Replying to Mynym's Comments on Gay Marriage

Great post, Ed.

Regarding the "Loving is only about race" non-argument:

"The Court's [Loving] opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.
...
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"

--Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

"mynym"s post is obviously a response to the link that I posted. Regarding his citation of various comments by "Rick Duncan," it's fairly clear that he's nothing more than an anti-gay wacko. He posts on a blog at http://redstatelaw.blogspot.com/ and has a page at http://law.unl.edu/fac-duncan.html

Mynym's been trolling my blog as well. I haven't bothered to respond to him; he writes in favor of ID, presenting the same tired arguments in the form of heavy-handed "parables."

"Mynym's been trolling my blog as well."

Where is a post written by me on your blog?

Everyone writes in favor of ID if their text contains any signs of intelligence. But I am content to regard the text you write scientifically. I.e., it is just an artifact of your brain events. How shall we recognize signs of intelligence, after all?

As to,
"...he's nothing more than an anti-gay wacko."

Hehe...I like to see that. Anyway, many of the arguments made were simply avoided based on something about how, "Well, I didn't make that argument." Supposedly...yet someone is making such arguments and they need to be answered.

I don't care if you made the entire argument or not. The entire Loving analogy that Leftists like to use and abuse, with all its morally degenerate fallacies, needs to be answered. So that is what was done.

"Yes, I do think that discrimination against gay couples by not allowing them the same legal protections we offer to straight couples is no different than racial discrimination."

That is an utterly absurd position. So, can anyone who self defines by their sexual desires also equate themselves with racial groups? Will any pattern of sexual desires do, or are you making a special case for homosexuality?

"And not only do I think that those who oppose the argument should be ashamed of themselves for supporting such discrimination..."

Those who ought to be ashamed of themslves are those who would purposefully put children in a situation of sexual confusion and deny them a father or a mother.

These types of situations:

"I used my kids to deceive the public and get gay rights. I thought
only of my own needs and not of their futures. Although I love my
kids, I have damaged them. Now lesbians have got what I fought
for, and I wish I'd never done it."

"We deceived society. We said gays only had problems because
society put them on to us. We came across well. We portrayed
ourselves as the warm, loving, normal, alternative family, and we
used these children to get the gay rights message across."

"They [the children] were so cute; they talked about having two
'mummies' who loved each other like a mother and father, and
they had us cuddling the kids and reading to them at bedtime.

"We talked about all the male support and role models we had for
the [two] boys. But it was a load of bull[shit] -- we didn't. My boys
had no masculine role models and no masculine identity."

"Jonathan's 11 now, and he's angry. He knows he was conceived
by artificial insemination and that I don't know his father, but he's
always asking me, 'What color eyes did my father have? What
does he look like? What does he do?'"

"I can't tell him because I don't know. He's still in counseling -- all
about his anger and his lack of a father. I see the hurt on the boys'
faces daily -- especially when the father-son events come along,
like school camps and father-son evenings."

"I often hear the kids saying how neat it would be to
have a Dad. They go straight to any man who will show interest in
them. They're starved for male affection. Jenna [her daughter]
is so hungry for male love I'm scared she'll be abused."
("I was wrong about lesbian parental rights," The [Auckland, New
Zealand] Evening Post, November 30, 1994, pp. 40-41.)

Another example:
(Chicoine v. Chicoine, 479 N.W.2d 891 (S.D.
1992) (holding the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding unsupervised
overnight visitation to a lesbian mother
without first ordering a home study and
enforcement measures to ensure compliance
with restrictions on visitation, when
mother had psychological problems, had taken
the children to gay bars, had allowed the
children to sleep with her and her partner
while the mother was nude, had openly kissed and caressed
her partner in front of the children ignoring
protests by her oldest son, and had continued
a sexual encounter rather than comfort a
child after the child found her
engaged in sexual activity
"We are not reassured, given Lisa's past actions,
that she will put the needs of her children first."

And another:
(Bottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102, 108 (Va.
1995) ("In the present case, the record shows
a mother who, although devoted to her
son, refuses to subordinate her own desires
and priorities to the child's welfare.")

"I think that most of those people will be ashamed of themselves for that opinion in the future, just as so many people who once railed against civil rights for blacks later realized that their activities were wrong and unjust."

Your argument is little more than an attempt at emotional conditioning through associations. It is an effect achieved without reference to facts, logic and proof.

Example,
"Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality"
(Gay activists Kirk and Madsen, "After The Ball" :152-153)

In other words, it is neither factual nor logical to equate people who are self defining by their own sexual desires and the like with racial groups, yet Leftists will do so anyway because it is useful for developing feelings of "shame." You want people to feel ashamed.

Apparently, it is not working that well.

"Absent claims of revelation, I don't think one can make a reasoned argument against gay marriage. If you think you can, feel free to offer one up and we can examine it."

First, no society can be sex-blind in the same sense that it can be color-blind, and it is not apparent why anyone but the most radical Leftist egalitarian would advocate being sex-blind in the same sense as being color-blind.

"The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No.
1, Feb., 1984.
Gender and Parenthood
By Alice S. Rossi :10)

Your attempts to equate a sexuality with race is false, one cannot even equate sex with race. So that is an impossible goal.

