Can Marriage Be Just About ‘Love’?

Illinois’ centrist Republican Senator Mark Kirk was the latest Republican to join the crusade for gay marriage. On Tuesday morning the Senator posted a message on his website that claimed that marriage was all about love. But, is it? Does it make sense to make “love” a determining criteria to define marriage? Logic would not only say no, but would point out the danger in the characterization.

In his short message, Kirk said, “Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back–government has no place in the middle.”

Before we get into this further, I respect Senator Kirk quite a lot. I don’t agree with him a lot. I am a conservative and we are lucky if Kirk is a 70 percenter on conservative issues.

But the thing about Mark Kirk is there is no wondering where he stands. Kirk is not one of those pols who drifts from issue to issue careening from one ideological side to another every time the political winds blow. Kirk has pretty much stayed steady in his beliefs for his whole political career. You can trust Mark Kirk to say what he means and stick to it far more often than most pols.

And, let’s face it. He’s from Illinois, the land just to the left of Stalingrad.

So, I am not criticizing him as a flip flopper here, necessarily. Kirk is not the issue. But what he said is a leading excuse that supporters of gay marriage often use to “prove” they are on the right side of the issue. After all, who could be against love?

Well, we all should be, at least where it concerns a logical, law-based definition of marriage.

You see, marriage cannot be merely about “love.” If it is, then there can be no logical limit on what could constitute a “marriage.”

The fact is, Polyamorists, polygamists, homosexuals, even pedophiles claim that their relationships are all about “love.”

The problem is that “love” can’t be made a basis for law. Put it this way, if we somehow start making marriage only about love, then what happens when one side of a couple in a divorce case still says they love the other? Do we deny the divorce because there is “love” present?

Why not? Isn’t “love” the important factor?

You may reply to this saying, “Ah, but one doesn’t love so it’s off.” OK, then how do we prove that? How do we prove “love” well enough to satisfy law? Is it just because someone says so?? OK, so where else in law is something made legal just because someone “says so” about it? What other point in law is just a “feeling” and not grounded in something concrete like tax law, social theory, tradition, or natural rights?

Traditional marriage is useful to society for several reasons, none of which exist in homosexual marriage. It sets up the optimal situation for raising kids (studies still show that male-female parents are the best atmosphere with which to raise kids), for one. This is for the betterment of society for two reasons. It gives us better, more stable new citizens and it perpetuates our society. The nuclear family is still the optimal building bricks of our social order.

Another thing that traditional marriage has always been for is the protection of the female members of our society. Yes, that’s right it is for the protection of the so-called “weaker sex.”

Men marrying, staying monogamous, and protecting their family stabilizes society and gives women the capability to be more than just a constantly sought after sex object.

This is not a popular idea, granted, but it is a logical and necessary ideal. And gay “marriage” can do neither of these important things for the stability of society.

Love is not a basis for societal stability. Why? Because if no responsibility like that above–i.e. the protection of women and the raising of children–is introduced into the mix, love is unsustainable. It is transitory, ephemeral, and will flit from one to the next with no sensible reason not to. Remember, it’s about “love” so if love might be waning, why stay in the marriage? Love is more important if we accept Kirk’s definition.

All that is reason enough to stand against destroying traditional marriage in favor of a scheme that has no logical definition nor has any limits and will change decade by decade with the whims of popular culture.

#BENGHAZI: The Sound Of Silence
NBC's Chuck Todd: Is Gay Marriage Issue a Sign the Economy is Coming Back?
  • http://twitter.com/ClaytonCraddock Clayton Craddock

    “Love is not a basis for societal stability. Why? Because if no responsibility like that above–i.e. the protection of women and the raising of children–is introduced into the mix, love is unsustainable.” – AMEN!!!!!

    • JWH

      Hello, Clayton? The Middle Ages called, and they’d like their worldview back.

    • fustian24

      If marriage was about love only, society really wouldn’t care much either way.

      But it’s not really about love.

      The reason society has a dog in this fight is that they care very much about a healthy, properly-sized, and responsible next generation.

      Gay couples look like roommates to us. Unless we know you personally, nobody cares and society has zero reason to grant you marriage. Stay together, break up, get back together…it’s all the same to us.

      But when young, straight couples look at marriage and say “whatever…”, we’re in big trouble.

      I’m told there are legitimate issues gay couples have with hospital visitation rights, insurance and various other matters. These do not need marriage to solve.

