Pharyngula

Posted by: cervantes | November 4, 2009 1:35 PM

"Absolutely yes" and "sure, why not?" are splitting the Yes vote. People should go for "absolutely yes" to make sure there's a clear winner!

Posted by: geoff | November 4, 2009 1:41 PM

Shame on Maine voters.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 4, 2009 1:48 PM

What is it with two yes and two no choices? Where's "Okay, if you must" and "Meh, I don't really care, so I'll vote yes, just to be nice"?

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 1:58 PM

This is what you get when you allow legitimate legislative action to be repealed by a bare majority. Why have a fucking representative government at all then? Sheesh...

I've got an even better idea: How about, for next election, whichever party gets more than 50.1% of the vote, they get to throw everybody who voted against them in prison and take all their money. Hell, why not? It will benefit the majority, right!!!!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 4, 2009 2:00 PM

Do you support same-sex marriage?
Absolutely, yes

31%
Sure, why not?

17%
Not really

10%
Absolutely, no

29%
I don't care either way

12%

Posted by: JBlilie | November 4, 2009 2:04 PM

Better link I think:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/11/04/11627391-cp.html

James Sweet: That's the difficulty with democracy. It's why the US founders wrote the Constitution and especially its Bill of Rights: To prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. I believe the US Constitution prohibits the prohibition of gay marriage (if the double negative isn't too confusing.) I think it's a matter of time before this is recognized. The other edge of that sword is that some of these measures (I think CA Prop 8 of last fall was in this category) amend the state constitutions which are harder to fight in court.

Posted by: jdhuey | November 4, 2009 2:07 PM

It seems to me that the supporters of equal rights for gays need to need to get a better understanding of just why the people that voted against this measure feel the way they do. Personally, I'm baffled by why anyone would be against equality. But, obviously, there are some deep psychological issues involved that are not being addresses by the campaigns.

Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 4, 2009 2:08 PM

That's odd.

The poll I ran on my blog (for Canadians) was 80% in favour of supporting same-sex marriages.

Posted by: llewelly | November 4, 2009 2:17 PM

So, mr Obama, get off your lazy, fat, christofascist arse and tear down this stonewall.

Obama has said, time and time again, that he does not support gay marriage. Like most of the Democratic "leadership", he is terrified of being depicted as immoral by the hard right. But the hard right loudly asserts he supports gay marriage anyway, even though he has said many times that he does not. And they tar him as immoral for supporting it. If the Democratic "leadership" had 3 working neurons, they would realize their enemies will always hate them for supporting gay marriage, regardless of how much they disavow it. Thus, actually supporting gay marriage would cost the Democrats nothing, and it would gain them a lot, greatly raising the confidence of their base.

They are, with a few exceptions, moral cowards, and in this particular case, it is also costing them strategically.

Posted by: AF Comm Guy | November 4, 2009 2:31 PM

I'm curious if the Mormon church was at all involved in this considering their influence in California's Prop 8.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 4, 2009 2:36 PM

@14

It's quite simple. It's sex...well that and a fear that gay marriage will hasten the death of the idea of wife as subordinate houseslave. But they sell the latter idea on the strength of America's fear of its own sexuality. Thinking about, seeing gays in any capacity causes one to think about sexuality instead of taking it for granted. This is why they rant about the dirty sex homos have and celebrate like this will somehow prevent gay families from existing.

They are trying to avoid having to admit that 99% of humans are sexual animals and try and stoke nervousness about admitting that fact in order to get people to feel vaguely antsy about this whole gay thing.

All of the arguments fall down this way, either sexism or sex often both at the same time (our daughters will be sexual and therefore unable to be controlled thanks to the perversions of gay america, blah blah).

We defeat them by getting them more comfortable with safe, consensual, respectful sex and sexuality in all its flavors.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 2:38 PM

James Sweet: That's the difficulty with democracy. It's why the US founders wrote the Constitution and especially its Bill of Rights

No, that's the difficulty with direct democracy. A representative democracy need not have such an obvious vulnerability to the tyranny of the majority. I am well aware of what the US founders wrote into the United States constitution to guard against this sort of thing, but unfortunately the drafters of the Maine constitution (as well as the California constitution, and I'm not sure how many others) royally screwed the pooch on this one.

So the Maine legislature passes a law that "about" 50% of Maine residents support, but which is obviously a good law, obviously the right thing to do. If >50% of Mainers fail to see that it is the right thing to do, then in theory they can choose in the next major election to vote in representatives who will repeal the law -- but because each vote for a representative represents a statement on multiple issues, it's very difficult for a political front organization without any qualms about lying (i.e. NOM) to swoop in and bamboozle a slight majority into voting their way. Voters are forced to vote on general principles, rather than their specific hangups and bigotry.

As little as I trust our nation's representatives to do a good job at decision-making, I trust the American public even less. And this is why.

Like I say, why even bother with a representative democracy if you are going to give the voters the power to repeal a legitimately-enacted piece of legislation with a mere 51% of the vote? Why not stop beating around the bush and just do a straight-up direct democracy? Let the majority have their way with everyone else. Hell, why not! When you give the electorate the effective power to legislate, that's exactly what you are doing anyway...

Posted by: Cerberus | November 4, 2009 2:40 PM

@20 Do you even have to ask? NOM was practically their sole funder and a last minute ad flood beyond even the spending capacity of the supposedly more funded no on 1 team was hinted at by NOM when they tried to lobby for special permission to break Maine finance law.

Once again, this was brought to us by the Mormon Church for Theocracy Now.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | November 4, 2009 2:45 PM

James Sweet:

This is what you get when you allow legitimate legislative action to be repealed by a bare majority. Why have a fucking representative government at all then? Sheesh...

Indeed, initiatives and referenda are a stupid way to run a republic.

If they are to have any legitimacy at all, there must be a threshold of voter turnout. If "the people" are really to make the laws, it really must be a majority of the eligible voters, not a majority of those voters who bothered to show up on a particular election day. No way is 53% of an election in which only 50% of the voters bothered to vote a majority of the electorate. It's a sliver of energized bigots making laws for everyone else.

More importantly, though, basic rights and equality should not be up for a vote at all. That's the idea behind limited, Constitutional government. People have inalienable rights that cannot be stripped by popular opinion, even if the popular opinion gets 99% of the vote.

Posted by: la tricoteuse | November 4, 2009 2:46 PM

I don't think I'm alone in considering those people beneath contempt.

Also, one of the other discussion topics in the sidebar on this site was something to the effect of "Are white males in danger of becoming the minority?"

That, to me, indicates something very important about this website. Not something good, either. Sometimes, even to pose the question is to plant seeds that ought not to be cultivated.

Posted by: la tricoteuse | November 4, 2009 2:51 PM

Oops. Bad form on my part. I was responding to Comment #21 and neglected to make that clear.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | November 4, 2009 2:52 PM

Congratulations to the winners on Proposition 1. Now we have to get rid of marriage for straights, as just having it available to one sexual orientation is clearly discriminatory.

Down with straight marriage!!!

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 2:56 PM

@Skeeto #31: Heh, I hadn't seen the Google Trends thing before. Still, one could argue that SLCers were googling Prop 8 because they were accused of interfering, not because they are interfering.

In any case, the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing. I have little doubt about it myself, even without direct proof. But I'd still love to see them forced into admitting it.

Posted by: Mike Wagner | November 4, 2009 2:59 PM

Whatever the results of the poll, gay marriage is a legal right in Canada. And I will happily attend my cousin's wedding. :)

If only the religious would show as much outrage for molestation by church officials as they do for adults who have consensual relationships.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 4, 2009 3:03 PM

But I suspect that's not what they meant.

Posted by: Tiger | November 4, 2009 3:21 PM

Too bad we can't Pharyngulate elections.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 4, 2009 3:32 PM

Livliest Crib and others,

Thanks for the thoughts on my query. I see what you mean. It just seemed like a really strange option.

I just got through with a thread yesterday (here) where I argued that the right to vote needs to remain firmly in place, including for people that mobilize to bring down the very system that protects their rights.

I realize that's not exactly what James Sweet and others have mentioned when talking about the voting system (the potential problems of direct democracy vs. the problems of representative democracy), but I'd sure have my work cut out for me arguing as I did yesterday after this disappointment from Maine.

Livliest Crib seems to me to have the best answer I can think of today:

People have inalienable rights that cannot be stripped by popular opinion, even if the popular opinion gets 99% of the vote.

Have to get back to studying. It really breaks my heart about Maine, having lived there for 3 years (it's absolutely beautiful landscape) and met many wonderful people there, and then seeing James F's post of the inspiring Philip Spooner in the Vote thread.

It's easy to see how the myth of Sisyphus was developed. Some days it just feels like every time you get the rock to the top of the hill, it rolls back down. It just hurts worse when it's because someone was waiting at the top who pushes it out of your hands with such malicious glee.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 3:37 PM

Don't worry, you will "eventually" catch up to the rest of the civilised world in terms of morality, health and equality.

Then we can celebrate with a fun Hades skiing holiday.

yay.

Posted by: wiley | November 4, 2009 3:39 PM

Absolutely, no. But I wouldn't care either way if you'd only make up a new word for it so I won't need to qualify my relationship as a 'heterosexual' marriage.
What is it with evolutionary theorists and 'gay' activism anyway? If there's any truth in the ToE, it hinges on hetero activity/behaviour; homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.

