or just an unchanging point. If marriage was a right then ANYONE could just go do it and be married.

    What is this business about marriage being a right? Try to cite something specific. No one has been able to clarify that for me. Most just seem to keep saying its a basic civil right. I do not see it that way.

    By the way, manties no happening. Been there tried that, not interested. Me like woomans way gooder!

    Really though, I must admit that I have found that homosexuals, male or female, are usually better conversationalists and wordsmiths. We may not agree but the conversation can go to unexpected places and get quite interesting.
    As for proofreading I think I have only made two errors. One was simple confusion on my part: cite, site. Point taken.
    The other is a combination of failing vision, the glaring colors at this site, and poor typing skills. So I am human.
    

    Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 18, 2009 5:17:04 AM

    
    

11. failing vision? are you approaching codgerville? the older one gets, the more one finds bright colors stimulating. or is there something else on this site that stimulates you in other ways, hmmm?

    ok, you are a cool straight man. not that there is anything wrong with being straight....

    i love the menz. what's not to like about playing kissy face and huggy body with one's best bud while watching sports, listening to music or just chillaxing? straight men and gay men have a lot more in common than heteros might allow. all men have "needs". ha!

    lets put the gay marriage issue to rest for now. we are at loggerheads. it is good to have made your acquaintance. peace out.

    Posted by: nic | Jul 18, 2009 5:56:53 AM

    
    

12. btw, you need not have mentioned your son and daughter to prove you are not gay. i generally take people at their word.

    Posted by: nic | Jul 18, 2009 6:01:07 AM

    
    

13. NIC:

    Approaching is putting it nicely.

    Agree to disagree.

    Glad to have made your acquaintance as well.

    Try to have a good! EVERY DAY!

    Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 18, 2009 6:04:55 AM

    
    

14. That was not the point. I just mentioned them because I have no crew I hang out with. Actually I had not even thought of it that way.

    Still, try to have a good day! EVERY DAY.

    Doug.

    Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 18, 2009 6:13:00 AM

    
    

15. "What is this business about marriage being a right? Try to cite something specific. No one has been able to clarify that for me. Most just seem to keep saying its a basic civil right. I do not see it that way."

    Ok, to be specific. In the words of the CA Supreme Court:
    "Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibility to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation . . . an individual's sexual orientation-like a person's race or gender-does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclue that . . . the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

    Obviously, you are free to hold on to the idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right, but courts are increasingly seeing it the other way, as are legislatures. The heterosexual leaders of my home state--VT--legislature overwhelmingly came to understand that denying gay couples the same right that they take for granted is wrong. The US will one day join Canada, and several other countries, in recognizing all couples equally.

    In your earlier comments, you complain about the cost of spousal benefits for same-sex couples and say, "whom do you suppose gets to pay that price increase?" Well, whom do you suppose has been paying for straight couples and their offspring for all these years? Gay people pay taxes, including school taxes for your children. You then argue that gay couples cannot naturally reproduce. As you know, reproduction capabilities are not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Furthermore, it negates your cost argument since children are a cost burden on society. Ask most couples why they want to get married, they will say, Love.

    Those who argue that marriage is a privilege are always the ones who have that privilege. I suspect history will recognize that argument much as we now recognize similar arguments against mixed-race marriages.
    

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 18, 2009 1:14:47 PM

    
    

16. ERNIE:

    Your clip essentially just states that all persons have the same civil rights. Nowhere was there any specific right cited.

    Straight persons being the majority would also be most likely to pay the largest portion of any shared expenses.

    AS you have stated it, I would almost disagree - reproduction capabilities are not a requirement for heterosexual marriage- That is Almost true. Actually it is heterosexual reproductive capabilities that necessitated marriage. If there were never any offspring then there never would have been any need to care for them and then there would never have been any need to establish a responsibility for their care so marriage would have been unnecessary.

    Children are a cost burden on society. Really? Well if that burden were removed or simply to stop recurring today, this planet would be devoid of human life in about one hundred years. Not just straight humans but homosexual ones as well.

    It is the fact that most heterosexual couples can, and usually do, reproduce, even under the most primitive of conditions, that necessitated a marriage contract in the first place.