      Civilization is always a giant pyramid scheme. It requires a next generation as large or preferably slightly larger than the current one to continue. Gay activists mess with our collective notion of marriage at our peril.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Except gays by and large, either, men or women are probably as good, if not better at protecting women and the raising of children than many hetrosexual men or women! At least, I haven’t seen any statistics to the contrary.

    • jim_m

      Enter the moron with a stupid statement and nothing but ideology to support it. I love how he makes the immediate assertion that he hasn’t seen any data to refute his claim. He hasn’t seen any to back it up either.

      The one making the unusual claim is the one required to produce the proof.

      • jim_m

        Stevie replies in a comment that awaits modertation that Warner made a stupid statement first. My retort is as follows:

        Seriously? Your defense of your moronic statement as that someone else made a statement you consider equally idiotic. I take it that your mother never told you about not jumping off of bridges just because other people thought it was a fun thing to do?

        As to your accusation about gun owners, you might take a look at the fact that members of Bloomberg’s fascist, Mayors Against Illegal Guns are 45 times more likely to commit a crime than a Florida CCW permit holder. And frequently with a gun at that!

        What I would like to know is why you claim to be data and science driven in your views when you are so totally ignorant of data and science?

        You make decisions about the world, not based on observed facts, but based on what your ideology tells you things should be. You then judge people based on this stream of ignorance and bigotry. The problem is that in almost every case reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be.

        You’re pathetic. The fact that you constantly slander and libel people accusing them of criminality while the people you defend so strongly are the real criminals is repugnant.

    • Vagabond661

      I have not seen any statistics that tell me God doesn’t exist either.

      • Guest

        believe me it is 100%, since you will never ever have one iota of scientific proof that he exists

        • Vagabond661

          What is the scientific proof that God doesn’t exist?

          • Guest

            “Matter is neither created nor destroyed.”

          • Vagabond661

            And that proves what?

          • fustian24

            My understanding is that no religion can be proven.

            I admit to finding that very troubling. When you consider how different are the world’s religions, you realize they cannot all be right. This means that large numbers of people can base their whole lives on a fiction. And that people regularly fight and die over nothing more than a story.

            Personally I do not believe I am smart enough to know what the organizing principle of the universe is. Especially without proof.

            I have known many people that feel quite differently about this. As a young man I tried to pull it off, but I just couldn’t.

          • Vagabond661

            This may be simplistic but if one is a God of everything, then He would need to be everything to every people. It’s not His fault if we chose to worship Him in the wrong way. It’s free will.

    • fustian24

      Guys named “Crickmore” are probably as dense if not more dense than an ingrown lychee nut.

      At least I haven’t seen any statistics to the contrary.

  • Porkopolis
    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      To discriminate is to differentiate. Discrimination is only a bad thing when it is based solely on trivial and superficial issues as “race” and “ethnicity.”

  • JWH

    Marriage isn’t about love. It’s about property and contracts. That’s all …

    • herddog505

      I’ll have to tell my wife this. While I’m in my car. With the engine started. And she’s in the next county.

      • Commander_Chico

        She already knows marriage is about property and contracts. All women do. Read the stories about sweet wives becoming ruthless takers when they decide they are unhappy in the marriage. If you object to that, google NAWALT and read some of the links that pop up.

        But the “all” only applies to marriage’s relation with the state, for which it is just another form of contract to be enforced, similar to a business partnership.

        For individuals, marriage is what you want it to be.

      • JWH

        You know what I mean, Herd. The law is utterly indifferent as to whether you and Mrs. Herddog love each other.

        • herddog505

          Just teasing. Yes: the law doesn’t care.

  • herddog505

    Good heavens, the silliness is just brimming over here:

    Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back–government has no place in the middle.”

    Unless you’re a bigamist, a pedophile, abandon your spouse because – it’s MAGIC! – you’ve found that you love somebody else, etc. And, of course, government being involved is pretty damned handy when it comes to legal rights and recognition, inheritance, and all the other things that the proponents of gay marriage want the government to grant to them.

    WTH[T]raditional marriage has always been for is the protection of the female members of our society. Yes, that’s right it is for the protection of the so-called “weaker sex.”

    Ask a battered wife or abused children if this is so. Go to certain parts of the world where wives are treated little better than cattle and see if this is so. Go to other places in the world where marriages are arranged and dowries are paid and see if this is so. I suggest that marriage as “a match made in heaven” is a fairly recent concept limited more or less to the “first world” and is made possible because a widespread surplus of wealth makes it possible to marry NOT because the man is a good provider or because the woman is likely to bring up sturdy children but rather because they “love” each other (which may last as little as a few days, judging by the antics of certain celebrities).