Posted by: Sakura | November 4, 2009 3:41 PM

Do you support same-sex marriage?
Absolutely, yes 50%
Sure, why not? 14%
Not really 7%
Absolutely, no 20%
I don't care either way 8%

Total Votes for this Question: 4978

So, it seems that the amount has definitely gone up.

And I'm curious and interested to see what the Maine courts tell NOM as far as disclosing monetary matters goes.

Posted by: JJR | November 4, 2009 3:44 PM

"When Texas give gays any rights, I'll eat my berret [sic]."

Texas was recently forced to decriminalize sodomy by the courts; that's *some* progress.

But yes, Texas voters passed a similar ban on gay marriage awhile back too (I voted against the ban, but my side lost).

Posted by: Vincent Poffley | November 4, 2009 3:46 PM

One thing that I think needs doing a lot more vociferously is directly associating gay rights (indeed, minority rights in general) with reason, rationality, intelligence and science. Obviously it is pandering to the is/ought fallacy to say that the scientific evidence about what causes homosexuality should directly dictate what the moral thing to do about equality is, but as a matter of fact a lot of people DO commit this fallacy. Education is the enemy of bigotry, and while the terminal faith-heads might not be swayed by the science into reconsidering their views, a lot of less dogmatic individuals might very well be.

I have seen this with gay rights before. Usually the people standing up, being counted and making a fuss are specialist campaigning organizations like Stonewall or OutRage (I don't know what the US equivalents are). If academics get involved at all then it is invariably LGBT academics, who could be considered to have a vested interest. I know that groups like the British Humanist Association do participate in pride marches and the like, but in general the rationality lobby could be a lot more prominent.

Which is why I am so heartened by the delightfully liberal and tolerant attitude that permeates PZ's blog, and the activities of others of like mind, such as Richard Dawkins's prominent support for gay rights and confrontations with irrational bigots of all stripes. This is one of the great things about "New Atheism", a willingness to stand up for obviously moral causes, rather than to sit back and "respect" the bigots or write off corrupt political wranglings as beyond the reach of reason.

And thanks, the poll is helping a little to ease the disappointment.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 4, 2009 3:47 PM

48-

And yet homosexuals exist in every culture, in most every sexual species even.

Funny that.

Posted by: MrFire | November 4, 2009 3:48 PM

If there's any truth in the ToE, it hinges on hetero activity/behaviour; homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.

Epic Troll Fail.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 3:50 PM

homosexuality wiley is an evolutionary dead-end.

There, fixed it for ya.

Seriously, that comment is so dumb it's not worth responding to... except for this one thing, because I haven't heard this particular canard stated quite this way before:

so I won't need to qualify my relationship as a 'heterosexual' marriage.

Um... really?? You are really planning on doing that if gay marriage is legalized? That's, um... creepy.

"My wife and I are going to be celebrating our heterosexual wedding anniversary in February..." Seriously? Really?

Wow.

Posted by: Tom | November 4, 2009 3:53 PM

Wiley,

If homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, why does it exist? Not just in humans but across all species? Isn't that a more interesting question than simply and stupidly declaring that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end? what knowledge do you gain? And do you think by making such an asinine comment that millions of LGBT people the world-over will say: "oh gee, he's right. Now let's all magically become straight." Since there is no logical objection to same-sex marriage, I smell a religious rat here in you.

Posted by: MrFire | November 4, 2009 3:56 PM

Never mind; I totally f***ed up my source @49. The Mormons were behind it after all.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 4:00 PM

wiley #48 wrote:

What is it with evolutionary theorists and 'gay' activism anyway? If there's any truth in the ToE, it hinges on hetero activity/behaviour; homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.

Homosexuals are not a separate species. A non-reproducing percentage of a species (whatever the reason they don't procreate) will not cause a species to die out.

You seem to think that evolution is taking the place of a divine moral mandate. No, it's just an explanation for how things got how they are. It's not what "Nature tells us we ought to do."

Bottom line, you cannot make a plausible secular case against gay marriage, because there's nothing harmful in it, and it's marriage in every significant respect. Arguments which say gays can't reproduce, so should not marry, would have to apply to infertile heterosexuals too. And nobody argues that way.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 4, 2009 4:06 PM

On the random additional naming, I've argued that if my partner and I get married before CA returns to the Realm of The Light, we're advertising our wedding on all invitations and press as a "Secret Homo Wedding" (I'm trans and we're a same-sex couple) to highlight how stupid and mindlessly discriminatory the divide is.

But that's kind of a special case.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 4:07 PM

-Absolutely, no. But I wouldn't care either way if you'd only make up a new word for it so I won't need to qualify my relationship as a 'heterosexual' marriage.-

Let me get this straight (hoho) the only reason you would deny people the same rights as you is because you want to use a "special" word...and it's yours... all yours and your not sharing...so nyuh nyhu. How truly pitiful and childish.

The reason homosexuality is around is because there is less difference between male and female than your magic book of choice tells you.

Posted by: marilove | November 4, 2009 4:23 PM

Homosexuals are not a separate species. A non-reproducing percentage of a species (whatever the reason they don't procreate) will not cause a species to die out.

Besides that, saying gays don't procreate isn't true. Plenty of gay people have kids, either through past partners before they came out, or with current same-sex partners, or adoption.

Also, not all straight folks have children. And not all straight folk have children through “traditional” means.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | November 4, 2009 4:44 PM

The simple solution is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether.

Let whatever constellation of consenting adults participate in whatever ritual or ceremony they like and call themselves "married" for social purposes.

For the various financial benefits currently bestowed upon the married, let individuals apply for themselves and their dependants, without regard to whatever mumbo-jumbo ceremonies they participated in.

For division of property and assets, let them register like a corporation and treat the "marriage/joining/mental bonding/whatever" similarly.

Problem solved. No more gay marriage undermining anything, no more advantages to heterosexual couples. Everyone treated fairly.

In advocating this position, what I often discover is that a great many people want to use marriage laws to gain financial advantage over others. It's total self-interest much more than bigotry. Take away the big financial advantages of marriage by making marriage wholly a social institution, and thereby make everyone equal, you strike at the root of the problem.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | November 4, 2009 4:47 PM

And yes, I do know that being married does not necessarily confer financial advantage (it disadvantages me personally, for example, and my wife). However, if you're middle-class and raising a brood, it gives you tax breaks and other little plusses that are not accessible to other people - ergo, financial advantage.

Posted by: Mike | November 4, 2009 4:51 PM

54% absolutely yes now.. haha, the pharyngula phactor at work.

Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | November 4, 2009 4:54 PM

Same for everyone in every state…like Minnesota.

We can do our part but it's hard to feel optimistic when we've (I live in the 6th district) elected Bachmann twice. It's nice to imagine Minnesota as progressive place, but the reality is that we have plenty of god-botherers and haters.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 4, 2009 5:00 PM

@Evolving Squid: While I actually agree with your ideas (being a nontraditional sort myself), I don't think that a massive rewrite of marriage (and related) laws at both the federal level and in all states really constitutes a "simple" solution.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 4, 2009 5:01 PM

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had thrown away the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

- Brecht

Sastra:

anyone who brings God into politics better bring an actual God, in person.

It's been tried. Unfortunately he won an unacceptable degree of popular support.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 5:02 PM

The simple solution is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. ... In advocating this position, what I often discover is that a great many people want to use marriage laws to gain financial advantage over others. It's total self-interest much more than bigotry. Take away the big financial advantages of marriage by making marriage wholly a social institution, and thereby make everyone equal, you strike at the root of the problem.

heh... so, I agree with this position in theory (you and I both know that in practice it will never come to pass, of course) and in fact there was I time when I publicly espoused this very argument.

You know when I stopped making this argument (even though I technically still agree)?

The first time I filed taxes after getting married. So yeah, you may be on to something with this financial self-interest thing... heh... I agree fully with just about everything you said in your comment, but I have trouble being vocal about it when I'm financially benefiting from the unholy union of the state and a religious ritual.

(Note that I am still quite loud in my support of gay marriage... Usually, politics are hard, and if you ask me my opinions, a lot of them will be very guarded, "Well, I sorta think this, but there's so many tradeoffs it's difficult to know for sure," etc. The question of gay marriage? I can't think of a single political issue in my lifetime that was so cut-and-dry.)

Posted by: skeeto | November 4, 2009 5:07 PM

@#54: Vincent, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the only possible arguments against gay rights are based on religion. So all of the opponents of gay rights are literally forcing their religious views onto other people. (Talk about which side of the fight here is the un-American one!) I think that's why atheists fit right in on the issue, because we tend to being strongly against that sort of thing.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 5:10 PM

EvolvingSquid, that kind of mumbo-jumbo generally comes from someone who isn't affected by this stuff.

Marriage exists and it is not equal as it exists today. Period.

Maybe it is because I am not directly affected, but in my mind there is no contradiction between discussing amongst people who "know the score" whether the gov't should even be involved in marriage to begin with, and unequivocal support for gay marriage.

FWIW, part of what makes it such a cut-and-dry issue for me (in addition to the obvious civil rights issues) is that all the infrastructure is already there. I mean, the only conceivable "cost" that I can see is that the next time state's print out a batch of marriage certificates, they replace "Husband" and "Wife" with "Spouse" and "Spouse" (IIRC some states are already like that, gay marriage or no).