    Think of the pre-Neolithic time, a female is impregnated and the male has long since departed. A few months later, the mother is left almost on her own to fend for her newborn and herself, she is too weak, or the local predators are too aggressive, and the baby dies, or maybe they both do.
    Eventually these early human animals learn that some form of support is needed for the mother and her newborn. This means extra food gathering, extra water, and a sheltered place where they will both be safe while these, and other, chores are being handled. The tribe is small and there are enough helping hands to provide. More babies survive and tribe begins to grow. Problem solved.
    After a while the tribe has grown. And by this time someone has probably figured out how babies are made. Now there are several babies to care for and no one really has a lot of extra time. The mother, being directly connected to the baby must take the lion’s share of care giving with a minimum of support from the tribe. This modification works and the tribe continues to flourish.
    More babies are born and even more devoted care is needed. The mother now needs to find a dedicated guardian to help her care for her child. The males are the strongest and the female devotes her affections to a select few. But then rivalry develops between the males. Perhaps it is others seeking her charms. Maybe it is the ones she has favored trying to avoid the resultant extra responsibilities. Who knows? But something or someone must have raised the question, WHO'S KID IS IT ANYWAY? Momma's baby, daddy’s maybe!
    To resolve this issue parentage has to be established and it must be done before hand.
    The female now devotes herself to a single male and any offspring will only be the product of that one male.
    The concept of marriage is born.
    And so is the double standard. Nothing but physical ability prevents a male from caring for more than one female or their combined offspring.
    Over time, the female has successfully asserted her feelings against the double standard and this has developed into the current tradition of monogamous marriage.

    Granted this is the story according to me and there is scant proof of any factuality for it. But that is how I see marriage: a custom, a tradition, and a means of assuring the continuation of our society. And that is why I do not support any concept of marriage counter to that between male and female. Our current system of laws further limits that union to One man and One female.

    Without children to replenish our society it would cease to exist. That is a burden that comes along with the establishment and maintenance of any society from the get go.

    If you really feel so put upon for having to share the financial burden of keeping our society viable, why do you not just establish a homosexual society of your own? There will be no burden of caring for the children of heterosexuals and in a few years, a century or two at the most, someone can go in and clear up the debris left behind after your society has died for lack of replacements. I realize that homosexuals are not themselves sterile, but the homosexual lifestyle is counter to societal reproduction. And I really do not want you to have to feel you are forced to shoulder part of my burden if you do not wish to.
    

    Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 18, 2009 7:01:05 PM

    
    

17. "If you really feel so put upon for having to share the financial burden of keeping our society viable, why do you not just establish a homosexual society of your own?"

    You're the one who felt put upon about the theoretical cost of benefits for same-sex couples. I was merely pointing out that gay people have always been financially supporting straight couples and families. So I have little sympathy for straight people who whine about how marriage equality will cost them money. As taxpayers we must pay for all kinds of things we may not personally support. C'est la vie. Pointing out the fact that children are a cost burden on society doesn't mean that I am opposed to heterosexual marriages or families. I only brought it up because, again, you were the one who used financial burden as an argument against marriage equality for gay couples. It's a ridiculous argument.

    "Your clip essentially just states that all persons have the same civil rights. Nowhere was there any specific right cited."
    Hello? What do you think "this basic civil right" is referring to in this case? Read the whole CA decision or the IA decision if you still have doubts.

    You can continue to argue that marriage=procreation and that it is a privilege that should be reserved for heterosexual couples. I don't need to change your mind and you're certainly not going to change mine. (Or anyone else's on Towleroad.) Fortunately, the minds that needed changing where I live--VT--have been changed, and the marriage equality we have in VT, and other states, is paving the way for what will one day be marriage equality at the federal level. Eventually, via the Supreme Court or the legislative process, it will be recognized--as it now is in several states and all of Canada--that it is wrong to deny the right to civil marriage to same-sex couples because of their sexual orientation. Marriage has been evolving for centuries, and this will be part of its ongoing evolution. It has never been a static institution.

    If the right to marriage was based only on a couple's natural ability to procreate, then gay couples would not meet this test. However, heterosexuals have themselves changed the definition of civil marriage--marrying beyond child-bearing years, artificial insemination, couples who adopt rather than produce children themselves, the decision not to have children, etc. So unless those non-procreation-based marriages are banned--which is both wrong and not going to happen--than an argument against same-sex marriage based solely on the natural ability to procreate is a losing one, as courts have recognized. All children deserve equal family protections, whether their parents are gay or straight.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 19, 2009 2:55:16 PM

    
    

18. Ernie's post already provides a clear example of a court citing the right to marriage as a civil right.

    But just to beat a dead horse, how about these two snippets from Loving v VA (1967):

    "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"

    Clear enough?

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 19, 2009 6:02:49 PM

    
    

19. hi, DHOWARD4,

    The evolution of marriage: a timeline.

    Prehistoric - Marriage basically turns strangers into relatives, decreasing tribal tensions.

    3,000 B.C. - Marriage first becomes the way the upper classes conclude business deals and peace treaties, cementing socio-political alliances. Ancient societies experiment with polygamy - and in the case of Egyptian royalty, incest among siblings - to forge strong bonds of civilization.