    SteveCrickmore75Except gays by and large, either, men or women are probably as good, if not better at protecting women and the raising of children than many hetrosexual men or women! At least, I haven’t seen any statistics to the contrary.

    Well, I’m sold. There are no statistics THAT YOU KNOW OF to indicate that gay people are WORSE than straight people at protecting women or raising children, so I guess that means that gay people MUST be at least as good (and probably better) at it.

    Paging Professor Mark Regnerus…*

    There’s also the religious argument. While it provides an excellent reason for why individual Christians (and, I believe, Jews and Muslims) ought not engage in gay marriage, it does NOT provide a good reason why our law ought to forbid it. If we relied on the Bible to form our laws, I’d be under the jail for taking the Lord’s Name in vain, skipping church waaaaay to often, being a smart*ss to my mother, eating pork, and probably a lot of other things.

    With regard to children, I suggest that, while it may be that children with gay parents might have more problems than children with “straight” parents (“Little Johnny’s daddies are faggots! HAW HAW HAW!”), I can’t see that they would have any more problems than, say, children whose parents are divorced, unmarried, serially remarried, etc., or even those whose parents are more wedded to their careers than to their families.

    For myself, though I don’t swing that way, I can’t see any good reason to forbid gay marriage: two competent adults really ought to have the right to engage in any sort of contract or relationship that they choose so long as it doesn’t harm somebody else, and the government ought to recognize and uphold those contracts.

    ====

    (*) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html

    • warnertoddhuston

      “Ask a battered wife or abused children if this is so.”
      Sorry but that is a stupid argument. You can’t throw out the good because of the few bad apples. Following your “logic” NOTHING in human experience is worth saving because bad things happen.

      • Brucehenry

        Except that this point is not the entirety of the argument, simply a statement made in rebuttal of your silly assertion that marriage — modern, 21st Century marriage — is and ought to be about the protection of the “weaker sex.”

      • herddog505

        No, it’s not throwing out the baby with the bath water, but rather an argument against the idea that straight marriage and only straight marriage should be allowed because it’s about protecting the weak when this is plainly not so, at least not universally. Further, I make no doubt that many gay spouses / parents would be just as devoted to protecting their weaker spouses* and children and any straight husband / father.

        ===

        (*) As an aside, my own mother has always been about as weak and helpless as a crocodile.

        • JWH

          On a related note, I do think there ought to be some form of a “no-backsies” rule in effect. That is, if a state declares same-sex marriage legal, and a bunch of gay folk get hitched, the state shouldn’t be able to nullify those marriages after the fact.

          • herddog505

            Agreed.

          • $47353571

            So it sounds like your against same sex marriage…but if they do allow it you don’t think they should ever be able to separate?

          • JWH

            No, Rik. You are incorrect.

          • $47353571

            Clarify?

          • JWH

            I think I was pretty clear above, but here goes. Let’s say that a state legalizes same-sex marriage. That means that a same-sex couple can marry and gets all the benefits related to marriage. My belief is that once a state has allowed a couple to gain those benefits, it should not be able to effectively annul their civil marriage and take those benefits away.

          • fustian24

            Gay couples look like roommates to society. What business is it of ours and why should we grant gay couples the benefits of marriage? Makes no sense. We’ve got no dog in this fight.

          • Brucehenry

            Because they are citizens entitled to equal protection of the laws.

          • fustian24

            They do have equal protection. All gay people are free to marry those of the opposite sex.

            Your argument applies to bestiality, sexual predators, and polygamists. Don’t they have your version of equal protection?

            And if you want veterans benefits you need to join the armed forces first.

            Equal protection doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          • Brucehenry

            Polygamists, maybe, if it can be demonstrated they are not men exploiting children. The others you mention, not so much, as dogs, sheep, and minors cannot give informed consent.

            But you knew that, and also know such comparisons are specious on their face, as is the silly notion that having the right to marry someone with whom one is incompatible is a right worth having.

            Since we’re making outlandish comparisons, why don’t we use your “next generation” argument to outlaw childless marriages? Or to outlaw the marriage of anyone over 55? Or the “stability of society” argument to outlaw divorce, or at least make it much more difficult?

