Gay Marriage Opponents Gear Up in Connecticut

Well, there you have it, I have failed you. I must live with that.

As I predicted, you just say the same thing over and over. And you can't quote a post worth shit.

OK, I'll grant you one point(wow, praise from Ceasar), that, so far, I've taken the fact that gay people deserve marriage as a given( really? who says?). (As you put it, "they are entitled to it because they want it.") I'll get back to that in a sec.

However, you've failed to demonstrate that society has an interest in keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual-( ummm, those people who OPPOSE gay marriage..they are members of your world, too..isn't it interesting that the President, the Major Democratic leaders also side with the majority of the electorate..). Your side is also, essentially, that a large chunk of the population "wants" it to be so.

If society has an interest in keeping it this way, it had better be a logical interest-( the "logical" interest is the projection of itself into the future..the general business of the world is primarily utility and survival NOT aesthetics and experimentation). You need to demonstrate that "it has to be this way or else [blah]."

You say that marriage is "a highly regarded and consequential element of our social fabric" and yet you cannot cite one negative consequence of giving gay people the right to marry( I can't. I am not talking about that. Look, Hitler got married, OJ was married, John Gotti was married..) .

Again, I assert that there is no argument that marriage must be exclusively heterosexual that is not predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is bad ( homosexuality is NOT BAD, neither is polygamy or masturbation, it just ISN'T marriage as we conventionally define it). The burden's on you to demonstrate one, and so far, you've failed.

Now, why do gay people need (want) the right to marry?

Supposedly, in this country, all men are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness(practically speaking you are not entitled to ANYTHING that will make you happy). It has also been claimed that there is no such thing as "seperate but equal."

You've asserted that marriage is essentially( YES ESSENTIALLY not ENTIRELY BUT ESSENTIALLY) an institution for baby making and property inheritance. But it's not necessarily for baby making, since married people are not obligated to make babies nor are people prohibited from making babies outside of marriage. And property inheritance is just a red herring (you can bequeath your property to anyone.) So, what is it really?

It's a contract, with emotional and economic components. The emotional component is simple - "I love you, and I want you to stay with me, so let's make this contract." It also has a public side, that says "hey world(..and the "world" says what? yes or no..), this person and I have formed this familiar social unit called marriage."

The economic side is the part that makes marriage stick, at least somewhat. You enter into the contract and, traditionally, you agree to combine your interests with your spouse. Your property becomes joint property, and thus your interests become intertwined - if your spouse fails economically, it will effect you, and if your spouse succeeds you will benefit. You are essentially responsible for your spouse's welfare. Breaking this contract will be a pain in the ass, as you know from your intimate familiarity with divorce law.

(Note how this is the essential difference between baby-making in wedlock and baby-making out of wedlock. If you make a baby out of wedlock, you are only responsible for the baby's welfare, not the other parent's.)

It turns out there are all sorts of other privileges that come from being married, like hospital visitation or health benefits, which are only revealed when people try to have the same kind of intimate partnership without the title of marriage. Gay couples who attempt to raise children also find that there are certain problems that arise when both partners are not recognizable as the legal parent (this is inherently problematic..in hetero marriage as well, where does the state lean? Genetic lineage..).

So, as a practical matter, gay couples have found that civil unions are definitely not equal. Society doesn't understand what it is, and they must constantly reassert their rights under the law.

And, it is no secret that gay people are still a denigrated class in this society( Barry Diller and David Geffen will get a table ANYWHERE faster than a straight couple in the Dominican section of Upper Manhattan). There is still a large segment that believes (based on nothing) that gay relationships are not legitimate partnerships that deserve the same respect as strait ones, and that gay people themselves do not deserve respect. Having a seperate (but supposedly equal) title for gay relationships legitimizes this attitude, and codifies them as officially unequal.

Bottom line is, gay people are equal to straits ( of course), and gay relationships are equivalent to straight ones. The law must reflect that - anything else is discrimination.

So, back to ad hominem vituperation. You claim that I have "no such apprectiation for the other side and are no doubt difficult to talk to face to face about it," but, in fact, you've ignored more than half of what I've written in previous comments. Frankly, I would not be surprised if you ignore all this as well AND GO BACK TO REPEATING YOURSELF IN ALL CAPS. You are just not making your case, and you are not arguing well at all - you hide behind jargon ("signifier," eh?) and spit out absolutely tortured sentences. And yet, for some reason, you want respect from me. You still don't have it.

In conclusion my position is not "marriage is good, gay people are bad, gay people are not "good" enuff to be called "married"

There are MANY bad people who are married. But Marriage IS what we call it based on..the principles that I elucidated. It's that that I would care to debate. Not the ethical or social value of the individuals seeking the nomination.

OK, I'll grant you one point, that, so far, I've taken the fact that gay people deserve marriage as a given. (As you put it, "they are entitled to it because they want it.") I'll get back to that in a sec.

However, you've failed to demonstrate that society has an interest in keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual. Your side is also, essentially, that a large chunk of the population "wants" it to be so.