The sexes are complementary and homosexuality neglects this basic biosocial fact. Therefore, homosexuality will have a negative impact on the general welfare to the same degree that the sexes are complementary. Not only that, but there is only one form of sexuality currently being prescribed because it promotes the general welfare. If you are going to advocate that any other form of sexuality be sanctioned then it is up to you to prove that it promotes the general welfare to the same extent.

As to attempts at emotional conditioning like "They should be ashamed." Etc. Those who should be ashamed are those who would deny a child their mothering or fathering for the sake of some ideology of radical egalitarianism.

Where is a post written by me on your blog?
I direct your attention to these comments.

I sometimes write things I later want to disclaim, too.

Oh yeah, funny how you do not have an answer, no more than this fellow will have answers on SSM.

Well, although you seem to want to, we should not go off topic here.

I'm sure you do write things that you may want to disclaim. It probably has to do with a failure to recognize the processes of intelligent design and instead letting Nature select your text for you by natural selection, naturally enough. How does Nature, the inanimate, really "select" anything, anyway? But that is off topic.

I thought I should come back and make a prediction here.

I think it likely that the sweaty little hands of a censor will emerge here, soon enough.

Later.

What I find funny are the people and politicians who campaign against gay marriage becuase "if we allow a man and a man to get married, what is going to stop a man and a child, or a man and a horse." They never seem to realisze that such an arguement goes against heterosexual marriages as well. "If we allow a man and a woman to get married, what is going to stop, a man and a man, a man and a child, or a man and a horse." That is just as logically sound as the previous one.

The comparison is not between homosexuality and race, it's been same-sex couples and interracial couples.

"And if you are correct about discrimination based on basic natural categories being incorrect because people once included race in their discriminations then discrimination against pedophilia (natural categories, child and adult), zoophilia (human and animal), incest (familial and non), etc., also are undermined or wrong."

Well that's the problem. All these things are different. When talking about miscegenation, it was the wrong "race," with homosexuality, the wrong "gender," with pedophilia, the wrong "age," animials, the wrong "species," etc.

Homosexuality is no more logically related to pedophilia, incest or bestiality than it is to miscegenation and you've given us no reason why homosexuality is properly grouped with P,I, & B, as opposed to miscegenation.

You hiss and haw that blacks should be insulted that homosexuals might want to analogize their situation (something that every other group receiving civil rights protection has done) but then you compare homosexuality to pedophiles and sheep boffers and gays shouldn't be likewise insulted?

And BTW, nobody seriously argues "nature" when they argue against pedophilia precisely because they know how weak an argument it is because people used to argue things like interracial couplings were "unnatural."

How about this? Pedophilia harms children. Homosexuality between consenting adults harms no one. Thus, the defining feature of the "wrongness" of pedophilia is wholly absent from homosexual relations between consenting adults. It's also wholly absent from interracial couplings. To me, that logically groups homosexual couples with interracial ones and distances both of them from pedophilia.

So, can anyone who self defines by their sexual desires also equate themselves with racial groups? Will any pattern of sexual desires do, or are you making a special case for homosexuality?

I'm pretty sure it's the second, in this case.

Those who ought to be ashamed of themslves are those who would purposefully put children in a situation of sexual confusion and deny them a father or a mother.

Yeah, using your kid to advance a political agenda is pretty cold. But here I suspect we're talking about different things. You are talking about the normalization of homosexuality, which you fear will eventually lead to many sexually confused children. I am talking about whether homosexuals deserve the right to marry. In your mind, they are the same. In my mind, they are not. This is a point for further discussion.

I see that you also have many, many quotes. That's great, but don't you think I could throw together a pastiche of quotes which firmly reject the notions in your own? These aren't compelling evidence, particularly for someone who isn't inclined to agree with them from the get-go.

Your argument is little more than an attempt at emotional conditioning through associations. It is an effect achieved without reference to facts, logic and proof.

It sounds like Ed's prediction is a statement from his gut. You know, his instinct. That likely isn't convincing for you, but then, I wonder if he is actually trying to convince you of anything.

Your attempts to equate a sexuality with race is false, one cannot even equate sex with race. So that is an impossible goal.

Well, not so fast. I think the point Ed was making is that there are a number of parallels between the fight against interracial marriage and the fight between homosexual marriage. And just because Dr Rossi had some interesting things to say about the subject doesn't mean the debate is closed.

And lastly:

The sexes are complementary and homosexuality neglects this basic biosocial fact. Therefore, homosexuality will have a negative impact on the general welfare to the same degree that the sexes are complementary.

What does this mean? I don't mean in abstract philosophical terms. What does it really mean, in real life, for real people? I think this is just a rigorous way of saying what you were saying with your anecdotes: homosexuality leads to crappy child-rearing, it leads to promiscuity (maybe you were saying that, I can't tell), it leads to some kind of vaguely-defined social disorder. But I don't believe any of that.

Not only that, but there is only one form of sexuality currently being prescribed because it promotes the general welfare. If you are going to advocate that any other form of sexuality be sanctioned then it is up to you to prove that it promotes the general welfare to the same extent.

This presupposes that people are obligated to promote the general welfare via their sexual choices. But do you really want to go there? How will you enforce that obligation - through the law? Does it stop with homosexuality? Oh sure, it might stop there with you. But what about our more radical compatriots?