            Where equal protection comes into play is the conflict between an opposite sex couple being allowed all the privileges, benefits, tax exemptions, etc of marriage while a same sex couple is denied the same. And yes, equal protection means exactly what I think it means.

          • herddog505

            Agreed.

          • fustian24

            You claimed gay people to have some sort of equal protection argument about marriage. Apparently, for some reason, gay people are to be treated like straight people. But you gave no reason for why. Your argument seems to be no more than that it would be somehow unjust to deny the state of marriage to other groups than straight people.

            But that’s ridiculous.

            As you point out, we could attempt to penalize straight couples that do not create children. But there is almost no way of knowing whether they will create children in the future. They may not know themselves. Old people can parent children to their great surprise and even those that thought they had tubes tied have been surprised. For right or for wrong, it has been our custom to require potential breeding pairs to marry and we continue to recognize them as married whether they have created children yet, or not.

            As for outlawing divorce, that would potentially have the opposite effect than the one desired. Couples that have grown apart are less likely to have children and those that do have children and hate each other are more apt to be bad parents than if they remarry someone they are more compatible with. Marriage needs to be hard to get out of, but not impossible.

            And, if equal protection meant what you think it means, there could not be affirmative action, nor Title IX.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said, gays should be treated “like straight people,” because, like straight people, they are citizens entitled to equal protection under the law.

            Only one who willfully misunderstands could claim that Title IX is somehow inconsistent with equal protection. I won’t even bother to address AA, but Title IX is on its face an attempt to EXTEND equal protection. In what way does Title IX deny equal protection to anyone?

          • fustian24

            I’m a man and I want the benefits of Title IX.

            Equal protection under the law as you interpret it is all I’m asking for. Why should women get benefits that men don’t just because they are women? Men are citizens entitled to equal protection under the law.

            Hey, why can’t felons vote?

            Why can’t sex offenders live near schools or adopt young children? Are they not citizens entitled to equal protection?

            You guys seem to imply that equal protection means that all groups are equal all the time. Or more specifically, that groups you favor are entitled to benefits they want.

            Simply not true.

          • Brucehenry

            What are the benefits of Title IX that you are being denied, genius?

            Ever hear of something called Reductio ad Absurdum? Don’t be stupid.

          • fustian24

            I bring up Title IX because I was directly affected. Back when I was in school, my tennis team was ended so that various women’s sports could have that funding.

            I’d like it back.

            My point is this. We allow various groups to have special standing under the law. Always have.

            Women and black people are only some of them. Veterans are another. Children another. Felons another.

            We treat veterans just the same as other people except that they get some benefits that those of us who are not veterans do not get. To my knowledge there are no equal protection arguments interfering with that or trying to end it.

            In the same way, men and women are encouraged to form stable households in the hope that they raise responsible children.

            Gay people that want to room together are not part of this group. The state has no interest here either way. It should simply be a private matter. In the same way that we afford veterans certain benefits we afford straight couples certain benefits. Being gay does not qualify you for either.

            What is your rule for determining which groups get equal protection under the law and which don’t?

            Gay already people have the right to marry persons of the opposite sex. That is equal protection.

            What you are advocating is something different.

          • fustian24

            And amusingly, you don’t understand Reductio ad Absurdum either.

            Because I do understand it and have been happily applying it to your argument.

            I believe you mistakenly thought Reductio ad Absurdum is one of the logical fallacies when instead it is a technique used to point out that someone’s principle is not sound because when applied to extreme cases, it is clearly wrong.

            Hopefully, you are beginning to see this about your position.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you are right about reductio ad absurdum, it is a technique, not a fallacy. The problem is you compare apples to oranges, because, as I said, sheep and minors can’t consent. So reductio ad absurdum doesn’t apply here, really, because your examples are specious.

            And it’s an interesting comparison, veterans to married couples, one that I hadn’t seen offered before. I must admit it seems to have some merit. I’ll have to consider it.

            EDIT: Wait a minute, we can encourage child rearing without banning gay marriage. We already do, with various tax credits and funding of public education.

            “Gay people already have the right to marry persons of the opposite sex. That is equal protection.” Ummm, no.

            Straight people have the right to marry anyone they wish to (if that other person agrees) for any reason — because of “love,” to procreate, for financial reasons, for companionship in old age, whatever. Gay people do not have that right currently. That is NOT equal protection.