So while I do think EvolvingSquid is right about the "in a perfect world" solution, there would be enormous transitional costs to solving the problem that way. And yet there are effectively zero transitional costs to restoring equality by just allowing gay marriage.

This is why, for me at least, there is no incompatibility between ES's "mumbo-jumbo" and unequivocal support for gay marriage.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 5:16 PM

I wish my state wasn't so... uh... bigoted is perhaps the best word. In terms of religion and civil rights, and probably other ways as well. And we have "no same-sex marriage" right in our state constitution, so that's not going to change for a while. If it ever does come to a vote, I'm sure as hell voting for equality. Until then, I'll have to find other ways of supporting sanity. At least other states have been showing hopeful signs. But Maine, I'm disappointed in you!

Posted by: Heidi | November 4, 2009 5:17 PM

What is it with creationist trolls, anyway? They get all "God didn't create Adam and Steve" but then they never do mention who exactly they think *did* create Steve. I mean, if some god magically created all the people out of woo and dirt, then he made Steve, too, right? And since god hasn't said anything to the contrary, he must be pretty happy with Steve. [/snark]

I'm seriously disappointed in Maine. I thought they were better than this. Maybe all the gay couples in Maine should vote with their feet and move down here to Massachusetts. We don't vote on civil rights. (And it had better stay that way.)

Hey, is Whacked-Out Wiley going to tell straight people we have to call our divorces heterosexual, too? Maybe he can go around and stick little symbols on everyone's shirts so people can tell us apart. And then round us all up into camps to keep us separate. Oh, wait, that's been done.

Posted by: Joffan | November 4, 2009 5:26 PM

Acronym Jim,

Chromosome test for Wiley's "wife"! STAT!

PS. Hmm, mmm, acronym JIM... jumping into melodrama? just inferring meaning? joker in motley?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 4, 2009 5:28 PM

Absolutely, no. But I wouldn't care either way if you'd only make up a new word for it so I won't need to qualify my relationship as a 'heterosexual' marriage.

For the edification of Wiley--funny word, that; reminds me of edifice, which I tend to think of as a large building of rock, stone, or brick, and so 'edification' sounds to me like something I might do to someone like Wiley with the aid of some bricks--I'd like to point out that marriage has existed in every human culture we know of, and yet rarely exists between one man and one woman. One man and more than one woman is the norm, while one woman and more than one man is the other extreme.

So feel free to make up a new word for your little nuclear family, Wiley, if you're worried that someone might see you with your wife and assume it's a same-sex marriage, but you don't get to decide who uses 'marriage.' You didn't invent it, and neither did your co-religionists.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 4, 2009 5:31 PM

The whole Maine thing just sickens me. A win for a backwards step over a forwards one. A win for superstition over reason. A win for anti-humanity over humanity. A win for homophobia and bigotry over equality. A win for lies over the truth. A win for stupidity and ignorance over thoughtfulness and knowledge. A win for hate over love.

Fuck all those Maine people responsible for this. I wish you nothing but ill.

Posted by: raven | November 4, 2009 5:40 PM

Sastra: anyone who brings God into politics better bring an actual God, in person.

It's been tried. Unfortunately he won an unacceptable degree of popular support.

If he means jesus, this is totally wrong. Hardly anyone heard of or believed in jesus in his short life time. The Jews and Romans allegedly killed him as a peasant revolutionary.

It goes downhill from there. A few decades later, the Romans destroyed the center of Judaism, the Temple during a war and eventually exiled the Jews from their own country after a few more wars. It took 2,000 years for the Jews to get their country back together.

The next time god/jesus shows up will supposedly be even worse. They are supposed to destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people.

Explain to me again what is so great about jesus as a political figure? Seems like whenever he shows up, everything promptly falls apart while huge numbers of people die. Even Bush was better.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 4, 2009 5:42 PM

Sastra wrote (of Piltdown Man):

It did not work, partly because your definition of 'hedonism' wasn't going to pass by modern rational standards.

I'm quite sure that Piltdown's definitions of pretty much anything to do with issues of fairness, social justice and equality aren't going to pass by modern rational standards - much like he himself wouldn't.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 6:05 PM

Wowbagger, OM #104 wrote:

I'm quite sure that Piltdown's definitions of pretty much anything to do with issues of fairness, social justice and equality aren't going to pass by modern rational standards - much like he himself wouldn't.

Yes, but I've seen other Catholics try to make a 'secular' case for Catholic prohibitions using the same archaic, medieval type of reasoning, on the assumption that it wasn't religious. Years ago a Catholic friend tried to see if he could justify prohibiting birth control to married couples using reasoning that would be acceptable to a room full of secular humanists. He tried several approaches. First, he said that artificial birth control treated sex and procreation as if it were a disease: since we think it's healthy and natural, we ought to be against behaving as if it was wrong.

When that made no sense to us, he went on to explain that couples who decided to delay having children till they were ready were making a just and reasonable choice. To be rewarded with sex anyway, after making the right decision, would be like a judge accepting extra payment for ruling honestly. That didn't work either.

"Secular" arguments against gay marriage smack of the same sort of desperate analogies, strained inferences, and archaic assumptions regarding the truth of "natural law," the worth of "tradition," and the social need to respect people's sense of "the sacred." I find it fascinating to realize each time how alien the thought processes behind faith are. It doesn't translate.

And it's frustrating that each person knows it doesn't translate for them, either, when it's someone else's religion. When dealing with other people's religions, they will eagerly revert to a very clear secular ground. They know it's the alternative to a religious war.

Posted by: bwe | November 4, 2009 6:14 PM

We've got a poll here in Maine, too:

Were you surprised by the Question 1 results?

We sure were.

Vote here: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 4, 2009 6:18 PM

Would the state allow a referendum on overturning interracial marriage protections? Would they allow votes to sever some equalities for women? No. This shows how much religion has taken over America's culture.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 4, 2009 6:29 PM

The "pro-family" movement hurts families.

Thank you, MAJeff. That statement can't be said often enough.

No joke.

Posted by: Cerberus | November 4, 2009 6:34 PM

@109

Yup, Maine ran perfectly and lost and they need to regroup and figure out how to pass it later, but what we need now is to flood out gay rights ordinances wherever we can and NJ literally has a running down clock on Equality by Legislature until 2013. We need it sooner rather than later.

I think Maine can also redeem itself though. They can come back and make a big show about being conciliatory and put in a big huge religion blowjob on how special they are and how no church will ever ever double plus ever have to so much as wink at gay marriage and pass another gay marriage bill or they can take the bigots at their word and try and hoist them by their petard by passing a WA style everything but name domestic partnership bill.

I think we'll also see an uptick in the perception of the momentum once NH has their first marriages in January and when DC passes its gay marriage bill to Republican whining sometime later this month and NY keeps see-sawing back and forth.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 4, 2009 6:50 PM

If gays can marry then my dog can marry a fire hydrant.

Well, it's about time Sparky made an honest hydrant out of #Q104503 West 3rd and Main.

Posted by: middlekk | November 4, 2009 6:55 PM

@116.
Sparky doesn't want to marry the fire hydrant. He wants to marry my leg.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 7:10 PM

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

Posted by: Carlie | November 4, 2009 7:20 PM

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals interracial couples from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals Americans and Brits from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals Protestants and Catholics from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals blondes and brunettes from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 4, 2009 7:31 PM

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals from getting together. They just want their own way of defining marriage.

Because I have friends in Maine who are harmed by these bigots voting to exclude them from the protections offered by marriage.

I'll ask you this jojame, how many families were helped last night? And how were they helped?

I know my friends family was harmed by exclusion from medical decision making, funerary rights, tax issues with regard to insurance, eligibility for insurance.

Why do you want to harm these people?

Posted by: kamaka | November 4, 2009 7:51 PM

I know my friends family was harmed by exclusion from medical decision making

Your partner of decades is in the ICU, and you are denied visitation because you have no legal standing, because, of course, you are denied legal standing, is cruel and evil.

But, thank dog, we've protected the sanctity of marriage.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 4, 2009 7:59 PM

What do you care what they do in Maine. It's not as if they're preventing homosexuals from getting together.

And here, again, we have the bigots' approach: "We're not throwing you queers in jail anymore. Why aren't you happy with that?"

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 8:03 PM

There are differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 4, 2009 8:15 PM

There was a time in history where the protestant/catholic difference was a big fucking deal. If that matters not, why is gender such a big fucking deal?

I have an idea: "oops babies." Pregnancies don't happen by accident in same-sex couples. That doesn't mean there's no parenting, but that there may be some differences in biological relationship.

Here's something I bet most folks aren't aware of: legal parentage established via marriage outweighs biological parentage. See: Michale H v Gerald D, written by Justice Scalia. A woman had an affair, and became pregnant. She didn't get a divorce, and reconciled with her husband. Marriage law gives automatic legal parental rights to the husband, and the Court upheld that assumption of marital legitimacy. It's the legal relationship that matters, not the biological one. The wife's affair mate, and child's biological father, has no legal rights. Those go to the husband/legal father.