Also, let's be real here. If you want to convince me of something, the burden of proof is on you. If I want to convince you of something, the burden of proof is on me. I think that we're both going to have to do a little work to meet anywhere in the middle.

"I think it likely that the sweaty little hands of a censor will emerge here, soon enough."

Unless you mean that a government is going to step in and remove someone's ability to post on this forum, you are otherwise being purely facetious. Even if Ed did ban you from commenting, it would not be censorship. It would just be an exercise in private property rights.

Would it be censorship if you prevented me from spraying graffiti on your house? Not at all.

Would it be censorship if you prevented me from calling you repeatedly at 3 AM? Certainly not.

Would it be censorship if I simply showed up in your living room--and you asked me to leave? Nope.

Freedom of speech is one thing; invasion of private property is quite another. You are a guest here, mynym, as are we all. Now either you behave politely (which CAN include polite disagreement) or else you get out. Ed is being kind to all of us merely to let us make comments in the first place. It's his house; he makes the rules.

Well that's the problem. All these things are different. When talking about miscegenation, it was the wrong "race," with homosexuality, the wrong "gender," with pedophilia, the wrong "age," animials, the wrong "species," etc.

And presumably with polygamy (or polyandry) we're talking about the wrong "ratio".

Wait a sec...'ratio' can't be quite right, as marriages between 2 men and 2 women would still be the correct ratio. *LOL*

Maybe "one-to-one correspondence".

"The sexes are complementary and homosexuality neglects this basic biosocial fact. Therefore, homosexuality will have a negative impact on the general welfare to the same degree that the sexes are complementary."

Standardization works really well on the factory floor. Mass-produced artifacts that fit the measurements of the majority do well. But if you're out on the fringe of the bell-curve in height you've got "special needs". Too bad for you, unless you're an actor or a sports star, or you happen to live in a community that judges people more tolerantly than most now do.In an organic community, a local economy - that's a whole different ball-game than out here in consumerland.Freak.There are people who are born with the sexual characteristics of both male and female. Intersexual is what many of them now call themselves - what used to be referred to as "hermaphrodites". This has nothing to do with homosexuality at all.The sexual pathology that this culture's still rife with caused many of them to be butchered into an artificial male or female body type, from the early days of surgical intervention until very recently. Before that, in the Old Testament-run cultures they were discarded, shoved to the margins and left to starve, burned as witches, or hidden from the world by their families. In other cultures they were revered, considered sacred. In still others they were killed at birth.There's no room for them in this discussion - they aren't gay, they aren't anything sexual bigots are comfortable with - fortunately for the bigots they're statistically insignificant. But they're real, they're real people, they have real lives and real identities, and they suffer obliquely because of all this dim-witted nonsense. There at the center of the gender divide are real miracles of human diversity, and in the rigidly symmetrical fantasy-world you want to build there is no comfortable place for them to be. So just shove them aside, ignore them - it's not like you're actually causing them harm.Talk your talk about man and woman, pretend you were created by the hand of God and not a long strange process of freakish mutation and struggle for survival. There's holes in your argument bigger than the little bit of truth it does contain. - As to homosexuality and marriage:
It would help if marriage could be seen outside the context of consumer choice. It would also help if the social-control aspect of permitted and denied marriages were explored. How the power of reproduction is taken out of the hands of the people doing the reproducing and given to the people who control the social economy. There's a social-shaping mechanism involved. And it might help the other side a little to recognize that marriage is a sexual relationship primarily. But then it would also help to recognize that sex is not an item in a consumer venue either. Sex is about reproduction, and reproduction's about the future.Because we're socially complex creatures and sex, or gender, is at the core of our identities - sex becomes a socially complex part of what we are, as individuals and as members of society.But ultimately, and centrally, marriage is about sex, and sex is about children. Not children as product, not children as status item, and not children as small cute creatures like house-pets. Too much of the smarmy media concern for children is a concern for them as objects of innocence, more projection - the lost innocence of the observers clouding their view of what's really there. Not children as pets - children as the opening out of human endeavor, the flowering of what we are. It's a process, not a thing.That concern for the innocent young's what's keeping the absurdities of the anti-gay position alive, it fuels the fundamentalists' bigotry, it gives them strength. Recognition of the centrality of birth and child-raising to marriage is too often what's missing from the other side.So a practical solution, civil unions with all the legal benefits of married couples, seems common sense and pragmatic. The objection that kids in school being taught by homosexuals will cause them sexual confusion is projection - it does cause sexual confusion, or it exposes the already-existing sexual confusion in the ones making the objections. This is a society which won't allow children to hear the word "shit" on television, but allows them to watch violent death and to participate in violent killing games. We sure do need to preserve that from decay. Kids are already being taught by homosexuals. They have been since schooling began. Finding out that a teacher you admired and learned a lot from is a homosexual can be confusing - in a social context like this, of prohibition and discrimination, where homosexuals are publicly seen as inferior, where homosexuality is a shameful thing - when it had no obvious bearing on what took place in the classroom, and if it weren't for the irrational prejudices there wouldn't be that confusion. The problem there is in society not the individual. Immediate harm is easy to legislate against. Long-term harm is much harder to see and defend against. Making the issue one of marriage rather than legitimacy dooms both sides. The society is where the sickness is, and it's not going to be healed by arbitrary and excessive discrimination or short-sighted amorality either one. Hedonism and puritanical taboos are shadows of each other. Both harm children.