            As to Title IX, I’m willing to bet that the funding for your tennis team went to women’s sports that had not been funded previously. In other words, you want your PRIVILEGE back. The funding for your tennis team, the hell with the women athletes, right?

          • fustian24

            As for Title IX, I never said that I didn’t understand the motivation behind it. My point was that our legal system allows for all kinds of groups for which the principle “equal protection” is generally not applied.

            Interestingly, we already had a women’t tennis team. And it continued on. Just the men’s team was trashed.

            You also say that “Straight people have the right to marry anyone they wish to”, but that isn’t true. They cannot marry people of the same sex either. They can’t marry dead people. They can’t marry 5 year olds, and they probably can’t marry siblings (I think).

            As I hope you are aware, the Equal Protection Clause applies to states and its purpose was to prevent laws that were written specifically by various states to deny black people common rights.

            But a literal reading of the Clause leads many people to assume that our government must treat every single person the same no matter the circumstances.

            But this has never been true.

            If you take the Equal Protection Clause literally, you cannot allow affirmative action, you cannot allow Title IX, and those vets are out of luck on the GI Bill.

            When you say that the state should allow gay people to get married because of equal protection, one has to ask: why them and not other groups? You’ve never answered that question at all. Nobody has. If you ask gay marriage supporters they get emotional. They talk about issues with gay acceptance, they talk vaguely about rights, but never answer the question: why should society grant these privileges we have afforded straight couples?

            And why that group and why not others? Why shouldn’t roommates get the tax benefits of married couples. Why do only married people get them? Roommates are citizens. It’s not fair. How about motorcycle clubs, or gardening groups?

            As I understand your argument, shouldn’t equal protection allow all groups these benefits that have been denied them in the past just because they weren’t married?

            We give marriage benefits to straight couples because society has an interest in supporting families. We have no interest in roommates, nor motorcycle clubs.

            Nor gay couples.

          • fustian24

            As for Title IX, I never said that I didn’t understand the motivation behind it. My point was that our legal system allows for all kinds of groups for which the principle “equal protection” is generally not applied.

            Interestingly, we already had a women’t tennis team. And it continued on. Just the men’s team was trashed.

            You also say that “Straight people have the right to marry anyone they wish to”, but that isn’t true. They cannot marry people of the same sex either. They can’t marry dead people. They can’t marry 5 year olds, and they probably can’t marry siblings (I think).

            As I hope you are aware, the Equal Protection Clause applies to states and its purpose was to prevent laws that were written specifically by various states to deny black people common rights.

            But a literal reading of the Clause leads many people to assume that our government must treat every single person the same no matter the circumstances.

            But this has never been true.

            If you take the Equal Protection Clause literally, you cannot allow affirmative action, you cannot allow Title IX, and those vets are out of luck on the GI Bill.

            When you say that the state should allow gay people to get married because of equal protection, one has to ask: why them and not other groups? You’ve never answered that question at all. Nobody has. If you ask gay marriage supporters they get emotional. They talk about issues with gay acceptance, they talk vaguely about rights, but never answer the question: why should society grant these privileges we have afforded straight couples?

            And why that group and why not others? Why shouldn’t roommates get the tax benefits of married couples. Why do only married people get them? Roommates are citizens. It’s not fair. How about motorcycle clubs, or gardening groups?

            As I understand your argument, shouldn’t equal protection allow all groups these benefits that have been denied them in the past just because they weren’t married?

            We give marriage benefits to straight couples because society has an interest in supporting families. We have no interest in roommates, nor motorcycle clubs.

            Nor gay couples.

          • Brucehenry

            When motorcycle clubs, roommates, and gardening groups start asking to get married we can consider whether denying them permission constitutes a denial of equal protection. Until that time we can assume your silly examples are as specious and as time-wasting as you already know them to be. As are your examples of who straight people can’t marry.

            Straight people can’t marry dead people or 5 year olds because, like sheep, dead people and 5 year olds cannot give informed consent. Please stop with the absurdity.

            Title IX: the net result of the imposition of Title IX at your school, I’ll wager, is that women’s sports programs as a whole approached parity with men’s sports programs. Equal protection, manifest.

          • fustian24

            Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, you’re missing the point.

            Why should we grant to gay people benefits we give to straight couples?

            Why?

            All you’ve said so far is because they are a group that can’t get married now.

            So what?

            And you really need to study up on Reductio Ad Absurdum. As I continue to point out (and you continue to not understand), being a member of a group that can’t do something now is not a reason to allow it in future. You need to give us more of a reason.

            But there isn’t one.

            All you’ve got is that you think we should do it.

            Or you wave around “equal protection” with no apparent understanding of what that does and does not entail.

            Let’s try one last time: why do you think equal protection applies to gays that want to get married, but not to men that want Title IX benefits?

            And here’s some help. You COULD be consistent if you take some fairly aggressive positions on equal rights. You could say that you really do believe in equal protection in all cases. You believe men should be allowed to use ladies restrooms, you believe that veterans should get no special privileges and you believe that the rich should pay the same amount in taxes as the poor. You believe that TItle IX shouldn’t be allowed and that affirmative action and all other preferences should be abolished. This is simply required for us to literally all be equal before the law.

            Sure it’s ridiculous, but at least you would be applying the principle of equal protection consistently.

            But.

            If you agree that TItle IX was needed, if you think veterans should get benefits the rest of us don’t, if you are down with affirmative action, and if you believe women should be able to have their own restrooms, then you agree that the law allows different treatment to various groups without violating the concept of equal protection.

            Are you following this?

            In this case you need to articulate why straight couples are not like veterans to the concept of equal protection.

          • Brucehenry

            More absurdity, and it’s getting tiresome.

            First, there is no such thing as Title IX benefits. Title IX says that there will be equal funding of men’s and women’s sports programs at schools that get federal funding, as I understand it. It offers equal protection — equal funding — to women’s sports programs that had been unfunded or underfunded in comparison with their male counterparts. Title IX doesn’t confer benefits on one group that it denies to another.

            It’s not a matter of “granting” rights and benefits to gay couples that we “give” to straight couples. It’s a matter of DENYING rights and benefits to a minority that the majority enjoys as a God given right.

            You can go on and on talking about women’s restrooms and taxes for rich people all you want. It’s obfuscation, no more no less. Sophistry to justify the denial of the right to marry to a group of citizens because you find them icky.

          • fustian24

            You mistake me.

            I don’t find gay people icky at all. I wish them all the best and have no animus whatsoever. Some of my best friends and all that.

            Although personally, I find men so unattractive that I don’t understand why women aren’t all gay. Not that I’m complaining.

            As for the rest, I figure either you just really don’t get it, or you simply cannot address my issues.

            Either way, sorry!

          • Brucehenry

            You may personally have no anti-gay animus, but others who do are using the same absurd and specious arguments.

            I’ve addressed the issues you’ve raised that deserve addressing, and dismissed those that deserve dismissing. It’s not my fault that you refuse to acknowledge it. Saying over and over “you haven’t addressed it” does not make it so.

            And there are still no such things as “Title IX benefits.”

          • fustian24

            For the most part, only men’s football and basketball actually earn any money in collegiate sport. Oh, you’ll find a popular baseball team here and there, but the rest are fairly marginal financially.

            While Title IX was only supposed to ensure that women that wanted to compete should have the same opportunity as men, they went further than that and essentially tried to prime the pump by taking from the rich (boys) and giving to the poor (girls).

            When Title IX came along all of the male athletes in financially marginal sports pretty much took it in the shorts. At that time there was a huge benefit to being female.

            That’s what I meant by benefits. It may be that things have reached a steady state by now. I doubt it but am not interested enough to research the topic.

            As for the rest, you tell yourself whatever you need to so that you’ll feel better.

          • Scalia

            In addition, as I’ve pointed out in another thread, once our friends concede that a fundamental redefinition of the word marraige is acceptable, they cannot logically restrict their redefinition to consent. There is no logical defense against defining marriage as a unilateral affirmation on the basis of equal protection. Marriage is thus logically reduced to a meaningless symbol string–if it means everything, then it means nothing.

          • Scalia

            In addition, as I’ve pointed out in another thread, once our friends concede that a fundamental redefinition of the word marraige is acceptable, they cannot logically restrict their redefinition to consent. There is no logical defense against defining marriage as a unilateral affirmation on the basis of equal protection. Marriage is thus logically reduced to a meaningless symbol string–if it means everything, then it means nothing.

          • fustian24

            I’m already married, but, while we’re redefining terms under equal protection, I might ADOPT my guitars for the tax credits. Why should only large families get those? I have rights!

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ayup.

          • JWH

            Not going to comment on bestiality and sexual predators, as those relationships do not involve consenting adult humans all around.