If society has an interest in keeping it this way, it had better be a logical interest. You need to demonstrate that "it has to be this way or else [blah]."

You say that marriage is "a highly regarded and consequential element of our social fabric" and yet you cannot cite one negative consequence of giving gay people the right to marry.

Again, I assert that there is no argument that marriage must be exclusively heterosexual that is not predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is bad. The burden's on you to demonstrate one, and so far, you've failed.

Now, why do gay people need the right to marry?

Supposedly, in this country, all men are created equal and have the right to the pursuit of happiness. It has also been claimed that there is no such thing as "seperate but equal."

You've asserted that marriage is essentially an institution for baby making and property inheritance. But it's not necessarily for baby making, since married people are not obligated to make babies nor are people prohibited from making babies outside of marriage. And property inheritance is just a red herring (you can bequeath your property to anyone.) So, what is it really?

It's a contract, with emotional and economic components. The emotional component is simple - "I love you, and I want you to stay with me, so let's make this contract." It also has a public side, that says "hey world, this person and I have formed this familiar social unit called marriage."

The economic side is the part that makes marriage stick, at least somewhat. You enter into the contract and, traditionally, you agree to combine your interests with your spouse. Your property becomes joint property, and thus your interests become intertwined - if your spouse fails economically, it will effect you, and if your spouse succeeds you will benefit. You are essentially responsible for your spouse's welfare. Breaking this contract will be a pain in the ass, as you know from your intimate familiarity with divorce law.

(Note how this is the essential difference between baby-making in wedlock and baby-making out of wedlock. If you make a baby out of wedlock, you are only responsible for the baby's welfare, not the other parent's.)

It turns out there are all sorts of other privileges that come from being married, like hospital visitation or health benefits, which are only revealed when people try to have the same kind of intimate partnership without the title of marriage. Gay couples who attempt to raise children also find that there are certain problems that arise when both partners are not recognizable as the legal parent.

So, as a practical matter, gay couples have found that civil unions are definitely not equal. Society doesn't understand what it is, and they must constantly reassert their rights under the law.

And, it is no secret that gay people are still a denigrated class in this society. There is still a large segment that believes (based on nothing) that gay relationships are not legitimate partnerships that deserve the same respect as strait ones, and that gay people themselves do not deserve respect. Having a seperate (but supposedly equal) title for gay relationships legitimizes this attitude, and codifies them as officially unequal.

Bottom line is, gay people are equal to straits, and gay relationships are equivalent to straight ones. The law must reflect that - anything else is discrimination.

So, back to ad hominem vituperation. You claim that I have "no such apprectiation for the other side and are no doubt difficult to talk to face to face about it," but, in fact, you've ignored more than half of what I've written in previous comments. Frankly, I would not be surprised if you ignore all this as well AND GO BACK TO REPEATING YOURSELF IN ALL CAPS. You are just not making your case, and you are not arguing well at all - you hide behind jargon ("signifier," eh?) and spit out absolutely tortured sentences. And yet, for some reason, you want respect from me. You still don't have it.

There IS a case. That's YOUR arrogance and blindness. We are talking about a valued "title" or "designation". The question, the inquiry is upon WHAT is the signifier based? As a society we are faced with deciding THAT- as some people have now CALLED it into question. Is the argument :"Same sex people are entitled to it JUST because they are nice people, good citizens and WANT it? Or is the argument

: in SPITE of the fact that gays are good people, good citizens and want it, THAT NOT WHAT IT'S FOR, by it's very nature. We are faced with reconsidering the definition of a critical "title" and institution. Which is a highly regarded and consequential element of our social fabric. I appreciate your position in the argument but you seem to have no such apprectiation for the other side and are no doubt difficult to talk to face to face about it.

"Church and all that, enforced monagamy and fidelity is a superstition at odds with the instincts and libido."

MONOGAMY

I am making an attempt to articulate the case AGAINST gay marriage and the argument for MONOGAMOUS hetero marriage.

The thing is, there is no case.

I didn't say it was RIGHT, but it does by observation EXIST in our society.

Mm hm, yep. It's always a worthwhile exercise to argue a point that you don't think is actually right. That's not a waste of time at all.

Me thinks thou protesteth (and projecteth) too much. I am making an attempt to articulate the case AGAINST gay marriage and the argument for MONOGAMOUS hetero marriage. I didn't say it was RIGHT, but it does by observation EXIST in our society. I "personally" happen to think "marriage"..Church and all that, enforced monagamy and fidelity is a superstition at odds with the instincts and libido. Your position is demonstrable of an adhominem and rude debating style.

Here are some stats for you on public opinion.

one

(notice how that red line is trending down, very close to 50%)

two

choice quote: "Currently, 49% of Americans oppose gay marriage - the first time since the question was first asked more than a decade ago that a majority did not express opposition to gay marriage."

Given the trend and the courts, you can see who's going to win. Within a decade it'll be a done deal.

And, again, I'll ask you - what negative effect could this possibly have? None. It's even good for child-rearing, as more gay couples create stable family units within which they can adopt children (or create them w/ technological solutions, if they want.)

paternity law...observations in current divorce law and property inheritance.