mynym writes, in multiple comments now condensed into one:
Anyway, many of the arguments made were simply avoided based on something about how, "Well, I didn't make that argument." Supposedly...yet someone is making such arguments and they need to be answered. I don't care if you made the entire argument or not. The entire Loving analogy that Leftists like to use and abuse, with all its morally degenerate fallacies, needs to be answered. So that is what was done.
This is amusing. "Someone else makes those arguments, so you should have to answer for them too". Sorry, my friend, it doesn't work that way. If someone wants to make an argument for gay marriage based on gender discrimination, they are free to answer your objections. But they have nothing to do with mine. You can't just arbitrarily lump everyone you disagree with in as "leftists" and then demand that everyone in that category be required to speak for everyone else in that category. If you're going to jump in and make arguments, you should at least make them responsive to the positions they are ostensibly against.
Me: "Yes, I do think that discrimination against gay couples by not allowing them the same legal protections we offer to straight couples is no different than racial discrimination."
You: That is an utterly absurd position. So, can anyone who self defines by their sexual desires also equate themselves with racial groups? Will any pattern of sexual desires do, or are you making a special case for homosexuality?
The difficulty you seem to be having is that you keep misreading, or misrepresenting, the argument you think you are replying to. I didn't say that "sexual desires" equate with "racial groups". I said that discrimination against gay couples is no different, in my view, than discrimation based upon race. Those two statements are not at all the same thing. The reason why I think the two types of discrimination are the same is because in both cases the discrimination is unjustified. Some types of discrimination are entirely justified. You are entirely justified in not hiring an illiterate person as a high school teacher, for example. But racial discrimination and not allowing gay couples to marry are both examples of unjustified discrimination and that is why I am against both types of discrimination.
Those who ought to be ashamed of themslves are those who would purposefully put children in a situation of sexual confusion and deny them a father or a mother. These types of situations...(snipping examples)
What is amusing about your anecdotal examples is that you seem shocked to find out that there are some bad gay parents in the world; I'm certainly not shocked by that. There are of course many bad straight parents in the world as well, but I doubt you would use that as an argument against allowing straight people to raise children. Anecdotes fail badly in the face of large sample sizes and rigorous study, and the fact is that there have been numerous studies done on the subject and they are unanimous in finding that the children of gay parents are no better or worse off than the children of straight parents. You can find a list of many of those studies and links to more material here.
First, no society can be sex-blind in the same sense that it can be color-blind, and it is not apparent why anyone but the most radical Leftist egalitarian would advocate being sex-blind in the same sense as being color-blind....Your attempts to equate a sexuality with race is false, one cannot even equate sex with race. So that is an impossible goal.
Again, you are misunderstanding my argument, perhaps intentionally and perhaps not. I'm not equating race with sex. I'm equating all forms of unjustified discrimination. In order to justify this particular type of discrimination, you need to give us a rational, objective and practical reason why gay couples should not be afforded the same types of legal protection that straight couples are afforded. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether race is equal to sex, so it's pointless to continue making this irrelevant argument. You should instead be trying to make a rational argument for why gay couples shouldn't be given the same right to marry, and the same protections that come with it, as straight couples.
The sexes are complementary and homosexuality neglects this basic biosocial fact. Therefore, homosexuality will have a negative impact on the general welfare to the same degree that the sexes are complementary.
LOL. Wow, that is simply one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard uttered in public. Come on, give us a *specific* negative impact from gay marriage (not from homosexuality, which has always existed and will always exist, whether you like it or not). Not vague statements like "negative impact on the general welfare", but something specific that will happen if gay couples are allowed to get married. Will your marriage fall apart? Will anyone's? Will people suddenly start turning gay? Will people stop loving their children? You might try to argue that it will break up families, but that seems to be more likely the result of good Christian men like Alan Keyes breaking up their own families to throw out a gay relative. That's family values for ya.
Oh yeah, funny how you do not have an answer, no more than this fellow will have answers on SSM.
Is there anything quite so absurd as the combination of smugness and ignorance? It seems I have had answers quite readily.
I thought I should come back and make a prediction here. I think it likely that the sweaty little hands of a censor will emerge here, soon enough.
LOL. A preemptive persecution pose! Bravissimo! Of course, that's an easy prediction for you to make, since you can make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by being obnoxious enough that I finally end up banning you. But up till now, I have simply answered your objections and shown why they are false or irrelevant. I may well tire of you if you can't produce anything more compelling than what you have, but as Jason notes in a comment above, that would be entirely within my rights since this is my blog and I own this domain. Either way, perhaps it would be better to stick to the subject at hand and try to provide more logical arguments in your favor.
Now let's return to the real issue, which is whether gay couples should or should not be allowed to marry and get the same protections as straight couples. I say that they should, and the reason they should is that there is no relevant difference between the two types of relationships that would justify such discrimination. Gay couples are just as capable of making a loving commitment to one another. They are just as much human beings and citizens of the United States and therefore must be given equal protection under the law and are considered to have the same privileges and immunities as any other citizen, which means at the very least that they have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know numerous gay couples who have been together for many years, some for far longer than most of the straight couples I know. They have chosen the person they love as their mate for life, just as so many straight couples do in our society, and the depth of their love and commitment is no different. And therefore I conclude that the legal protections afforded them should be no different as well. In every relevant way, committed gay relationships are as valid and legitimate as committed straight relationships and the individuals involved should be allowed to make the same public vow, and receive the same benefits, protections and responsibilities (and yes, there are responsibilities as well - gay couples also have to take upon themselves the same burdens that straight couples do by getting married, and there are many). They should be allowed to file their taxes together and have the same rights in terms of insurance and inheritence that straight couples do. And all of this simply because they are human beings engaged in the same type of loving commitment that other human beings are, and because there is no practical or rational reason why we should prohibit them from doing so. And it really is that simple.

"The sexes are complementary and homosexuality neglects this basic biosocial fact. Therefore, homosexuality will have a negative impact on the general welfare to the same degree that the sexes are complementary."

I could literally spend too much time that I don't have refuting every claim he makes. In fact, I don't even need to do that, I've answered practically all of it on my blog. So I could just point him to my past posts.

But let me say something about this whole "complementary" issue. The entire biological differences between the sexes -- from differences in genetalia, to the shape of a womans hips, to differences in upper body v. lower body strength and on and on -- relate to procreation and child rearing, particularly from our evolutionary period, which we are no longer in.

One could argue that heterosexuality has a certain biological utility that homosexuality does not. One could even argue that from a biological point of view, one is better than the other.

But we err when we conclude that heterosexuality's "goodness" means homosexuality's "badness." Even if heterosexuality, from a biological point of view, is "better" than homosexuality because of its ability to procreate, that, by no means equates with homosexuality being "bad" or "unnatural" or whatever.

For instance, take a particular couple and what they do in bed. The normal "act" is probably what satisfies them the most. This is what they tell me. They also may enjoy oral sex (as studies show 90% of them do). But oral sex is not as "good" as the real thing. But just because "the real thing" is "better" by no means equates with oral sex being "bad," "unnatural" or whatever. They both can be properly viewed as "good" with one being better than the other.

And when you take children out of the picture, and view childless homosexual partners v. childless heterosexual partners (and I think given the vast number of childless or infertile couples, the comparison is relevant), it is not at ALL clear that the "complementariness" of heterosexuals is a good thing or makes them superior to homosexuals.

Under this circumstance, arguably we can say that homosexual couples are superior to their childless heterosexual counterparts precisely because the "sameness" of homosexual couplings has advantages that "different" heterosexual couples lack. For instance, ever hear the phrase, "men are from Mars, women are from Venus"? (I think coined by an evangelical Christian). The "differences" between the sexes more often than not result in break-ups and unhappiness. We could rationally conclude that heterosexual couples, because of their differences, are much clumsier match up than homosexuals who are more likely to better understand and meet eachother's needs, precisely because of the homogeneity of the relationship.

Jon wrote:
One could argue that heterosexuality has a certain biological utility that homosexuality does not. One could even argue that from a biological point of view, one is better than the other.
But we err when we conclude that heterosexuality's "goodness" means homosexuality's "badness." Even if heterosexuality, from a biological point of view, is "better" than homosexuality because of its ability to procreate, that, by no means equates with homosexuality being "bad" or "unnatural" or whatever.
I would add an additional aspect to this argument. The argument that heterosexuality is good for society because it allows reproduction, when used as an argument against homosexuality, is nonsensical unless there is some internal link between allowing homosexuality and decreasing heterosexuality. But does anyone really think that if we allow gay couples to get married, straight people are going to suddenly decide that they're gay and they should go try that out? Of course not. A small percentage of the population is homosexual; that does not in any way change the fact that heterosexuals will continue to couple and reproduce at precisely the same rate they always have regardless of how homosexuals are treated legally. I'm not going to suddenly change my sexual preference and start having sex with men just because we don't discriminate against gay couples, nor is anyone else.

Now let's return to the real issue, which is whether gay couples should or should not be allowed to marry and get the same protections as straight couples

Thank you, Ed. That's the discussion we should be having, but people like "mynym" keep turning it into a discussion on how people have sex.

Ed wrote:

The argument that heterosexuality is good for society because it allows reproduction, when used as an argument against homosexuality, is nonsensical unless there is some internal link between allowing homosexuality and decreasing heterosexuality.

It's a nonsensical argument regardless of whether or not a link might be shown. Penile/vaginal sex hasn't been required for a number of decades. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) has been used hundreds of thousands if not millions of times. It has been reported that fertility clinics are storing at least that number of human embryos in deep freeze, that will never be implanted--at least in the biological parents--and may be discarded. (That's one of the issues that was raised in the dispute over embryonic stem cell research.)

As far as I can tell, all of these issues raised by people like "mynym" about "complementarity" of opposite sex marriages, about how "marriage" is for procreation (and in that they apparently ignore the "raising" part--probably more than a few gay people are raisin children) and so forth, are just latter-day attempts to justify discrimination and make themselves feel that they (presumably heterosexuals) are superior to homosexuals.

Jeff wrote:

...but people like "mynym" keep turning it into a discussion on how people have sex.

I've been amazed while posting on FreeRepublic.com, the NYTimes gay rights board, and other places, at how many people on mynym's side of the divide appear to be fascinated by gay sex. It really is almost enough to make one wonder about them.

One last point about mynym's comment

Your attempts to equate a sexuality with race is false, one cannot even equate sex with race.

the fact is that this is a red herring. Nobody is equating sexual orientation with race. (And that ignores the fact that, from a scientific standpoint, race doesn't exist.) What I and others have done is show the similarities in arguments that have been used against extending equal civil rights to homosexuals, to the arguments that were (and oftentimes still are) used against extending equal civil rights to black people. There is a huge difference. One might also reference the arguments that were used against extending equal civil rights to women. One might also reference the arguments that were used against extending equal civil rights to--say--Catholics. Or Jews. Or Muslims even today. Not all of the arguments used in the case of women, various religions, and so forth, are as direct analogs to the arguments used against gay people, as were the arguments used against Negros, but in all cases arguments were used to rationalize the discrimination.

""If we allow a man and a woman to get married, what is going to stop, a man and a man, a man and a child, or a man and a horse." That is just as logically sound as the previous one."

That's incorrect because men and women are complementary while the other categories you mention are not. Any denial of the true version of Romance is a perversion of that version, and all perversion is associated.

"From a clinical perspective, rape, incest and homosexuality can convert into one another and lead from one to another (cf. Myers 1982). Such transformations can extend to bestiality as well. At least one case has been recorded (Schneck 1974) in which a beloved mare, was equated in fantasy to the patient's mother. Victims of incest can see themselves or be seen as 'rat people' (Shengold 1967). Animal categories can intersect with sexual abuse."
(Definition and Violation:
Incest and the Incest Taboos
Dorothy Willner
Man, New Series, Vol. 18, No.
1. (Mar., 1983), pp. 134-159)

There you see a perversion of basic natural categories bleeding into one another. There are examples in the pop-culture of more perversion, following the pattern of perversion in homosexuality.

"Freedom of speech is one thing; invasion of private property is quite another."

Oh, so now morally degenerate or ignorant and stupid ideas are private property? It doesn't matter to me if the Leftists here censor, as they typically do. After all, they are the ones who will have to. I will just use it as another example.

It is interesting how socialists declare their usual Kulture Kampf and then typically have to rely on censorship as their mode of engaging in the fight.

"This has nothing to do with homosexuality at all."

It also has nothing to do with SSM marriage and the general welfare at all. But you knew that. It is a universal sense that there is something wrong in Nature. So simply saying that something is occurs in Nature, like the miniscule issue of intersexuality, does not mean much of anything. Does intersexuality shatter the pathos of every Romance movie that is based on the complementarity of the sexes? Is it some excuse to deny children their fathering and mothering, on purpose, with nil regard for their welfare? Is it an excuse for the gender narcissism inherent in homosexuality to be prescribed on a par with the innate complementarity of heterosexuality, harming children?

Would all the intersexuals that you supposedly speak for, supposedly agree?

"There are of course many bad straight parents in the world as well..."

The complementarity of the sexes cannot be blindly denied just because there are some bad straight parents, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not on a par to be compared as if they are equal. The complementarity of the sexes will run as a strong pattern against homosexuality, so if men are more promiscuous than women then gay men will be very promiscuous.

And that is not a stable relationship in which to raise children, etc., all the things that the institution of marriage is designed to promote, in order to promote the general welfare.

"...but I doubt you would use that as an argument against allowing straight people to raise children. Anecdotes fail badly in the face of large sample sizes and rigorous study, and the fact is that there have been numerous studies done on the subject and they are unanimous in finding that the children of gay parents are no better or worse off than the children of straight parents."

Anyone with a modicum of common sense will see through the agendized nature of many studies, after all, this is their general pattern:

"Recently this same myth-breaking tradition has focused on gay parents and their children. This literature has responded to lesbians' need for information when they fight for custodial rights in the legal system. In an effort to inform the court that lesbians are reasonable parents, a number of small studies have shown that lesbians compare favorablly to other single mothers...."
(Sociological Research on Male and Female
Homosexuality
by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz
Annual Review of Sociology, 1988, 14 :125-47)

"....compare favorablly to other single mothers...."

Now wait, wait...I thought the purpose of these "studies" was to compare heterosexuality and homosexuality, the complementary patterns of fathering and mothering. Instead, these biased researchers are comparing self-selected samples of generally wealth lesbians who are trying to prove something for sociopolitical reasons. Then, supposedly, they prove it against some poor working moms.

These "studies" can be ripped to shreds for the poor biased hack jobs that they are. Is that what you want me to do? I'll go through your supposed list of "rigorous" studies, if you like.

Does it make sense to compare a self-selected sample of wealthy lesbians mothers (generally leaving out gay men altogether) with some poor single moms....and then argue that it proves something about the form of heterosexuality prescribed vs. one that lacks the same prescription?

A general summary:
"....the 1993 study by Philip A. Belcastro, an independent examination of the methodological validity and reliability of fourteen post-1975 published "data-based studies addressing the affects of homosexual parenting on children's sexual and social functioning," found:

The most impressive finding is that all of the studies lacked external validity. Furthermore, not a single study remotely represented any sub-population of homosexual parents. This limitation, in terms of scientific inference, is imposing.

With only three exceptions...the studies' designs presented moderate to fatal threats to their internal validity. Seven studies did not utilize a control group and only three studies satisfactorily attempted to match comparison groups...

The majority of studies also suffered from internal validity flaws such as inadequate instrumentation and disparate testing conditions that...were well within the researchers' control...

Finally, ...most were biased towards proving homosexual parents were fit parents....Some of the published works had to disregard their own results in order to conclude that homosexuals were fit parents.

This study concluded that 'the statement that there are no significant differences in children reared by homosexual parents versus heterosexual parents is not supported by the
published research base.' "
(University of Illinois Law Review
1997 U. Ill. L. Rev. 833
The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children
by Lynn D. Wardle)

The interesting issues are why, exactly, they had to "disregard" the data gleaned from their own self-selected samples and the like.

For instance, the pattern of sons resenting their mother's masculine lesbian "partner," the one who denies them their father. And so on.

You are writing what you write based on misinformation that began as disinformation.

Yet I suspect that anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that there is something odd about these "studies" that purport to show "no difference" between homosexual parents and parents who abide by the form of sexuality currently prescribed.

"It has been reported that fertility clinics are storing at least that number of human embryos in deep freeze, that will never be implanted--at least in the biological parents--and may be discarded."

These are the utopias of hell that Leftists typically want to ready for us all, from eugenics to such absurdity as doing away with the Yin and Yang, Romance.

Again I say, why should anyone want a sex-blind society? Why should anyone want socialist "experts," judges, doctors, etc., making all their discriminations for them?

"...and in that they apparently ignore the "raising" part--probably more than a few gay people are raisin children..."

Uh huh.

Another pattern,
"[A] specter.... haunts some children of homosexuals: AIDS. For Stefan Lynch, 24, watching his father die five years ago was particularly lonely. The father talked about it little, already feeling guilty about "abandoning me when I was a teenager," recalls Lynch.

....In some families, AIDS strikes more than once. Breauna Dixon, 7, wrote a picture book about her father's death that is used in AIDS support groups. Breauna now lives with her father's partner--who became her guardian--and the man's new live-in partner (her third "dad"), who has HIV."
(U.S. News & World Report
September 16, 1996
Culture and Ideas; Pg. 75
Kids with gay parents
By Joseph P. Shapiro; Stephen Gregory)

There are various patterns associated with homosexuality which demonstrate just how agendized you'd have to be as a researcher to, in some utterly contorted way, conclud that there is "no difference."

Yet, that is exactly what some researchers do through self-selected samples, etc.

"....how many people on mynym's side of the divide appear to be fascinated by gay sex."

It seems typical to moral degenerates to try to use moral degeneracy as an insult. Yet, wait, it was not supposed to be a perversion in the first place. So one has to wonder, why are those who use it as an insult assuming that it is perverse enough to use as an insult? Perhaps the Conscience takes its revenge, as it sometimes does when self-evident truths that are evident in the Self are at issue. The fact that the sexes are complementary is one such self-evident truth, evident in Life, its creation and procreation.

"It really is almost enough to make one wonder about them."

Actually, it makes me wonder at how all people assume homosexuality is perverse so that even the gay activist will say, "You're secretly just like me!"

Of course, the average person who is voting against SSM at rates of 70% and the like is not saying, "Hey, they're secretly just like me."

That's because that is not an insult.

"...the fact is that this is a red herring."

Legally, it is not. Over and over again Leftist egalitarians are trying to equate sex with race legally. If it were really valid then having bathrooms based on sex discrimination would be the same thing as the old bathrooms based on racial discrimination. And so on.

It is an utterly ridiculous comparison in itself, let alone treating the comparison as some legal cause.

"Nobody is equating sexual orientation with race."

Legally, and on issues of public policy, that is exactly what is done with respect to both sex and "sexual orientation." It demonstrates just how far Leftists have come that they feeel that people self defining by their own sexual desires creates an issue for judges to decide. If it is so, then many people will begin creating more issues for judges to decide until these oligarchics are making all our discriminations for us.

Once again, Leftists will have what they want in establishing some form of totalitarianism.

"What I and others have done is show the similarities in arguments that have been used against extending equal civil rights to homosexuals..."

You can't have civil rights without civilization. No group of "sexual desire people" are being denied their rights. Either we are all denied the "right" to marry a man or there is no such right. If you create "rights" based on what people desire then many will begin creating rights through self definition by their very own wants and desires.

All that you and others seem to have done is to argue, "Hey, once people said that they were right and that some things were wrong...but, would you look at that, they were wrong! So now, I say that saying things are wrong, is wrong. Yes, I am right, and that is wrong."

You're making associative arguments about things that have little to nothing to do with each other.

If homophiles are a discriminated against minority then so are pedophiles, zoophiles, etc.

"But does anyone really think that if we allow gay couples to get married, straight people are going to suddenly decide that they're gay and they should go try that out?"

Ignorance, is it Leftist bliss?

"Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation."
(Annual Review of Anthropology,
Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural
Study of Human Sexuality,
D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :98)

No one is saying that the Kulture Kampf that Leftist typically declare makes things happen "suddenly."

At any rate, your argument fails in the light of historical and anthropological facts, that you apparently know not.

"...but people like "mynym" keep turning it into a discussion on how people have sex."

Wrong, I keep turning it into a discussion about the complementarity of the sexes, social patterns, etc.

Yet that, in itself, can be an issue because gay men are spreading diseases as the result of the behavior patterns typical to them, rooted in homosexuality.

If myvym uses anectdotal evidence as a basis for decision making, how would mynym treat the case of evangelical, fundamentalist Andrea Yates as it pertains to the right to marry?

It seems typical to moral degenerates to try to use moral degeneracy as an insult.

It wasn't meant as an insult, only an observation.

You're the one that chose to take it that way, and it's more revealing about your motives than anything else; this isn't about "protecting marriage" or anything else; it's about bigotry and the 'right' of you and your ilk to force other people to live their lives according to your rules.

"If myvym uses anectdotal evidence as a basis for decision making..."

Yet, I didn't. Where do you think I have used that as a basis for decision making? Perhaps I can show you some of the patterns involved, that are patterns.

"It wasn't meant as an insult, only an observation."

It is often meant to be insulting. Of course, you can say whatever you want about your own intents and motivations which is why I do not deal very much with them. It gets too subjective. Instead, I look at what people are doing generally, their patterns of behavior and philosophy.

It is a pattern that gay activists say, "You're secretly just like me!" as an insult to silence those who disagree with them. Yet the average person who stands opposed to SSM does not say, "Hey, you're secrelty just like me!" as an insult. That's because they do not assume that their own pattern of behavior is perverse, as the gay activist must.

"You're the one that chose to take it that way...."

Choose? How can I choose something? I was born the way I am, matter in motion. If I reject the advice of Plato and Christ to come out of the womb/cave and be born again, then of course I am born the way I am. Let us all retreat to the cave together, men going back into the feminine, effeminates. What choice is there? If I was a pseudo-religious hedonist, as some people are, that is exactly what I would be saying. Yet you seem to support such a pattern of hedonism while at the same time seek to say that I "choose" something. Why? After all, my feelings would be who I am. That would be who I am, yet you would make an attack against me personally and my personal feelings. That would make me a Victim and I suppose I would then get some Leftist judge to police your discriminations.

Choice, what is it? It is discrimination, you see.

"...and it's more revealing about your motives than anything else..."

The reason that I do not deal so much with intents and motivations is because, for one, no one else but those who share the Leftist "feelings" really cares. Will my intents or motivations change the basic biosocial fact of the complementarity of the sexes? No, and all sorts of conservatives, libertarians, etc., will easily realize what the Leftist mind cannot.

Many people will remember, regardless whatever emotional conditioning you go for against me personally, subjectively, etc., the basic argument that has nothing to do with my intents and motivations. So it sits there, as you go after me. That is, ironically, perfectly fine with me.

Perhaps my intent and motivation is to have some fun with little Leftist minds that cannot think through their brains, yet that would not make SSM promote the general welfare, or harm it. Indeed, my intents and motivations would have nothing to do with that.

"...this isn't about "protecting marriage" or anything else...."

Perhaps my intent and motivation is proving that some ignorant and stupid Leftists, are ignorant and stupid. They cannot think with their mind and just go with their feelings, or self define by feelings. Yet that would have nothing to do with valid arguments about SSM, basic biosocial realities and the general welfare that conservatives, libertarians, etc., will all easily see.

They sit there, not dealt with, as a testiment against the Kulture Kampf that Leftists would wage.

"...it's about bigotry and the 'right' of you and your ilk to force other people to live their lives according to your rules."

Even if this was about me making a study of how the minds of Leftist moral degenerates fail to work, (i.e. the scientific study of their brain events, as the textual degenerate is the moral degenerate) that would have nothing to do with the fact that SSM harms the general welfare, especially children. Or that those so agendized by their radical egalitarianism should be ashamed of their narcissistic moral vanity that causes them to bring harm to children. For that would have nothing to do with the facts,logic and evidence involved in prescription, proscription, and the general welfare.

I thought I should come back and make a prediction here.

I think it likely that the sweaty little hands of a censor will emerge here, soon enough.

This says a lot about mynym's intellectual competence, since even the most offensive trolling isn't likely to result in the troll being censored (which is a synonym for "expurgated", so the public/private distinction is irrelevant, folks) in the comments section of a post about said troll.

RE: all posted by: mynym at February 17, 2005 08:37 PM

Dude. U 1 cra-Z b*st*rd. All that vitriol is not making coherent sense. Why are you so angry?

The mark of a Christian is love. What false gospel are you following?

"All that vitriol is not making coherent sense."

Your failure to understand is not necessarily my responsibility.

"Why are you so angry?"

I think you are misreading contempt and disdain for ignorant and stupid ideas as anger.

"The mark of a Christian is love. What false gospel are you following?"

The mark of the prissy Christian is to try to judge emotions that they can know nothing of.

"This says a lot about mynym's intellectual competence...."

No, it says a lot about the sweaty little hand of a censor who cannot answer based on facts, logic and evidence, knows they cannot answer, yet will want to cling to their position in obstinance anyway.

For what is to be done then?

There are only two things, focus on the writer. "Mynym this! Mynym that! What are you feelings? You feel angry?" Or attacking other sources, rather than dealing with their text as such, in similar ways.

Or, censorship.

So here you have some focus on me and my supposed feelings about things such as misreading a condescending sort of contempt as "anger" and so on.