Now, I'm guessing that our new troll is fussy about issues related to parentage. A joint adoption within a marriage gives both parents legal parental rights, just as the birth of a child within a marriage gives both parents legal parental rights. Apparently, or new troll is 1) unaware of those issues, and 2) fussy about acknowledging that gay folks raise kids.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 8:24 PM

fussy about acknowledging that gay folks raise kids.

Posted by: Ray | November 4, 2009 8:32 PM

jojame@127:
The differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages are EXACTLY the same as the differences between blonde/brunette, catholic/protestant or interracial marriages. NONE of those differences MATTER. Just because you think it matters doesn't make it so. As MAJeff, OM@129 has already pointed out, the courts have been deciding issues like child support and alimony between couples for ages, the sexes of the people making up the couple don't change the issues being dealt with. Calling same sex couples married makes perfect sense if you're not a homophobic bigot.
Just my $.02
Cheers,
Ray

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 8:46 PM

Gender does matter in the marriage because many of the benefits of marriage exist to bring up the nuclear family.

Posted by: Ray | November 4, 2009 8:59 PM

jojame@135: How exactly does gender matter? Please show your work. Why can't a same sex couple who are married with kids "bring up the nuclear family"? you ask: "why is it necessary to give them marriage?" Uh, Equality? Fairness? Justice?
How would their lives improve? Have you not been listening? Marriage gives spouses specific legal rights that most "unions" don't. If the legal rights were the same I think I would be happy to concede the point and let the god botherers keep the term "marriage" and choke on it.
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | November 4, 2009 9:22 PM

The courts have consistently fuond that there is no such thing as a "right" to marriage, much less a "right" to redefine the word from its current meaning in society.

I am bemused by the current fashion to equate homosexuality with "progress". WTF? Homosexuality is at best a tasteless personal lifestyle choice. The majority clearly opposes a ridiculous sexual perversion foisting itself on our institutions, even an outdated and mostly irrelevant one such as marriage.

Now, if we can just have a referendum on the proliferation of "prayer rooms" in our supposedly secular society's institutions.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 9:27 PM

I'll start from the beginning and lay it out nicer. Wait til the end of the post to decide whether I'm a bigot or troll.

Getting married is like having a contract. I want to say to my wife that I want to commit to the relationship. In order to do that I get a state recognized marriage. I am willing to accept the responsibility of having to pay alimony and child support in case I want to divorce. Only in a man/woman relationship would this situation arise. There is a split in who's role is what in the marriage. The woman is giving up a better career for the sake of the family by becoming pregnant and taking care of the children while the man has to work more.

(I know there are lots of exceptions but bear with me)

Getting married is a huge step in life due to the commitment. It is important for both parties that the meaning of marriage is not diluted or weakened so as not to weaken the seriousness of the commitment involved. It's similar to how swearing to God has lost it's meaning or how the word crap as opposed to the f-word doesn't raise an eyebrow anymore. There were outcries when prenuptial agreements and no fault divorces came into existence because they weaken the meaning the marriage.

Now homosexuals would dilute the meaning of marriage because their relationship is different from that of a heterosexual couple. One spouse cannot impregnate the other and desert. It is unclear which partner deserves alimony. They cannot raise a family unless they adopt. Their needs are different. The point is that gender differences run deeper than superficial things like race/religion/etc.

That is not to say that I'm against them having contracts of their own. A homosexual couples can enter their own agreement that suits them. Maybe alimony should work differently. Let them and the courts figure it out. There also may be reasons for the state to want to delineate homo and heterosexual couples. The state may want to tax at different rates or give certain tax breaks for different relationships.

I'm not saying that how marriage is handled is perfect. Sometimes there are relationships between men and women that don't follow the norm of a nuclear family. I just hope to show you all that you shouldn't label the people of Maine as bigots because you refuse to look from their perspective. Homophobes exist and should be condemned but I don't think they are as widespread as you believe.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 9:43 PM

@141
There is a difference between the traditional nuclear family and a family with homosexual parents.

Either one or both of guardians of the child is essentially a stepparent. There is less stake in the child where there is no blood relation.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 9:46 PM

Only in a man/woman relationship would this situation arise.

It's similar to how swearing to God

One spouse cannot impregnate the other and desert.

I just hope to show you all that you shouldn't label the people of Maine as bigots because you refuse to look from their perspective. Homophobes exist and should be condemned but I don't think they are as widespread as you believe.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 9:48 PM

Vince Whirlwind #142 wrote:

The courts have consistently fuond that there is no such thing as a "right" to marriage, much less a "right" to redefine the word from its current meaning in society.

People are not granted "rights" by the government: rights are assumed as inherent in the human nature of the individual. The burden of proof then is on the government. It has to give good reason to deny rights to same-sex couples.

It can't meet that burden, because their committed relationships meet every significant factor found in marriage. They can marry, and have marriages. "Current meaning" is in context a nonsense phrase -- the desires of the majority do not trump human rights, particularly when the majority is citing their religious beliefs as their own authority. Our society is secular, it's not a theocracy. This is why people of different races can now marry -- against the will of the same religious majority.

You have a right to define marriage as you want to define it, in your own church. You cannot give a public reason to exclude single-sex couples from the duties and benefits of marriage. A lot of little personal, private, religious reasons do not equal a convincing public argument.

You can keep "holy matrimony." And make a fig fuss over how special it is. And the rest of us will care about being excluded from Holy Matrimony as much as we care about not being allowed to take communion, get baptized, attend Temple, or undergo confirmation.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 9:53 PM

@138
I never read the book but I probably will now. I've never seen the data about kids with gay parents but I don't doubt that it's true. I'm not against gays adopting or having children.

What I'm arguing is that the mechanics of the family is different from the traditional one. I would want to hold my spouse to a different set of standards since there are differences in the marriage. In that there is data to support it. Divorce rates are higher among male homosexual marriages than heterosexual ones for instance. Male homosexuals are more promiscuous and have many more sexual partners than do male heterosexuals. With that in mind you would change the terms of the contract wouldn't you?

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 9:57 PM

@137
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/305250.html
Why don't we call everything bloogag so we don't discriminate between anything. If homosexuals have the right to marry we may be able to smile to each other and say that those two heterosexuals are married the same way those two homosexuals are married but I think we will both know that the situation is different and their is a difference between the relationships.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 9:59 PM

but I think we will both know that the situation is different and their is a difference between the relationships.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 10:04 PM

jojame #144 wrote:

Only in a man/woman relationship would this situation arise. There is a split in who's role is what in the marriage.

No; legal marriages do not mandate that there be split roles, or who takes what role, if there are. If alimony and child support needs arise, judges always decide based on the specifics of the case.

If you follow this argument, then a gay couple with children who have one parent take the stay-at-home role and another parent take on the role of breadwinner deserves to be "married," and a childless heterosexual couple who both work will be denied any right to be married. You can't allow the government this kind of power -- telling loving couples that only some are "worthy" of marriage because they follow a narrow sort of storyline. I don't think you've thought this through.

Now homosexuals would dilute the meaning of marriage because their relationship is different from that of a heterosexual couple.

No, it's not. Not when you consider the wide spectrum of relationships within legitimate marriages. Allowing gay couples to marry strengthens the concept and commitment of marriage. It doesn't dilute it.

You're trying to dilute it, by insisting that people who want to make lifelong commitments must instead live together without the duties, or the benefits, that come from being married.

I'm not saying that how marriage is handled is perfect. Sometimes there are relationships between men and women that don't follow the norm of a nuclear family.

Unless you want to strip rights away from non-traditional families -- and encourage gay marriages which do form traditional nuclear families -- your argument is inconsistent. Since to be consistent is to be cruel, it is cruel to forbid marriages now.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 10:14 PM

@148
The fact that God is taken less and less seriously weakens the "I swear to God" statement. Whether he exists or not is not the issue.

It also doesn't matter whether the couple can physically have children or whether or not they choose to have children. The only thing that matters is that it's a relationship between a man and a woman. The man and woman would still prefer the same contract as before.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 10:22 PM

jojame #160 wrote:

The only thing that matters is that it's a relationship between a man and a woman.

No, the only thing that matters is that it's a relationship between two people who want to be married.

Denying gay couples the right to marry weakens marriage. It weakens it as much as telling people they're too old, or too infertile, or shouldn't marry outside their race, or their religion. You're trying to force families apart, and deny them the protections which come from the law. They want to take on the mutual burden of legal responsibility and commitment in order to cement their relationship, and you're saying "No." No rules. No rights. For either of you, or for your children either.

Think this through some more. It's not consistent.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 4, 2009 10:24 PM

Desert Son@133:

"This argument against gay marriage is ridiculous, because what it's getting at is the underlying fear, in the heart of the faithful"...followed by a well thought out, detailed analysis of the thought processes of those people voting based on religious beliefs.

While I appreciate your struggles to understand their thought processes...naw, it's simpler than that. They believe their god has explicitly told them it's wrong evil, therefore they vote no.

Even though we disagree on your hypothesis, I think you still deserve the right to have OM in your moniker.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 10:27 PM

@153
I never meant to slight stepparents. I have no problem with them. I'm just saying that they are different. There are definite statistical differences between families with and without stepparents. Compare the abuse rate between parent/child versus stepparent/stepchild. Children resist calling their stepparents mom or dad because they know that they aren't really their parents.

I only meant to show the differences between the two types of families and am not making any judgments about them. I judge based on what people do not who they are. There are many more good stepparents instead of bad ones.

Children can be taken out of the equation entirely. I think what people are confused about is that I talking about is what people want not necessarily what they do. The logic of marriage comes down to biology. Children is the reason sex feels good similar to how fat and sugar is the reason cheesecake tastes good. I'm not literally thinking about the chemical properties of cheesecake and deciding that I should like it. My mind does that work for me.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 4, 2009 10:30 PM

My mind does that not work for me.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 10:40 PM

jojame #166 wrote:

Children is the reason sex feels good similar to how fat and sugar is the reason cheesecake tastes good.

And therefore people who go on diets are breaking Natural Law. Let's not even get into vegetarians.

"Natural Law" is nothing more than religious prescriptions and proscriptions. There are only descriptive laws of nature.

You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper by referring to statistics to justify who is allowed to marry, and who isn't. When the government grants a couple a marriage license, it gives it to two individuals. It doesn't take account of their demographics, and decide based on statistics. If your wife came from a family with a lot of divorces, would you want the government stepping in to tell you that you're not allowed to marry her -- it's too risky, based on the odds?

Posted by: Red John | November 4, 2009 10:46 PM

There is less stake in the child where there is no blood relation.

Bullshit. Who cares about their child more: people who wanted a child and adopted one, or people who accidentally get pregnant and are stuck with a child they don't want? Blood relations are only present in the latter, yet that is clearly the wrong answer. What a dipshit.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 4, 2009 10:47 PM

Is that because his simplistic ... position completely falls down when it comes to women?

No, it's simpler than that. Men having sex is "gross", while women having sex is "hawt". Everything else is rationalization.

I don't know if this is the case for women. Images of child abuse seems to factor in more with them, but I have much less experience with homophobic women than men and hesitate to make an emphatic statement.

Posted by: Rick R | November 4, 2009 10:48 PM

"Children is the reason sex feels good similar to how fat and sugar is the reason cheesecake tastes good."

You. Can't. Be. Serious.

*headdesk*

That is the stupidest thing I've read on this blog today. And there's a thread about Ray Comfort on the main page, above this one.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 4, 2009 10:54 PM

@Caine: Continuing with Jojame's analogy, cheesecake tastes good so that people will make more cheesecake.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 4, 2009 11:00 PM

A Naked Bunny said to me:

@Caine: Continuing with Jojame's analogy, cheesecake tastes good so that people will make more cheesecake.

I've generally considered cheesecake to be a gateway dessert. It leads to more intense dessert deviance, ya know. ;)

Posted by: Red John | November 4, 2009 11:07 PM

I think we will both know that the situation is different and their is a difference between the relationships.

Yeah, the same-sex couple is much more likely to have a healthy relationship than you repressed, religious bigots.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 11:12 PM

Caine #180 wrote:

I've generally considered cheesecake to be a gateway dessert.

Cheesecake was originally created to be vanilla. Just vanilla -- maybe a little strawberry sauce, but vanilla. Now they've got Turtle Cheesecake, and stuff with layers, and Reeses' Peanut Butter Cups baked into it.

Cheesecake is being weakened. Save traditional cheesecake from abominations and perversions that go against nature.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 4, 2009 11:15 PM

Now homosexuals would dilute the meaning of marriage because their relationship is different from that of a heterosexual couple.

One spouse cannot impregnate the other and desert.

It is unclear which partner deserves alimony.

They cannot raise a family unless they adopt.

Their needs are different.

The point is that gender differences run deeper than superficial things like race/religion/etc.

Posted by: Mike in Maine | November 4, 2009 11:18 PM

As a Mainer, I am deeply ashamed of the many bigots we have residing here, some of whom are in my family.

Living in a rural pisshole, as I do, I saw ONLY Yes on 1 signs, including two dotting the lawn of the local Catholic Church. Talking to people, it seems one of the major fears was that supporting gay rights would make you gay. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not.

These rural homophobes are eight kinds of fucked up, for real. I am so damn embarrassed.

I respectfully disagree with this writer.

My partner and I have lived in what might qualify as a "rural pisshole" in Maine for 25 years now. We took absolutely no interest in this campaign. If this issue lost 30 previous times in as many states, including in California, it would certainly lose here in Maine.

I campaigned in the original NO on 1 campaign in 1995 against the witch, Carolyn Cosby. It soured me against politics. We "won" that one, which turned out to mean "status quo."

There are bigots everyone. "Institutions" mean less--much less--than actual people. We know many people--heterosexual--who are like us, "unmarried," because marriage is losing much of its cache.

I love Maine and its people. This election was actually a sign of progress. As little as five years ago, you'd never expect 47% of voters to vote for "gay marriage."

Lastly, I'm more worried about peak oil, overpopulation, climate change, and financial catastrophe than gay marriage.

Keep some perspective.

Love this blog. Back to lurking.

Mike.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 11:24 PM

Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology

A compromise would be to allow homosexuals to have their own union.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 4, 2009 11:27 PM

See, jojame, it's like this: I have to weigh my concern for people like my cousin and his partner and their desire to be able to secure important rights like hospital visitation, sharing of finances, partnership benefits from employers, etc. against:

"When the definition of marriage widens to include others then it feels less and less like the sacred thing it once was."

and

"Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology since the differences are too profound while an elderly couple would not be."

On one side, I have the very real and legitimate concerns of actual people in loving relationships, and on the other side, I have your puffed-up semantic wankery. You can see the bind that I'm in. Not to mention actual gay couples.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 4, 2009 11:29 PM

The logic of marriage comes down to biology.

No, it has always been property and other rights. Biology is irrelevant.

The first sentence is from the unfortunate Jojame, who is struggling....STRUGGLING to justify his/her bigotry. The second is from Nerd of the Redhead.

Jojame, there is a word in the English language that may help you to understand: empathy. It may be similar to what your mother/kindergarten teacher taught you. To understand what another is feeling, put yourself in their shoes.

Nerd of Redhead, with all due respect, most people these days get married because they love each other, want to spend their lives together, and don't want impediments to their right to express their love and commitment to each other (think the example of same sex partners where one is denied hospital visitation rights). The "property" legal benefits, while important, take a backseat to "in sickness and health, for better for worse" regardless of sexual orientation. I get that you also included "other rights", but with most people I know, the support rights trump property rights.

Not a critique, just an expansion of what I think you are trying to say. If I've botched your meaning, please feel free to correct me.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 4, 2009 11:32 PM

jojame @ 187:

Ugh. You and your screed are What the Fuckery at its finest. Or worst. Your blatant bigotry is repulsive. You are, however, a fine example of the banality of evil.

Posted by: jojame | November 4, 2009 11:37 PM

@Sastra #170
I could care less what the natural law is and whether homosexuals are breaking it. The point about the cheesecake is that I didn't have to tell you about glucose and the Kreb cycle that makes ATP so that you can surive - you just liked eating the cheesecake. But the explanation tells you why you like cheesecake so much as opposed to dirt. Replace glucose with children and cheesecake with sex and you know why sex feels good.

I wasn't saying that statistics should be the basis on which we decide who marries. It was only meant to show the overall differences in relationships. It is the differences which are significant enough to decide what marriage is.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 4, 2009 11:39 PM

Rey Fox @ #192:

I have to weigh my concern for people like my cousin and his partner and their desire to be able to secure important rights like hospital visitation, sharing of finances, partnership benefits from employers, etc.

In a nutshell. What homophobes like jojame don't get is that it's an affront to me that our best friends are prevented by law from having those benefits of marriage, simply because they are female. It doesn't matter that they love one another and have lived as wife and wife for over 15 years. It's barbaric to deny such a basic right.

Posted by: Sastra | November 4, 2009 11:46 PM

jojame #187 wrote:

At it's base marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to stay monogamous. The reasoning of the contract is seated in the evolutionary paths of males and females.

The reasoning of the contract today is seated in the commitment of two people who want to take on duties and responsibilities. In the past, marriages were made for all sorts of purposes and reasons -- some of them today would be considered reprehensible. The past had a lot of variation and permutations: it is not the smooth story you imagine.

You can see how the male's perspective is different from the female's perspective.

No; there is too much variety in happy marriages. Individuals don't all fit into one pattern.

There are many deviations from the traditional relationship that are still allowed by law to be married. You can say all deviations weakens the concept of marriage.

Or you could say that all successful variations strengthen the concept of marriage. That's usually the way it works, no matter what you're talking about.

Are you actually suggesting or hinting that it would be better if marriage was reserved only for procreating males and females who agreed to take on traditional breadwinner-homemaker roles? I'm not asking if that's the sort of marriage you prefer, personally -- but do you want the power of the State to mandate this?

Proposing by saying "will you marry me?" does not carry the same weight as "will you enter into a legal contract with me?" The idea of marriage is that it is sacred. It is meant to be an expression of love that transcends all else. When the definition of marriage widens to include others then it feels less and less like the sacred thing it once was. Imagine if any contract between two people was defined as a marriage.

Now here you've contradicted yourself. As I mentioned before, gay men and women can love each other as passionately, as tenderly, and as deeply as heterosexual couples. They want to say "will you marry me?" They do see their relationship as an expression of love. They're not looking to form a plumbing contract. Allowing them to marry only cements and reinforces this "sacred" character of marriage.

When black people were allowed to marry white people (and vice versa), it did not cheapen or threaten marriage. Using the legal force of the state to prevent such marriages was degrading to the institution of marriage. It was making marriage into a tool of the government, to separate those who loved each other and wanted to make a commitment.

Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology since the differences are too profound while an elderly couple would not be.

No, the differences are not that profound. I have seen gay couples who have been together for years. They're married, psychologically, and for real. It's a real marriage, in love. They form families. And they deserve the responsibilities, rights, duties, protections, and privileges of the law, same as anyone else.

A compromise would be to allow homosexuals to have their own union.

No. The happy compromise would be for people like you to have Holy Matrimony, or Covenant Marriages, with all the religious, sacred, traditional role trappings you want, in your church. Keep marriage secular. We're not going to weaken it by giving it to those who wish to narrow it.

Posted by: Casey | November 4, 2009 11:53 PM

Jojame - you are beginning with your conclusion that "at its base marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to stay monogamous." You have not proved that is so, although you appear to wish that it were so. Marriage is a legal relationship; that is all. The government does not require that both partners be monogamous; nor does it even require that they promise to be so. The government also should not require that one partner be a man and one be a woman.

Until you begin to advocate on behalf of denying the right to marry to all heterosexual couples that do not meet your idealized definition (which would include elderly heterosexual couples, infertile heterosexual couples, heterosexual couples who choose to remain childless, heterosexual couples that choose to adopt instead of producing biological children, and heterosexual couples where one or both partners are adulterous), do not try to impose your definition upon loving same-sex couples. I am assuming you do not know any gay or bi people? They really do love, emotionally, just the way straight people do.

As a straight woman in a high-paying profession, I must also take offense at your intimation that marriage requires me to make less money than my husband. When a couple gets divorced, alimony and child support are determined by which person makes what and has what resources. A woman who makes more than her husband will almost certainly end up paying him alimony. Gender is not a factor that is taken into account in this decision. If you have a problem with this situation, then I will add "heterosexual couples where the woman has a higher salary than the man" into the list of couples to whom you should be trying to deny marriage.

Posted by: Sastra | November 5, 2009 12:01 AM

jojame #198 wrote:

I could care less what the natural law is and whether homosexuals are breaking it. The point about the cheesecake is that I didn't have to tell you about glucose and the Kreb cycle that makes ATP so that you can surive - you just liked eating the cheesecake. But the explanation tells you why you like cheesecake so much as opposed to dirt. Replace glucose with children and cheesecake with sex and you know why sex feels good.

But this is a "Natural Law" style of argument: because sex feels good due to its evolutionary heritage regarding the need to procreate, therefore sex is for procreation, and so is marriage.

Sex also evolved along with the need to bond emotionally.

I wasn't saying that statistics should be the basis on which we decide who marries. It was only meant to show the overall differences in relationships. It is the differences which are significant enough to decide what marriage is.

Ah, so what marriage "is" has nothing to do with who is allowed to marry. You are still using statistics to work out who may be allowed to marry.

Tell me: would a gay couple who agreed to take on traditional roles and adopt children be closer to your idea of "what marriage is" than a heterosexual couple with careers, egalitarian lifestyle, and no children?

Either way you answer this, is a problem for you. If they are closer to the ideal, then the problem is not the sex of the partners. If they are not closer to "what marriage is," then stop bringing up irrelevant points regarding children, protection of the homemaker, and so forth.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 12:08 AM

@Sastra #158 You're arguing specifics of the law of marriage which are never perfect. At it's base marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to stay monogamous.

So all the other marriages that were not strictly monogamous were not marriages?

The reasoning of the contract is seated in the evolutionary paths of males and females.

Wow, it almost like human males and human females are different species.

Both parties want the other to stay faithful and the male is willing to show his commitment by giving the female a weapon against him which takes the form of alimony and such.

So what were the weapons that kept males faithful when divorces were not common?

You can see how the male's perspective is different from the female's perspective.

Is this because they are different species?

The marriage contract is set up in a way to make both happy.

Yet so many come to an end, despite the fact it was set up for their mutual happiness.

But the marriage contract is never quite perfect.

So how can perfection be achieved?

There are many deviations from the traditional relationship that are still allowed by law to be married. You can say all deviations weakens the concept of marriage.

Damned be death. All of those widows and widowers who seek to get remarried. How it forces children to call people who are not their biological parents "mommy" and "daddy". It just is not in their blood.

Proposing by saying "will you marry me?" does not carry the same weight as "will you enter into a legal contract with me?"

This is because you do not think that LGBT people should not be able to marry who they love.

The idea of marriage is that it is sacred.

Earlier you said it was evolutionary. Is it both evolutionary and sacred? Will you allow an atheist couple to get married?

It is meant to be an expression of love that transcends all else.

When the definition of marriage widens to include others then it feels less and less like the sacred thing it once was.

For millions of people, marriage is an expression of love and devotion to each other. And they do this with involking the sacred. Or are all of the non religious marriage invalid?

Imagine if any contract between two people was defined as a marriage.

Is my responding to your words marriage? Darling! I am ready to be carried across the threshold. I hope you do not mind being married to a lesbian and being part of a group marriage the includes everyone responding here.

Your examples of a man and woman who choose to keep with their own careers and not have a child or and elderly couple who wants to get married are examples of the cheapening of the word.

I know what must be done to protect the sacredness of marriage, medical test must be done to engaged couples in order to make sure they can have children. And they better have a child by one year after being married. Otherwise, marriage is being cheapened.

But like many places in law you have to draw the line somewhere.

It seems that you want marriage to be defined more tightly than the average person.

Where to put the line is also seen when it comes to abortion.

Huh?

You would have to be pretty hardcore about being pro-choice to want to legalize infanticide.

What the fuck? Please point out the pro-choice people who are pro-infanticide.

Biologically speaking, the child a day before and the day after coming out of the womb is similar and drawing the line at the moment of birth can be called arbitrary but practically all people would agree that infants out of the womb should not be killed.

So you are pulling out a very rare example to use against the idea of LGBT marriage? And you are using your rather weird idea of "biology" to support a "sacred" rite? You are deeply confused.

Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology since the differences are too profound while an elderly couple would not be.

So straight people are psychologically unable to deal with LGBT people being treated as equals? Do you think that you are that delicate?

A compromise would be to allow homosexuals to have their own union.

Would that come with all of the rights that comes with being married? Or would that psychologically be too much for you?

Posted by: Sastra | November 5, 2009 12:11 AM

jojame #205:

Your analogy doesn't work.

Imagine that they decided to pass a law which said that Catholics could not be American citizens. Instead, they would be "Voting Residents." It would have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but the special character involved in being a "citizen" wouldn't be weakened by allowing in Catholics, who swear loyalty to the Pope in Rome.

Question: would they be pissed? Over a word?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 5, 2009 12:12 AM

If you said yes to the last question then do you think forcing the change in definition against the will of what people think would now make them not homophobic?

I don't care that you're homophobic; I do care that you're getting to force your homophobia on society and unjustly limit people's freedoms for no reason other than your adherence to your batshit superstitions.

All the stupid analogies in the world won't change that, so stop your desperate attempts to rationalise your bigotry. You think gays are less deserving of rights than straights; 'fess up and own your fucking prejudice, you scumbag.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 12:20 AM

But the explanation tells you why you like cheesecake so much as opposed to dirt. Replace glucose with children and cheesecake with sex and you know why sex feels good.

So...cheesecake leads to glucose?

Seriously, I have only the vaguest idea of what you are rambling about, here and elsewhere. The phrase 'not even wrong' comes to mind.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 5, 2009 12:25 AM

jojame @ #205:

Let's says homosexual unions were given all the same rights as heterosexual marriages. Would you be upset only because one is called a marriage and another is called a civil union?

While it would certainly be a step in the right direction, yes, I would find a marriage / civil union divide to be wrong. The whole 'civil union' biz is a sop to religious bigoted homophobes such as yourself, so you can feel all sanctimonious over the word marriage.

A water fountain is a water fountain, except when one has a sign over it, saying it's for certain persons only.

Posted by: jojame | November 5, 2009 12:55 AM

Well now it is time for me to be glad for the anonymity of the internet. I screwed up. Sastra, thank you. I feel like you were the only one who got to the heart of what I was talking about. I felt wrong when I typed that there would be nothing wrong if homosexual and heterosexual couples were separated only by a word but I typed it anyway.

Yes, I guess homosexuals should have the right to marry. The word marriage can be sacred all it wants but they should have the right to use it. If people feel that it weakens the word then tough luck to them.

This apology and thanks was aimed at Sastra and those who got me. All others, I feel, exemplify the reason for my dislike of the whole gay marriage controversy. Instead of trying to understand the debate you paint over half the country as homophobes. I think this was the wrong blog to post on. Many of the comments devolved into taking words out of my mouth and basically calling me a ignorant church-goer. Does disagreeing on this blog mean I follow the word of God and therefore can be dismissed? Other times I guess I didn't make myself clear.

Many of my other points still stand. I do believe my assessment of how marriage evolved is correct. I do believe people consider it sacred. I do believe you can be against gay marriage and for civil unions and still be rational. And I do believe that while there are homophobes, it isn't the main force in the opposition in the debate of homosexual marriage. My previous opposition I feel is the main opposition though not put into so many words.

Posted by: Roameo | November 5, 2009 1:06 AM

Let's says homosexual unions were given all the same rights as heterosexual marriages. Would you be upset only because one is called a marriage and another is called a civil union?

If hetero couples can also get civil unions, and if the two were identical in everything other than name, that would be fine. It worked in NZ: marriage is now just a civil union thats done in a church.

beyond that, all of your pseudo-evolutionary bullshit isn't hiding your bigotry. There is no difference between a hetero couple and a same-sex couple. none. unless you want exclude biracial, childless or atheist couples from your concept of a "normal" family, there is no reason to discriminate based on gender.

Posted by: Roameo | November 5, 2009 1:12 AM

yes

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 1:16 AM

yes

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 1:20 AM

I screwed up.

You made bigoted comments and maddeningly inane arguments. Perhaps your definition of screwed up is different from mine...

Yes, I guess homosexuals should have the right to marry.

How gracious of you to deign it so.

Does disagreeing on this blog mean I follow the word of God and therefore can be dismissed?

Of course not. But making poor arguments will get you laughed at, and your lamenting the diminished respect for God marginally suggests that you do indeed follow his word.

Posted by: jojame | November 5, 2009 1:21 AM

Read pretty much any Richard Dawkins book to change your opinion.

Posted by: Roameo | November 5, 2009 1:23 AM

Male homosexuals are more promiscuous and have many more sexual partners than do male heterosexuals. With that in mind you would change the terms of the contract wouldn't you?

baseless assertions against an entire section of the population, check. Advocating treating said people differently based on those assertions, check.
sounds pretty fucking homophobic to me

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 1:26 AM

I never said anything that was homophobic.

O RLY:

homosexuals would dilute the meaning of marriage

Male homosexuals are more promiscuous and have many more sexual partners than do male heterosexuals.

The only thing that matters is that it's a relationship between a man and a woman.

The idea of marriage is that it is sacred. It is meant to be an expression of love that transcends all else. When the definition of marriage widens to include others then it feels less and less like the sacred thing it once was. Imagine if any contract between two people was defined as a marriage.

Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology

all of the above are explicitly or implicitly homophobic statements.

Posted by: Roameo | November 5, 2009 1:29 AM

I don't know what to say then. It was the basis of my argument.

Well, i commend you on recognising your own prejudices.

Posted by: jojame | November 5, 2009 1:38 AM

@231
Are there not male and female bathrooms? Are men not generally attracted to women more than to other men?

Can you concede that there are some differences at least?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 1:41 AM

Are there not male and female bathrooms? Are men not generally attracted to women more than to other men?

also, will your universe collapse if I told you men are physically capable of using the women's bathroom, and women are physically capable of using the men's bathroom? (I know, I've seen both done)

Posted by: jojame | November 5, 2009 1:49 AM

@232
"homosexuals would dilute the meaning of marriage"

In context it meant homosexual marriages. And yes they would dilute the meaning - at least to some people. Whole argument is post #144

"Male homosexuals are more promiscuous and have many more sexual partners than do male heterosexuals."

See my post #236. It was just a statistic.

"The only thing that matters is that it's a relationship between a man and a woman."

This was referring to the relationship a man and woman has is different to the one between homosexuals. I don't mean in terms of love but based on how their relationship evolved in evolution.

"The idea of marriage is that it is sacred. It is meant to be an expression of love that transcends all else. When the definition of marriage widens to include others then it feels less and less like the sacred thing it once was. Imagine if any contract between two people was defined as a marriage."

I'm describing the reaction people would have to it. The word marriage is no longer as exclusive. It's similar to the way curse words lose their punch when they're used in too many situations.

"Allowing gays to marry is similar in that it would be an affront to people's psychology"

Quantum mechanics is an affront to people's psychology. Knowing that there are billions of other galaxies besides ours is an affront to people's psychology. If something is unintuitive then you get a bad reaction - especially if it's something people consider sacred like marriage.

In none of these statements have I made any judgments about homosexuals or considered them less than human.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 5, 2009 1:53 AM

jojame @ #237:

@231 Are there not male and female bathrooms? Are men not generally attracted to women more than to other men?

Can you concede that there are some differences at least?

What is with you and bathrooms? Sure, there are male and female bathrooms. There are also unisex bathrooms and family bathrooms, which, in case you didn't know, allow for both genders to be present and doing their business. Big deal.

I don't know about all men. Certainly, some men are attracted to women. Some men are attracted to men. Some women are attracted to men, some women are attracted to women. I happen to be attracted to both men and women. That's how it goes, dude. You don't get to wander down the path of tyranny and oppression by right of majority.

You want a concession? Why? What exactly are you driving at - that the fact men and women urinate in different positions (most of the time) is some great revelation that will rock the world?

Posted by: jojame | November 5, 2009 2:07 AM

This well be my last post tonight since I got to sleep.

@244
I never said homosexuals had any less or more love for each other than heterosexual couples. I was merely saying that there is a difference in their relationship. An older brother to his little brother has a different relationship as a mother and daughter but I wouldn't suggest they say they had any difference in love. The point of the statistics was to show how homosexual men live different lives than heterosexual men.

@243
Oh come on! Why is there no crusade to rid segregation between the sexes the way is was done for blacks and whites?

Are you saying that when a child is born their sexual preference is nothing more than the roll of the dice? There is nothing in evolution or genetics that would say otherwise? I just want you to give a little ground here and be reasonable.

@242
I know my statistics. I dare you to try and give an explanation as to why 28% of gay men before the HIV crisis reported over a thousand sexual partners and over 75% reported over a hundred.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 5, 2009 2:13 AM

Jojame @ #241:

I'm describing the reaction people would have to it. The word marriage is no longer as exclusive. It's similar to the way curse words lose their punch when they're used in too many situations.

No, what you're trying to do is defend your homophobia. You want the word 'marriage' to be exclusive (in your own particular definition) so there's a distinct dividing line between you and gay people who would marry, if they were allowed by law. Marriage is a legal state. If it's anything more, the more is in your head, no one else's. Marriage means different things to different people. No one is stopping you from thinking marriage is a preferred status on God Daddy's special people, if that's what you want. The problem is you and those like you refusing the basic civil right of legal marriage to others because it strikes you as icky.

Quantum mechanics is an affront to people's psychology. Knowing that there are billions of other galaxies besides ours is an affront to people's psychology. If something is unintuitive then you get a bad reaction - especially if it's something people consider sacred like marriage.

Speak for yourself. Quantum mechanics is not an affront to me, nor is knowing there are billions of other galaxies. I find that knowledge to be fantastic, exciting and breathtaking. It's not unintuitive from where I sit. Marriage isn't fucking sacred, either. I have been married for 31 years. I love my partner, and our relationship is certainly special to me, and I'm glad of it. That doesn't make our relationship "sacred" nor does it elevate it above other people's relationships. Marriage is a legality. The relationship is what you make it, and that goes for everyone.

Basically, what you're trying to say is "change is bad, this isn't how it used to be." That's bollocks. Homosexuality is not new; it's known throughout nature. We have, as humans, progressed to a point where we recognize it is wrong to deny basic rights to people simply because they aren't heterosexual. Well, most of us have progressed to that point. You're stuck in some "oh the good ol' days" loop.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 2:21 AM

missed that the first time around:

Quantum mechanics is an affront to people's psychology. Knowing that there are billions of other galaxies besides ours is an affront to people's psychology. If something is unintuitive then you get a bad reaction - especially if it's something people consider sacred like marriage.

Posted by: MikeN | November 5, 2009 2:37 AM

Just like to point out in an actual Angus Reid poll, 61% of canadians support gay marriage (23% civil unions, 11% against any legel recognition)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 2:52 AM

I wonder if our time-traveling troll thinks we think promiscuity is bad in-and-of-itself, and that's the only reason the statement about gay men being more promiscious is seen as bigoted?

I'm too lazy to unwrap the "slut, therefore subhuman" bullshit for the troll... anyone else wanna take a stab at it?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 3:08 AM

You're arguing specifics of the law of marriage which are never perfect. At it's base marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to stay monogamous. The reasoning of the contract is seated in the evolutionary paths of males and females. Both parties want the other to stay faithful and the male is willing to show his commitment by giving the female a weapon against him which takes the form of alimony and such.

Jadehawk, I would venture to say that tonight's troll disapproves of promiscuity. Just remember that marriage is sacred and transcendent.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 5, 2009 3:16 AM

Are there not male and female bathrooms?

Yeah very annoying.If you're into peeping I mean.

Is it not true that God is taken less seriously now than before and blasphemy is not as serious as it once was?

So ?

Both parties want the other to stay faithful and the male is willing to show his commitment by giving the female a weapon against him which takes the form of alimony and such.

This ranks number 2 in my list of funniest posts on Pharyngula this week, right after that sexist with the medieval gender stereotypes suggesting truth machine was female.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 3:20 AM

Jadehawk, do you want to tell him about the glazed donuts?

Posted by: Aseem | November 5, 2009 4:08 AM

Wiley, are you even reading what Cerberus and Tom said? They just explained how homosexuality is NOT contrary to the Theory of Evolution, and you go all Peter Griffin on them?

Posted by: Robyn Slinger | November 5, 2009 4:19 AM

Apparently same sex marriage has some quite unexpected supporter in Sweden:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321502.stm

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 6:01 AM

-Talking to people, it seems one of the major fears was that supporting gay rights would make you gay. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not.-

In reference to the most funny video by Carlie at #99 I suggest our next campaign include the stickers "I'm voting for gay marriage...no homo".

Jojame, it is most unwise to use psychology and social darwinism in your posts. Most of that stuff is speculation or applies only sometimes.
It was nice of you to apologise and see what people are saying but 2 things.

1) There are no single-sex toilets in a family home. You might want to think about that.

2) We actually tried the civil union thing. It was great until people turned around and said that since a civil union wasn't a "real" marriage, it didn't count for certain rights.

Posted by: Aseem | November 5, 2009 6:36 AM

Richard Eis at #266
You are insulting preschoolers. They understand evolution way better than Wiley.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 7:05 AM

-You are insulting preschoolers. They understand evolution way better than Wiley.-

Probably. Wiley is probably suffering from "negative learning". He has been told so many factual errors by the people he trusts that his knowledge is actually worse and would take longer to fix than someone who had never heard the word "evolution".

I've seen it plenty of times... but only in the "religiously learn-ed".

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 7:37 AM

-I notice the "natural = good" argument is promptly thrown under a bus when the topic switches to sex ed, when many of these same people suddenly switch to abstinence-only mode.-

Indeed. In fact ALL sins of the flesh are constantly railed against by said christians. Well, until they lose and have to be forgiven (and possibly moved to another church...hehe)

Posted by: KI | November 5, 2009 9:05 AM

My grandmother's brother moved to New York so he and his true love could live together somewhat anonymously. This was in 1956, things were much worse for same-sex couples then. They have been together ever since (that's 53 years for the stupid god-soaked idiots who can't do arithmetic), faithful and committed to each other. Last year, my uncle had a heart attack that put him in ICU. The hospital (one of those fucking religious-founded shitholes) wouldn't let his husband in to see him, as ICU visitation was only for "spouse and immediate family". So all you anti-gay-marriage assholes can go eat shit and die. Please go die. Get the fuck off the planet and go to heaven today.
I have an idea: remember the suicide booths in"Futurama"? Let's build some and call them "heaven portals". Charge $100 and we all benefit, money for pothole repair, and social improvement by ridding us of evil shits.
This may be over the line, but at this point I don't care I want these fuckers gone, or at least confined to Christian prisons in Oklahoma.
Yes, it's hate, I do truly hate these people, and too bad if you think I'm intolerant or mean. They have earned it.

Posted by: JBlilie | November 5, 2009 9:11 AM

Last year, my uncle had a heart attack that put him in ICU. The hospital (one of those fucking religious-founded shitholes) wouldn't let his husband in to see him, as ICU visitation was only for "spouse and immediate family".

One of the many reasons this is wrong and a human rights violation.

Posted by: Endor | November 5, 2009 9:33 AM

"Oh come on! Why is there no crusade to rid segregation between the sexes the way is was done for blacks and whites?"

Why do you think there isn't? oh right - the world revolves around you, so if you haven't seen it, it must not be happening.

Though I can't wait to tell my best friend and her wife that their marriage is an assault on your psychology. Their going to LOVE that. They'll be cheering and clapping, I promise you.

Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 9:59 AM

James Sweet, #90: Thank you. For the record, I am a bisexual woman who has no desire to get married, so intellectually I agree with you and Squid, but it's not reality.

Whenever there is a talk about gay marriage, there is inevitably some "libertarian" who says, "I'm not a bigot, but, I voted no, because I don't believe in marriage!" (Talk about a slap in the face!) Or, "I'm not a bigot, but I didn't vote at all, because I don't believe in marriage!" (Again, talk about a slap in the face! Thanks for supporting the bigots because of some theory of yours!)

It's frustrating as HELL. It's derailing the conversation. The conversation, the battle, is gay marriage. Not some theory that doesn't have any basis in current reality.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 10:26 AM

-It's frustrating as HELL. It's derailing the conversation. The conversation, the battle, is gay marriage. Not some theory that doesn't have any basis in current reality.-

So basically:
You voted no because spouting off about your pet theory to the people on this forum who YOU voted against is more important than their civil rights.

um, thanks. That makes us all feel so much better that the reason you squashed our civil rights wasn't because of a bigoted reason.

Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 10:53 AM

Sorry for any confusion, Richard Eis. :) I'm just tired of "libertarians" coming into EVERY SINGLE FUCKING gay marriage discussion with their, "But but but, I don't believe in gay marriage so I didn't vote/voted against gay marriage!!" It's derailing the conversation/argument, and it's supporting discrimination and it pisses me off.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 10:59 AM

Good morning...

Please cite one quote by me that shows that I'm a bigot. Just one. Maybe you just interpreted it that way.

What Jadehawk showed @232. You do realize that bigotry consists of more than saying "I want to burn all [insert group here]", right? We're not saying you're a drooling neo-Nazi, high on his own hate. Through your comments, you've simply shown a blissful unawareness that you are advocating the segregation and/or repression of the LGBT community. That advocation is bigotry.

I didn't lament a thing - I was using that fact as an analogy.

Fair enough, I admit I made an assumption. But to be honest, raising issues like blasphemy, abortion (= pro-infanticide??), and the need to insert a sense of purpose into evolution (homosexuality = evolutionary 'dead-end'??), do not make you sound like you are coming from a neutral point of view. Do you believe that your argument is not rooted in any way in religion, not one little bit?

The point of the statistics was to show how homosexual men live different lives than heterosexual men.

Define 'different', and then explain why this should prevent them getting married.

Read pretty much any Richard Dawkins book to change your opinion.

Richard who? No-one here has any idea who you're talking about. Please inform us who he is, what he stands for, and how his views help your case.

what's your obsession with bathrooms?

Since no-one else has posted it...I will.

Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 11:09 AM

Couldn't have said it better myself, Richard...

Posted by: Endor | November 5, 2009 11:42 AM

"I always wonder why I must be treated like a 2nd class citizen until someone gets around to inventing a better solar cell."

LOL. Every member of every group with bigotry directed at it is wondering the same thing.

We can't talk about unequal pay - there's two wars going on! We can't talk about racial profiling - there's a recession going on! We can't talk about gay marriage - GLOBAL WARMING! We can't talk about anything that doesn't personally affect white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered, (christian) men, because there's bigger things to worry about!!!!!

Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 11:59 AM

Yep, Carlie. It's just laziness and supporting bigotry with apathy. I get not having time to go out and picket or be an active activist, but to blatantly not vote because you have "other things to worry about" is just pure fucking laziness.

Posted by: Zeppo | November 5, 2009 12:31 PM

'tis always fun when "Teh Internets" latch onto something. Suddenly a site shows a 400% increase in votes counted over previous polls.

And it seems odd for them to bother posting that anyway. Canada HAS legal gay marriage. It is not currently up for legislative debate. With everything else going on - what was the point?

The poll from a few days ago on that site though? That raised a smile:

2009-10-27

Does George W. Bush have what it takes to be a motivational speaker?

Yes, he's proof people can change 17%
No, he's a manipulating liar 36%
He makes me want to hurl 47%

Total Votes for this Question: 3002

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 2:14 PM

James Sweet, #90: Thank you. For the record, I am a bisexual woman who has no desire to get married, so intellectually I agree with you and Squid, but it's not reality. Whenever there is a talk about gay marriage, there is inevitably some "libertarian" who says, "I'm not a bigot, but, I voted no, because I don't believe in marriage!" (Talk about a slap in the face!) Or, "I'm not a bigot, but I didn't vote at all, because I don't believe in marriage!" (Again, talk about a slap in the face! Thanks for supporting the bigots because of some theory of yours!)

Lastly, I'm more worried about peak oil, overpopulation, climate change, and financial catastrophe than gay marriage

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 3:20 PM

Homosexual behavior can be selected in natural populations because it is advantageous: it's hypothesized that it functions as a social, community building behavior that can generate cooperation.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 6, 2009 12:04 AM

@ wiley (#48)
Hey, wiley, you can't keep gay people out of marriage even if you restrict it to one man and one woman. My father and mother were married when they had me and my dad's gay and my mother's a lesbian. Hear that? My parents already ruined your precious, exclusive term with their terrible, terrible gayness.

(Yeah, I'm late to the party, but I figured it would be fun to chip in anyways.)

Posted by: Walton | November 6, 2009 4:44 AM

marilove,

Sorry for any confusion, Richard Eis. :) I'm just tired of "libertarians" coming into EVERY SINGLE FUCKING gay marriage discussion with their, "But but but, I don't believe in gay marriage so I didn't vote/voted against gay marriage!!" It's derailing the conversation/argument, and it's supporting discrimination and it pisses me off.

For the record, I'm a libertarian (of a sort) and I don't hold that view. I'm strongly in favour of gay marriage.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 6, 2009 8:16 AM

Please don't start another bloody libertarian thread piece.

It's what he does. Always.

Posted by: marilove | November 6, 2009 10:39 AM

Hmmmm, perhaps I'm thinking of someone else, Walton, but I think I can remember a time when you weren't, or weren't convinced. ;)

Posted by: Raskolnikov | November 7, 2009 7:58 AM

No, I don't support mariage, period.

Posted by: marilove | November 9, 2009 11:27 AM

Raskolnikov, so you're silently supporting the bigots then. Way to go.