    500 B.C. - Short-lived experiment in democracy in ancient Greece actually worsens the status of women. Love is honored - but among men only. In marriage, inheritance is more important than emotional bonds: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she has to divorce her husband first.

    Circa A.D. 550 - Emperor Justinian tries to enact a requirement for a wedding license, but the unpopular measure is revoked. (He, meanwhile, managed to get a law passed that allowed him to marry a "penitent" former actress, Theodora ).

    A.D. 800 - Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne outlaws polygamy. Germanic warlords, even baptized Christians, still acquire wives for strategic reasons.

    900 - The Roman Catholic Church tries to require people to obtain the church's blessing of sexual unions, but is reluctant to thereby create millions of "illegitimate" children whose parents don't obey the edict. The church, however, wins a battle by denying royalty the right to divorce on a whim.

    1000 - Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to marry. Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

    1200 - Common folk in Europe now need a marriage license to wed. Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry, either. The lord of one manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants - including the widowed - must marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

    1500-1600 - Protestant moralists elevate the status of marriage over the Catholic gold standard of celibacy, but enact even stricter controls over annulments.

    1769 - The American colonies, basing their regulations on English common law, decree: "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything."

    1800 - Marriage for love, not for property or prestige, is gaining wider acceptance. But women are still completely subjected to male authority.

    1874 - The South Carolina Supreme Court rules that men no longer may beat their wives.

    1891 - England's Parliament passes a law that men cannot imprison their wives (or deny them freedom of movement from the home).

    1900 - By now, every state in America has passed legislation modeled after New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1848, granting married women some control over their property and earnings.

    1920s - The Roaring Twenties bring about the biggest sexual revolution in marriage to-date and divorce rates triple. The Supreme Court upholds people's right to marry someone of a different religion.

    1965 - In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. Seven years later, the right to use contraceptives is extended to unmarried people.

    1967 - Interracial marriage is decriminalized in all states when the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes.

    1968 - The Supreme Court upholds the rights of children of unmarried parents.

    1969 - California adopts the nation's first "no-fault" divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.

    1970s - Most states overturn rules designating a husband "head and master" with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife.

    - Source: Stephanie Coontz, "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage"; National Women's History Project.

    wow, marriage is such a wonderous thing. no wonder heterosexuals want to keep that sacred institution all to themselves. still, there are a number of advantages to it. it is little wonder that so many gays want it.
    

    Posted by: nic | Jul 19, 2009 8:12:33 PM

    
    

20. ERNIE and KEVINVT:

    HEY NIC,(I really did not intend to snub you by mentioning my kids. I am sorry if you felt insulted. I had not even considered that implication.) And what happened to D4? Loved the timeline!

    KEVINVT, Loving v Virginia. you mean the one where the court decided that the STATE had no right to interfere in the marriage of "Mildred Jeter, a black WOMAN and Richard Loving, a white MAN", based on ethnic diversity?

    ERNIE, I have not argued that marriage=procreation. Quite the reverse actually.

    Hawaii has a flawed judgement based on that exact same error.
    Connecticut seems to have about a hundred and thirty pages of mea culpa court action that it will take me a bit to get through. And you should really read the recent override legislation in your own state of Vermont. Basically it appears to protect clergy and such from lawsuits for refusing to perform or recognize homosexual nuptials, restates that a marriage is between one man and one woman, and de-genders the marriage application.

    I will get back to you in a couple of days.

    Try to have a good day! EVERY DAY!

    Posted by: dhoward4 | Jul 20, 2009 8:05:38 AM

    
    

21. "Basically it appears to protect clergy and such from lawsuits for refusing to perform or recognize homosexual nuptials, restates that a marriage is between one man and one woman, and de-genders the marriage application."

    Indeed, the VT bill clarifies that churches will remain free to marry whichever couples they choose. (As was the case before the bill.) Some churches will marry gay couples, some won't--religious marriage should not be confused with civil marriage (from which all legal benefits come), though people mistakenly believe that civil marriage equality will infringe on religious freedoms. In terms of civil marriage, gay couples and straight couples will be entirely equal to the fullest extent possible under VT law. Of course, until DOMA is overturned, gay couples in VT--and in other states where there is marriage equality--will be denied federal benefits. Courts will be addressing this issue in the future.

    You might find this article of interest:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804515860263587.html

    You're free to get back to us, but no need to really, since we've heard the same baseless arguments from other people who seem overly concerned about an issue that really doesn't impact their lives in the slightest. Time to move on to other threads.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 20, 2009 11:53:29 AM

    
    
« Previous

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: