Instead, I found some biased reporting focusing on how money bought Prop 8 (which happens to be a correlation, not a causation). If a proposition outlawing guns in CA had passed, and it had been supported by a large marketing campaign, you would have crowed about the great victory for the state.

I guess I’ll just stay away for another few months.

State-sanctioned marriage is a form of discrimination. It’s time for the state to get out of the marriage business and leave it to church. But instead of fighting the marriage discrimination, some of the discriminated ( viz. the gay lobby) decided to demand admission to the privileged class.

It’s interesting that the queer elites, comfortably ensconced in NY or SF, think that marriage is a higher priority that dealing with the bigotry that poorer gays, who live in constant fear of being exposed, have to face every day. But the gay leaders’ desire for social recognition have trumped all of that.

The genius idea of gay marriage has given Rove and his ilk the ammunition they needed in 2004.

Screw marriage.

Yes, thank you, I agree. But this discussion is not about polygamy, as I stated. Why do you insist on bringing up these red herrings?

” I discuss them only to point out the incompetence of your reasoning and the bigotry and prejudice you display in your stunning hypocrisy.”

Ah, I see, when you cannot refute the central argument of your opponent, attack the opponent. Very good, but you need to try again.

“But even accepting your position for the sake of argument, are you seriously proposing that human rights are subject to biological determinism?”

Don’t put words in my mouth, or set up your straw man again. This discussion is about marriage, and allowing gays to partake in that institution. Period, end of story.

“Precisely the opposite, in fact. The point is that by Islamic tradition — forgive me, the incorruptible word of Allah — those practices are not child molestation. That you believe otherwise demonstrates incontrovertibly that you subscribe to the same Christian-based bigotry and prejudice against differing cultural traditions that you decry in all but the single exception of gay marriage. ”

No, this shows that this discussion is about gay marriage, and not your red herrings. Get back to the subject and tell me why gays should not be allowed to marry.

“…acceptance of gay marriage is … spotty, shall we say?”

Sure it is, and we’ll see that slowly change as the under 30 crowd that voted by over 60% in that election against Prop 8 get older, and the older bigoted crowd dies off. I never said it wasn’t spotty.

“You want to bet that’s not more likely to succeed than a 14th-based challenge is?”

Not at issue in this discussion. If that’s the way you feel, go ahead, start the ball rolling. Once the new President gets the chance to appoint a couple of less conservative and bigoted Supreme Court Justices, someone WILL challenge it, and it will be overturned.

Wanna bet on which one happens first?

Agreed. And as polygamy has been — and is now! — practiced by virtually all non-Christian traditions throughout the world, outlawing polygamy is also using Christian religious values “to force a multi-cultural population into adhering to values thy [sic] do not believe in”, ’tis it not?

“So much for your Christian traditions!”

Oh, they’re not _my_ Christian traditions, friend. Very, very, far from it, in fact; my gods don’t get nailed to sticks. I discuss them only to point out the incompetence of your reasoning and the bigotry and prejudice you display in your stunning hypocrisy.

“This issue is not about behaviors that are not genetically based, as homosexuality is.”

Actually, the latest research is that it’s no such thing, I understand; sexual orientation is almost completely determined by testosterone exposure levels during gestation. But even accepting your position for the sake of argument, are you seriously proposing that human rights are subject to biological determinism? What if it is proven — as some have alleged, but without convincing evidence to date — that pedophilia is also determined by genetics? That would make it alright by your alleged logic, would it?

“I couldn’t care less about the child molestation practices of Muhammed, that has squat to do with this debate.”

Precisely the opposite, in fact. The point is that by Islamic tradition — forgive me, the incorruptible word of Allah — those practices are not child molestation. That you believe otherwise demonstrates incontrovertibly that you subscribe to the same Christian-based bigotry and prejudice against differing cultural traditions that you decry in all but the single exception of gay marriage. This shows that you are hypocritical and ignorant, and until you accept that other contraventions of Christian mores have just as much right to be rejected as the particular one you champion, your opinion is worthless.

“Fact is, Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment, and will eventually be overturned on that basis.”

That would seem to be a logical development from its use to eliminate miscengation law, indeed. However, I note with interest from Wikipedia that the Defense of Marriage Act which President Clinton signed in 1996 explicitly states that gay marriages are of no federal effect, and it passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House; and throughout the nation, acceptance of gay marriage is … spotty, shall we say?

“Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.”

Let me count that up … why, yes, as a matter of fact, I believe that works out to quite enough support to rather more than comfortably pass a Constitutional amendment under the Article V rules elevating the DOMA text from a mere federal law to Constitutional status. You want to bet that’s not more likely to succeed than a 14th-based challenge is? Well if you do … I’ll certainly extend you long odds. Very long odds indeed, actually!

Yeah, Christian. Not all Americans now are Christian, which is why using Christian traditions is wrong. With a changing population, changing traditions is usually something that changes too. Religious values are not the basis for our legal system, and should not be used to force a multi-cultural population into adhering to values thy do not believe in. Besides, there are any number of Christian denominations in California that opposed Prop 8 and support gay marriage. So much for your Christian traditions!

No, just CALLING it a slippery slope may not make it so, but the fact that those issues are NOT genetically based behaviors does. You use those issues to scare the conservative base into opposing something based upon fear instead of human rights. This issue is not about behaviors that are not genetically based, as homosexuality is.

I think you need to stop trying to bring red herrings into this debate. I couldn’t care less about the child molestation practices of Muhammed, that has squat to do with this debate. We are talking about the ability of two gay folks being able to marry and enjoy the same legal and social benefits the rest of us do without being subjected to discrimination based upon ignorance.

The attempts of other people that are not gay to change what I assume you are talking about is the Canadian Charter is not relevant to this debate, and your attempts to bring them in here are simply red herrings to attempt to divert the argument into areas where you can beat the scare drums.

Fact is, Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment, and will eventually be overturned on that basis.

[So are you arguing for Jim Crow laws? Did you ever wonder why we have two houses of congress? A fixed two party system? An electoral college? A judicial system with the power to check the legislature? Or do you just float through life like Sarah Palin, never wondering about anything, but fully confident in the dogma you've been force fed by the small minded, ignorant bigots you like?

The reason why I point out why one side is wrong is invariably because one side is wrong, as you are in this case. ]

Which is the root for all Christian denominations represented in the country, and is the root for all legal marital prohibitions, not just gay marriage. If traditions were truly multicultural, then polygamy would be legal, as it has been in some 85% of cultures throughout history and still is in large bits of the world today, yes?

“Ah, the old slippery slope argument!! Logic, wherefore art thou!”

Just calling a slippery slope argument fallacious does not make it so. Indeed, this is an absolutely perfect example of how a slippery slope argument is *not* fallacious — as up here Charter challenges have indeed been brought against both polygamy prohibitions and age restrictions that appear in our Criminal Code using the legalization of gay marriage as their gravamen. That, I submit, is as conclusive a real world example of non-fallaciousness of a slippery slope argument as could be imagined, yes?

“BS. Again, none of those things are related to the issue of marriage, which is ALWAYS between adults, and has always been, unless you are a religious nutcase that belongs to outlawed offshoots of the Mormon church. Sorry to spoil your little straw man.”

Mmmm … methinks you really, seriously, have to get a little more grounding in reality before you open your mouth again. Let us take the example of the Muslim world. I trust even you are aware that polygamy is now and always has been conventional with Muslims. However, it appears you are not aware that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) contracted marriage with Aisha when she was six years old and consummated when she was nine, as attetested in Shahih Bukhari Volume 7 Book 62 with narration by Aisha and Ursa. So my example is not a straw man, and your allegations are completely wrong. Unless you think that that the billion and a half or so people who accept the literal truth of the Qu’ran are “outlawed offshoots of the Mormon church”, which would be a very novel interpretation indeed on your part.

(And, as an aside, Islamic scholarship also accepts several practices which fall under incest prohibitions in Christian nations … so we don’t actually need any examples other than Islam to demonstrate all three of my points.)

“Again, slippery slope on your part, as the issue of numbers is not on the agenda here, just as you way of scaring the conservative base into thinking that gays want to destroy American culture.”

As I point out above, that question is not hypothetical in the slightest. I’m relating that the factual consequences of gay marriage legalization of here have included Charter challenges against polygamy up here using it as a basis. If you find truthful statements about logical consequences “scary” … then it would seem that you are proving my point here quite nicely. Thanks!

And as for that, I truly have no issue with multi-partner marriages, IF they are entered into between consenting ADULTS, where there is NO coercion, and those partners are equal in their abilities to own property, control their activities, and remove themselves from that marriage on a legally equal basis if they so desire.

The problem with “traditional” polygamy is that in most cases we are popularly aware of, they were not equal in nature, but were usually used as a social method of controlling women and preventing them from achieving any form of equality. Thus, those forms do not fit in with the American sense of fairness as understood today. In that sense, I agree, polygamy is not on my list of likely forms of marriage that are going to be acceptable in the near term future in this country.

Again, slippery slope on your part, as the issue of numbers is not on the agenda here, just as you way of scaring the conservative base into thinking that gays want to destroy American culture.

Your detailed argument about the Romans says really, nothing. Just that eventually, the Roman culture changed. I guess they wanted a new – ahem – tradition.

“However, you don’t really believe those sentiments.”

Don’t put words in my mouth.

“If you claim you do, let us apply the same logic to:”

Ah, the old slippery slope argument!! Logic, wherefore art thou!

None of these has squat to do with my argument. We were talking about marriage, remember? That subject is unrelated to sexual perversions that are clinical in nature. Gender identity is natural, normal, and homosexuality is known in nature. The forms of sexual perversion you mention are not genetically based.

“No, if you’re going to claim that the sex of a single partner is nobody’s business but your own, you have to explain why the number of partners, the age of the partner(s), and the consanguinity of the partner(s) are anybody’s business but the people who have different ideas on all those fronts than the law has as well. ”

BS. Again, none of those things are related to the issue of marriage, which is ALWAYS between adults, and has always been, unless you are a religious nutcase that belongs to outlawed offshoots of the Mormon church. Sorry to spoil your little straw man.

“If a gay couple gets married at the courthouse, and YOU get married at the church, you are free to consider them NOT married in your religious context, but of course, you would be forced to accept the civil rights conferred on them legally.

Is THAT your problem?”

Walter still hasn’t answered this question, is it YOUR problem?

“Your contention that marriage is only for procreation is ridiculous, or we would require a fertility test before allowing a marriage license!”

Um, well, actually, up until a few decades ago the only easily acceptable grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church were infertility and proof of lack of intent to raise children. Much more easily acceptable than mere, say, domestic abuse. So Walter’s on impeccably sound ground there, actually.

“The mere fact that the Roman culture allowed gay marriage”

Well, no, not really. Roman culture was libertarian enough not to interfere at all with whatever citizens wanted to call marriage … up until the Diocletian Acts, which outlawed homosexual unions as part of a general crackdown on non-mainstream religious practices. So your statement is correct only insofar as for a while it was not actually forbidden. I understand that as regards homosexual tolerance general Roman culture was not unlike prison culture today, where the social acceptability of the action depended upon one’s role in the process, to put it delicately.

“Bottom line, if you don’t like gay marriage, restrict yourself to marrying the opposite sex. Otherwise, what other people do is none of your business, nor is it the right of your church to force the rest of us to adhere to your view of the world.”

Clap, clap, very noble sounding. However, you don’t really believe those sentiments. If you claim you do, let us apply the same logic to:

1) Incestuous marriages. If siblings love each other — let’s make it two siblings of the same sex, just to avoid procreative considerations — do you agree that “if you don’t like incestuous marriage, restrict yourself to marrying people not your relatives, blahblahblah?”

2) Polygamous marriages. These have an awful lot more historical and cultural relevance — indeed, in Canada we actually recognize polygamous marriages performed in nations that practice it today — than gay marriage does, by any measure. You willing to give American Muslims, just to pick one, the same human rights to marry whom they choose as Saudi Arabian Muslims do? Oh, wait, what, you’re not? So you claim it is your right “to force the rest of us to adhere to your view of the world” then?

3) Age limits. I’m given to understand (although I’m really not that interested in finding out exactly) that NAMBLA, for instance, advocates what are essentially gaily married relationships between adults and boys under what is currently the age of consent, to put it delicately. Would you then argue that “if you don’t like underage marriage, restrict yourself to marrying 18 year olds then?” And again, child betrothal has a much richer historical tradition than gay marriage, even if actual consummation is generally looked at askance.

No, if you’re going to claim that the sex of a single partner is nobody’s business but your own, you have to explain why the number of partners, the age of the partner(s), and the consanguinity of the partner(s) are anybody’s business but the people who have different ideas on all those fronts than the law has as well. Can you?