None of which would change by adding gay marriage into the mix. Again, where's the logic?

the CURRENT resistance to gay marriage ( might I suggest your FELLOW countrymen are NOT all behind the idea..ahem, it's THEIR country too)

Doesn't matter. They are flat-out wrong - there is simply no rational basis to deny gay people the right to marry. Look at you, your argument doesn't have a shred of logic in it. Resistance to the idea goes down year after year, and it's a fact in three states now, so you might as well get used to it.

An awareness of various arguments and discourses in the filed of psychology, social theory and critical theory..

Oh bullshit. Like what. (I'll tell you that my argument above love and procreation comes from "The Selfish Gene." What are your sources?)

"Nothing" but my opinion? How bout observations in paternity law, the CURRENT resistance to gay marriage ( might I suggest your FELLOW countrymen are NOT all behind the idea..ahem, it's THEIR country too), observations in current divorce law and property inheritance. An awareness of various arguments and discourses in the filed of psychology, social theory and critical theory...Is that enuff for you..?

handsomedevil- this is the fallacy and prejudice of your comment. I am pointing out society's "interests" in the definition of marriage.

Yeah, based on nothing but your opinion, which doesn't seem to be informed by history, real awareness of contemporary trends, or logic.

So, what's your argument really based on? You tell me.

Wow... a lot of trolls out today, I see!

I don't understand the big deal. If civil unions result in the same legal/financial rights as hetero marriages, then who cares if a gay couple wants to go the whole nine yards and have a religious ceremony? Let them!

handsomedevil- this is the fallacy and prejudice of your comment. I am pointing out society's "interests" in the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with who I like and don't like. Look observation will EASILY show there are horrible hetero marriages and monstrous parents. But the title isn't based upon our "opinion" of people as good company or good citizens. You are blinded by a presumed bias against gays which I explicitly DON'T have.

facts about gay marriage:

1)5 out of 5 gay marriages end in divorce

2)gays are responsible for 90% of the abortions in the entire world

3)i think its icky

4)the constitution is there to protect my right to feel comfortable at all times without having my biases challenged, not to protect groups i deem less worthy than myself

5)i don't really know what i'm talking about, but i categorically oppose social progress

signed,

STRAIGHT (Stupid Twats Really Against Icky Gays, Hate Them!

What is with these idiots and their obsession?

People used to think it was wrong for black people to marry white people. (Some people still think that way.) But we have evolved.

These jack-offs need to grow up and concern themselves with issues that mean something.

(This is where you switch to the "but people will want to marry anything, they'll marry their dogs or their cars" argument.)

Another way to put it - now that a few states are willing to call a committed gay partnership "marriage," what's going to happen? How is that bad?

Will people stop having babies? No.

Will the inheritance of property be altered in any significant way? No.

Will it imply that it's OK to be gay? Yes. That's your real problem.

So you agree that marriage is not necessary to regulate procreation or the inheritance of property. So, what's it for, again?

I like how you'd equate a long-term partnership (I'm talking decades, here) with a "hook-up."

Admit it, you just don't respect gay people. You want to hold them at a less legitimized level than yourself.

Society views procreation as serious business. Mick Jagger is beholden financially to the children he has born out of wedlock. Society has no such interest in non-reproductive same sex "hook-ups".

sorry....typo. I meant "respecting the institution..." I can't type to save my life.

I wonder if Biden is going to show up, now that he is on record as opposing the gay Marriage movement...

#1, that's completely ridiculous. Try this instead: People have evolved the "love instinct" in order to regulate procreation. Gay folks happen to have the love instinct for a member of the same sex.

Society eventually turned love into the institution of marriage, but it's been a long and circuitous road. Of course procreation and marriage have always had a somewhat loose relationship. (There always has been plenty of procreating out of wedlock and still is.) And up through the 19th century marrying "for love" was actually somewhat of a novelty - marriages were generally arranged.

In the 21st century, the one thing that is generally considered necessary for marriage is love. Kids, on the other hand, are optional. (And there's no societal need for the inheritance of property either. Go ahead and die single with no heirs - the government will absorb any assets you have and society will thank you.)

#1: So when hetero individuals "opt out of" one marriage after another and the institution of marriage becomes disposable- not one or twice divorced, but Hollywood style four or five times- is that really repecting the instition?

#1: Please try your last sentence again in comprehensible English.

#1, I didn't "opt out" of anything.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is getting ridiculous!

So miserable, fey old queens in gowns and dresses who wear penis-shaped hats and mince about with Liberace-worthy canes and crooks propose to ban gay marriage by subverting a secular constitution? Surely they'd be more adept loitering in public restrooms making Hail Mary passes at underage youths.

Marriage is an institution and title bestowed upon a hetero couple by society as recognition of society's interest in projecting itself into the future via sexual reproduction and the hereditary transfer of property. Same Sex couples are often very nice people but they have by definition opted out of society's need for generational continuity. True not all hetero couples have children, but society is willing to recognize their union based on the basicness of male female symbolism.