            But polygamists … as far as I’m concerned, if they want the right to practice polygamy, they are certainly free to lobby their state legislatures.

          • $47353571

            Clarify?

        • warnertoddhuston

          Sorry, but your “clarification:” is not an argument at all. The only thing you are doing is making the perfect the enemy of the good. (i.e., if it isn’t perfect it cannot be good)

          • herddog505

            I get the idea that there’s some idea that allowing gay marriage means that – somehow – straight marriage is over. Nothing is being thrown out; those who are married still will be; those who wish to still we be able to.

          • warnertoddhuston

            So, being reduced to meaninglessness isn’t “over” to you?

          • Brucehenry

            Most US wedding ceremonies include the phrase “till death do us part” or the equivalent, yet the law makes divorce as easy as pie. Seems to me that that comes closer to making marriage “meaningless” than allowing gays to marry would.

          • http://www.harlemghost.blogspot.com/ HarlemGhost

            get divorced and tell us how easy that pie was to eat …

          • herddog505

            My marriage won’t be meaningless.

          • jim_m

            Even a failed marriage isn’t meaningless.

          • jim_m

            Even a failed marriage isn’t meaningless.

          • JWH

            Meaningless? Will opposite-sex couples suddenly lose the ability to file their income taxes jointly? Will members of opposite-sex couples suddenly be unable to make medical decisions for each other? If you marry somebody from a foreign country, will that person suddenly be able to apply for derivative immigration status because gay men can suddenly get married?

            Will opposite-sex married couples no longer be entitle to tenancy in the entirety in their properties? Will opposite-sex couples suddenly lose custody of their children?

            As far as law and rights go, a heterosexual marriage is just as valuable and meaningful the day after gays can marry as it is on the day before gays are allowed to marry. And if after gays are allowed to marry, a particular couple finds that their marriage no longer has meaning … then I submit the problem lies with that particular couple.

          • http://www.harlemghost.blogspot.com/ HarlemGhost

            he, what about the love … isn’t it all about the love between gay couples ? wait, do they need to marry to continue to love each other ? oh, wait … no they don’t … so if its not about love then what do they want ? the same legal rights ? like they get from civil unions ? No, they reject that … so what is it about ?

          • http://www.harlemghost.blogspot.com/ HarlemGhost

            no it means that any arrangement needs to be allowed and THEN marriage is over …

  • Par4Course

    With out of control government growth, trillion dollar annual deficit spending, a stagnant economy, a shrinking work force, and an increasing percentage of the population living off government programs, we have a lot of problems that are real threats to our survival. Gay marriage is not such a threat.

    The traditional-biblical view is that marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Except that polygamy dates back to the Book of Genesis, so it’s not true that “marriage has always been between one man and one woman.”

    Even if children on average fare better when raised by a father and mother rather than by two mommies or two daddies, there are certainly many exceptions both ways. And a lot of male-female marriages have been marred by wife beating and child abuse, which marriage does not prevent.

    Same-sex marriage in no way affects my traditional marriage. In fact, husbands and wives who are unfaithful or abusive do a lot more to harm “the institution of marriage” than does a stable gay marriage.

    The real social problem today is the lack of marriage, as we see the number of children born out of wedlock rising yearly, especially the black and Hispanic population. We should be promoting marriage rather than insisting that it must always be a man-woman pairing.

    • herddog505

      Par4CourseWe should be promoting marriage rather than insisting that it must always be a man-woman pairing.

      I am entirely in agreement. It strikes me that children in broken homes and children borne to unwed mothers are a much bigger problem than whether or not a relative handful of gay people get hitched.

      • $47353571

        To add to this ….studies are very mixed as to whether being raised in a homosexual household is detrimental to a child. Most of the studies that show that it is detrimental are in regards to foster children who come from a broken home and are placed in a home with two homosexual partners. Of course that’s going to be confusing to the child. But considering their upbringing its just another confusing aspect of the child’s life, and hard to say whether their initial upbringing, the subsequent removal from home or the placement with a same sex couple that caused the “detrimental” aspects measured.
        Plenty of studies actually demonstrate that their are no ill effects from being raised over the long haul in a same sex home.

        Considering how many unwanted, abandoned, or simply adoptable children there are in the world compared to the relatively small number of people looking to adopt only a fool would say a child is better off with no home than a same sex home.

        And as for the authors “protecting the weaker sex” argument. Complete nonsense. That suggests that homosexuals don’t love each other enough to have an invested interest in protecting one another, or have a desire to care for a child, which simply isn’t true. In fact considering how society has always turned their backs on them, they’ve done a much better job than heteros in protecting and lifting each other. The simple argument is there are plenty of men that abuse their wives, which is also true. The percentage of children that witness domestic violence is five times the rate of asthma in children which is the most common childhood illness (10% of children have asthma. Do the math). Witnessing domestic violence causes children to develop with a mentality of uncertainty and helplessness that often manifests itself later in aggression, addictions, and depression. Not exactly the definition of protecting your marriage or family in the present or leaving a good legacy for the future…and that accounts for around 40- 50% of children in America. In other words his naive idealistic view of marriage (which admittedly is biblical and would be better) isn’t happening and its hard to make the “protect the sanctity of marriage” argument when we’re doing nothing to protect it aside from telling others same sex couples that “love” isn’t enough to qualify someone to have a piece of that sanctity in marriage.

      • http://www.harlemghost.blogspot.com/ HarlemGhost

        the same folks that dismissed the negative effects of single motherhood and broken homes are saying the same thing about gay marriage …

        • herddog505

          1. If we accept that homosexuals are a relatively tiny fraction of the population (which I do, various sitcoms aside where every other character is gay), then this is not much of a problem even if gays are ALL terrible parents;

          2. Shall we then outlaw single motherhood and divorce? While I’m not in favor of it, it makes more sense than fretting over whether Joe and Bob or Sally and Jane can be legally hitched.

          • JWH

            1. If we accept that homosexuals are a relatively tiny fraction of the population (which I do, various sitcoms aside where every other character is gay), then this is not much of a problem even if gays are ALL terrible parents;

            Does this mean we allow same-sex marriage, but only if the participants agree not to have wacky adventures?:

          • herddog505

            Oh, if it would stop my wife watching some of those shows (and Househunters; how I DESPISE that. “WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ‘A LITTLE SMALL”???? The CLOSET is bigger than my whole house!!!”), I’d agree to letting people marry their alarm clocks.

  • Commander_Chico

    I saw this t-shirt for sale, has a point of view:

    • herddog505

      Cynical but, for some women, entirely true.

      What else is the whole “sugardaddy” thing about than $$$.

      http://www.seekingarrangement.com/

      http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/

      http://www.sugarsugar.com/

      Etc.

      • fustian24

        I’ll start being upset about women’s attraction to powerful men, when we stop being attracted to pretty girls.

        • herddog505

          Speaking personally, when *I* stop being attracted to pretty girls, call the coroner ‘cuz it’s a safe bet that I’m dead.

          • JWH

            Speaking personally, when *I* stop being attracted to pretty girls, call the coroner ‘cuz it’s a safe bet that I’m dead.

            Calling Mrs. HerdDog …

          • herddog505

            Oh, she knows. Remarkably little sense of humor in this regard…

        • Commander_Chico

          No reason to be upset, you just have to understand them and then play them like a piano.

      • Brucehenry

        Wow, that’s creepy.

        • herddog505

          Gotta wonder what their fathers think of it. Seems like prostitution to me.

          • Brucehenry

            Kind of like the old punchline, “Well, we’ve already established what you are, now we’re quibbling over the price.”

      • Commander_Chico

        Funny you mentioned that, I was in a pub reading the Daily Mail a few days ago and came across this story:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299952/Conman-stole-180-000-string-women-met-Sugar-Daddies-dating-website.html

        Bogus sugar daddy claimed to be oligarch’s ex-SAS pal as he fleeced professional women of thousands after meeting them on dating websites

        Jonathan Price told his unsuspecting victims he was a multi-millionaire

        Also claimed he was suffering from cancer, Teesside Crown Court hears

        Lied that he served in the SAS, had property overseas and owned boats

        Described as ‘callous’ man with ‘deception deeply engrained in his mind’

        The guy met his targets on sugardaddies.com and fleeced them. Banged them too, I’m sure.

        Justice, I say.

        • fustian24

          Just a little bitter, are we?

          • Commander_Chico

            Nope, just aware of reality.

  • Commander_Chico

    I saw this t-shirt for sale, has a point of view:

  • Constitution First

    A) This is a diversion from far more pressing issues. Thank you, presstitutes.

    B) The blessing of government, is up to the government. The blessing of the church is up to the church. We already have law declaring the twain shall not meet.

    Ironic, given it is the Liberals that usually screech this point the loudest.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE