Pharyngula

Posted by: Kalkin | December 3, 2009 9:33 AM

Very nice. :-)

Posted by: BenW | December 3, 2009 9:37 AM

Is the arrow for "Those studies were conducted by fags" going the wrong way?

I put it on my facebook since it did use facebook data.

Posted by: History Punk | December 3, 2009 9:37 AM

Where all the Allies the instruments of God's smiting of Nazi Germany? The Red Army and the Yugoslav Partisans were heavily atheistic and the latter had a rather significant Muslim component to it. It seems a touch odd for God to use them, but what do I know, I am sane.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 9:53 AM

Messy and involves the religious saying stupid things to hide their bigotry. Yep, thats a good overview of the debate.

I notice they are missing the ridiculous "children forced... FORCED I SAY to learn at school that homosexuality isn't EVIL. The horror"

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 3, 2009 9:58 AM

I notice they are missing the ridiculous "children forced... FORCED I SAY to learn at school that homosexuality isn't EVIL. The horror"

IIRC, in the allegedly good old days school children weren't taught anything at all about homosexuality.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 3, 2009 10:03 AM

The largest blue hexagon is "Separation of Church and State," but this is irrelevant when it comes to right and wrong.

Posted by: fishyfred | December 3, 2009 10:04 AM

The "Non-Sequitur" response really ties the chart together man. I would have laughed out loud if I wasn't at work.

Posted by: Stephen | December 3, 2009 10:11 AM

"there are progressive, leftist, (pro)queer people who think the marriage thing is moronic."

There may be a few, but not very many. Your subjective impression doesn't match the reality of the situation.

"For a community that has historically relied heavily on families of choice, to erase the validity of everyone whose family doesn't ape some ideal of theoretically life-long, theoretically monogamous conjugal pair is positively despicable."

Acceptance of same-sex marriage does not invalidate other arrangements! That's not the point, and not the goal, of same-sex marriage advocates. And your "use" of theoretically, above, reveals your biases pretty clearly, I think ...

Posted by: gman | December 3, 2009 10:12 AM

Canada's leading bioethicist Margaret Somerville has argued against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is a social institution founded on the value of procreation and the fact that gays can't (jointly, at least) procreate.

When confronted with the obvious counter example of heteros who can't/won't procreate, she just blusters about the "irrelevancy" of this objection.

The odd thing is, MS was an leading and early critic of discrimination against people living with HIV and she built strong ties with leaders in the gay community.. who are baffled and dismayed by her reactionary views on gay marriage.

Posted by: Ewan R | December 3, 2009 10:14 AM

"Everything that goes against nature and against the dignity of the body offends God," he added."

Obviously this guy was a true blooded catholic priest and never engaged in heterosexual sex, because there really isnt anything particularly dignified about that either (unless I've been doing it wrong!)

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 3, 2009 10:18 AM

A very interesting way of putting at least the rhetorical part of the issue into a succinct visual format that can be scanned, with appropriate weight given to the main focii. I would ask if such a thing exists for evolution v. creationism, but I'm guessing that due to all of the peurile postulations of the creobots that seem to sprout on a daily basis, that the vast majority of it would be full of pinkish red hexagons, with only a few blue ones to counter.

Posted by: Michael D. LoPrete | December 3, 2009 10:18 AM

Alex,

Ditto to what Stephen said, and I would add that there are certain legal benefits to marriage that simply cannot be replicated in contract law: hospital visitation, probate issues, and child custody questions, among other things.

Even in polyamorous commitments or other non-traditional arrangements, there is sense in some of the various members to exercise the tools of the state, even if they're not fully adequate for one's particular situation.

Posted by: r52qh643 | December 3, 2009 10:20 AM

@#3

I noticed that one too, I'm pretty sure it'd make more sense if the arrow pointed downwards. Oh well.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 10:25 AM

Re: Alex (#12): Huh, I hadn't heard that particular argument. Instead of "legalizing gay marriage" I'm actually far more interested in eliminating state-sanctioned marriage for everyone (religion can keep its silly rituals). That is, civil unions only, even for straight people, under the law -- and even then only really for the purposes of insurance and "who gets the children and belongings" if one partner dies.

It's not fair to single people (of any orientation) for the state to give privileges to those bound by any sort of romantic partnership. Yeah, there's the whole "families make society stable" argument, but we should really find a way to directly support good families rather than this indirect assumption that "marriage" (which may not even entail kids) somehow does it.

Posted by: Praedico | December 3, 2009 10:37 AM

"The largest blue hexagon is "Separation of Church and State," but this is irrelevant when it comes to right and wrong."
Certainly it is irrelevant in the matter of right and wrong, but it is of supreme importance in the matter of legislation in the United States. You can't enact laws (or repeal them) on religious grounds and you certainly can't withhold rights from people on religious grounds.

@Alex
While I mostly agree with you, I don't see why that means we should prevent people from 'aping' that ideal if they so desire.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 10:40 AM

It's not fair to single people (of any orientation) for the state to give privileges to those bound by any sort of romantic partnership.

What benefits would those be ?

Here in the UK there are no income tax benefits from being a married couple. There is an exemption from Inheritance tax if assets are passed to the surviving partner, but all that amounts to is a postponement of the tax, as it becomes payable on the death of the surviving partner.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 10:50 AM

@Matt Penfold (#31): This MSN Money article lists some (see page 2).
The Myth of the Marriage Penalty

Particularly it's Social Security and suvivor benefits, and (in some states) estate tax benefits. The article gives more detail though.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 10:52 AM

You wish. The creepy old guys making this homophobic laws are the baby boomers who grew up listening to Beatles. People learn how the political system works in the real world and forget their ideals. Not saying it wont change, but it may be *really* long-term. Lets not wait for them to change, that is what activism is for.

The US seems to be an outlier in this. Certainly in Western Europe the younger generations tend to have far less of a problem with gay rights than the older ones. I suspect it is tied into the the fact the US is also an outlier in religiosity amongst developed countries.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 10:55 AM

Particularly it's Social Security and suvivor benefits, and (in some states) estate tax benefits. The article gives more detail though.

You made a mistake. Those all seem to be about the US.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 11:02 AM

Yeah, I realized that I forgot to state "US" after I submitted the comment. But it wasn't a "mistake"; PZ is in Minnesota so this is a US-based blog. And I'm in Ohio. It's just de-facto. Plus it's understood by progressives that the US lags behind Europe in fair treatment of GLBT people, broadly speaking.

Sorry, I just don't know much about laws in the UK or any other nation. But I wouldn't mind reading up if you have a good link.

Posted by: Geekgirlsrule | December 3, 2009 11:06 AM

The "God made me a Heterosexual" quote reminds me of some graffiti in the men's restroom of our favorite gay hangout when I was in my late teens early 20s. A friend snuck me in to see it.

The original graffiti said, "My mother made me a real man." Underneath, someone else wrote, "If I send her the yarn, will she make me one, too?"

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 11:10 AM

Ah, only what happens in the US counts as far as you are concerned.

All I meant was:
A) US is de-facto because this blog is based there;
B) US gets the most attention because it's an outlier on social issues among first-world nations.

I didn't mean to imply any lack of love for the rest of the world :p

@tsg (#38): See my post at #33.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 11:16 AM

Don't be childish. I very much support the US catching up with Europe (and Australia and other places) on issues like gay rights and healthcare.

No you don't.

Remember, you are the one opposed to same-sex marriage.

Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2009 11:20 AM

@ Michael (23) - Marriage does carry implications. The question is why the government is reinforcing those implications, and handing out rights and privileges based on them. I'm asking, "Why are we gifting these rights to some families and not others?"

@ Brock (27) - http://www.beyondmarriage.org/ has a lot more on legal rights and a broader definition of family =)

@ Vicki (36) - I'm not saying that people shouldn't form relationships that make them happy, but fighting for rights by framing them in "marriage" (which is a veeery conservative idea) says to me "I'm not interested in examining the privilege hierarchies my government is enforcing, I just want to be one of the Privileged. Gimme." Marriage obviously has a lot of emotional connotations, but "Why can't you just let us show our love how we want to" where "love" is code for "rights" is not a valid argument.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 11:23 AM

You're oversimplifying his point. It's not that the US is all that matters, but rather that most people here will focus on an issue as it applies in the States.

Actually around here they don't.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 11:25 AM

Oh! Well thanks, but I'm no expert on social security law or state taxes or any of that. I posted her article because it seemed reasonable and made sense to me. I've come across similar articles in the past but I didn't bookmark them. So yeah, I've gotta defer to experts for the financial numbers. If you have a source of contradictory numbers, I'll read it.

In addition though I do think there are unwritten social "perks" to being married in the US. E.g. there's a lingering stigma against having kids "out of wedlock", I suspect some employers are more apt to give raises/bonuses if they know you have a spouse and family, and (as with open atheism) it's a political hurdle to run for office without a hetero spouse (I especially doubt a single person could ever win the presidency). Sure, that's mostly speculative, but it is my experience and again I'd be happy to consider any source that can put hard numbers on it.

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | December 3, 2009 11:31 AM

Regarding marriage and gift/estate tax benefits (at least in US and, possibly some other countries as well):

There is a market niche available to be filled that could be useful. People whose estate is too low to be concerned about estate taxes could "sell" their estate tax exemption to someone whose estate is so large that they are concerned about estate taxes. The mechanism for the "sale" is marriage thanks to the unlimited marital deduction for both gifts and inheritances.

It would work like this: Couple is worth $10 mm and the estate tax law permits each person to shelter $3.5 mm with unlimited gifting/inheritance between spouses. Husband dies, sheltering $3.5 million. Wife now has $6.5 mm. She enters the tax exemption marketplace by marrying someone who has very little money. In exchange for improving his living standard, she puts $3.5 million into a trust for his benefit but over which she has ultimate control (an inter vivos QTIP trust would work nicely). She now has $3 mm left in her name. She dies and pays no estate tax. Her "husband" eventually dies, paying no estate tax, and his exemption is used to shelter the remaining money.

With a little luck and some judicious selection of new spouses (think age and health), this little game could go for many iterations.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 3, 2009 11:31 AM

The same-sex marriage debate diagram covers the idea of "marriage" as sacred:

Heterosexual Marriage is Sacred -> Britney Spears

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 11:35 AM

@Brock #51

So, in other words, you don't know why you're against marriage?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 3, 2009 11:39 AM

They spelled Leviticus incorrectly. Other than that, nice diagram. I like the many paths to "You're Going to Hell!"

There are other errors. I don't recall Dr. Venkman saying anything about "dogs and oats living together." My understanding of canine behaviour is that they usually have few problems cohabitating with any of the major grains.

Posted by: Rob F | December 3, 2009 11:43 AM

There is also this humourous list, which covers many of the same points:

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in the world.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 11:52 AM

@tsg: Broadly speaking, I'm against pressuring people into lifelong relationships, especially with government financial incentives (although social stigmas are another way).

Lifelong commitment isn't exactly a biological mandate. IIRC a cursory look at the human genetic lineage shows that people have NOT historically been strictly monogamous for the 200K years that our species has been around. PZ has posted about this before. And modern divorce rates reflect that, as an institution, marriage is not indefinitely successful.

That's not to mention Tibetan polyandry or other "unusual" (but not necessarily less biologically successful) schemas. Mammalian mating habits just aren't 100% about monogamy, so I think it's silly to enshrine that into law as if it were.

Am I personally polyamorous? No, I have a steady girlfriend of 3 years (and no, we agree we're not getting married). I just don't have the time or energy for a second relationship; it's impractical.

Posted by: brophy | December 3, 2009 11:55 AM

hahaha - lol
thats hilarious! Love the blog, Prof Myers

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 11:57 AM

@Penfold:

you would deny those [marriage] rights to everyone.

A) You should be able to designate next-of-kin and medical decisions to anyone at all. The "right" should not be about hetero marriage, but about total freedom of choice.
B) Yes, everyone, equally. That's how the law is supposed to work.
C) Everyone should have less paperwork. Bureaucracy sucks.

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | December 3, 2009 12:08 PM

@Brian re 20:

Reading this chart caused me to remind myself of the one long-term bright spot in the marriage-equality debate: Old bigots die.

That's more or less what many in the Counter Culture said during the 1960s and 70s. The old, bigoted squares would die off and everything would be different.

That was before these irreligious pot-indulging, anti-war, racial tolerant, sexually liberated, hippies themselves became racist, uptight, fundamentalist, Right-wing cheerleaders for the Wars on Terror and Drugs.

Also don't forget that old bigots are shitting out new future bigots on a daily basis. Christians may hate sex, but they LOVE reproduction.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 12:14 PM

A) You should be able to designate next-of-kin and medical decisions to anyone at all. The "right" should not be about hetero marriage, but about total freedom of choice.

You can, but it involves paperwork and expense.

B) Yes, everyone, equally. That's how the law is supposed to work.

Except you do not want the law to be equal for same-sex couples.

C) Everyone should have less paperwork. Bureaucracy sucks.

Well yes it does, but I do not accept that you are that concerned about it. You want millions of people to have to do even more paperwork.

Posted by: wlrube | December 3, 2009 12:16 PM

@ Eduardo (32)

"You wish. The creepy old guys making this homophobic laws are the baby boomers who grew up listening to Beatles."

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/future_trends_f_1.html

Based on the graph, it seems like the negative correlation between age and support for gay marriage is roughly half a percent to 1% per year, depending on the state. That seems to me like a potent and immediately relevant factor in the gay civil rights movement, given the margins for initiatives like Prop 8 and Question 1.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 12:18 PM

@tsg: Broadly speaking, I'm against pressuring people into lifelong relationships, especially with government financial incentives (although social stigmas are another way).

You still haven't said which financial incentives you oppose.

Lifelong commitment isn't exactly a biological mandate.

Nor is it a state requirement of marriage.

so I think it's silly to enshrine that into law as if it were.

It's not.

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 12:23 PM

A) You should be able to designate next-of-kin and medical decisions to anyone at all. The "right" should not be about hetero marriage, but about total freedom of choice.

You can, but it involves paperwork and expense.

And Brock has previously spoken poorly of laws that would force acceptance of said paperwork, as there have been cases where people have been unable to see their same-sex SO while they were dying despite having the proper paperwork regarding medical power of attorney. It's a classic case of Libertarian "I've got mine, fuck you".

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 12:30 PM

@Matt Penfold (71): Stop putting words in my mouth! I'm tired of correcting you. You've consistently misrepresented my viewpoint. You're LYING. Knock it off. You can't read my thoughts, so let me speak for myself, lest you be an arrogant prick.

Case in point:

Except you do not want the law to be equal for same-sex couples.

Yes I do! I've said in no uncertain terms that my favored method is demoting hetero marriage to the same legal status as same-sex unions, NOT by privileging both types of relationships at the expense of single or polyamorous people.

I'm saying "legalizing same-sex marriage" does not go FAR ENOUGH in making the law non-discriminatory.

For clarity, I'm also NOT advocating any sort of nullification on existing vows. That's a personal bond and I have no business treading upon it. But I'm not opposed to changing the US legal perks that can come as a side benefit of existing marriage, or the legal definition of "family" (as Alex has said), which are very different things.

If you continue to restate my position incorrectly, instead of asking questions for clarification as a proper skeptic would, then it's a waste of my time to respond. Have some fucking civility.

Posted by: Eduardo Padoan | December 3, 2009 12:34 PM

#73 Very interesting data, thank you.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 12:39 PM

Yes I do! I've said in no uncertain terms that my favored method is demoting hetero marriage to the same legal status as same-sex unions, NOT by privileging both types of relationships at the expense of single or polyamorous people.

For the third time, what privileges are those and how are they at the expense of single or polyamorous couples?

I'm saying "legalizing same-sex marriage" does not go FAR ENOUGH in making the law non-discriminatory.

How is removing those rights from everyone better than giving them to everyone?

Posted by: Michelle R | December 3, 2009 12:50 PM

OT:

http://failblog.org/2009/12/03/reading-material-fail/

I lol'd. :P

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 3, 2009 12:53 PM

To advocate relabeling is to advocate your particular hangup, Brock.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 12:54 PM

@aratina: Elaborate please? What do you mean by hangup?

Posted by: BdN | December 3, 2009 12:56 PM

The LGBT community is more than just gays. e.g. Some people really do consider themselves genderless; where are they left if we just legalize same-sex marriage and stop? Could a gay person marry an genderless person?

Generally speaking, the laws are formulated in such a way to allow marriage between two persons, whatever their gender/non gender might be, thus allowing everybody, including the whole LGBT spectrum, to get married.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 3, 2009 12:58 PM

Brock #89, see here, definition 1.

Posted by: amphiox | December 3, 2009 1:03 PM

"Canada's leading bioethicist Margaret Somerville has argued against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is a social institution founded on the value of procreation and the fact that gays can't (jointly, at least) procreate."

I think she may be right if "founded" is considered from a historical context. The whole point states, societies and religions got into the practice of sanctioning what must have originally been private liasons, was because in those early days procreation was vitally important to the survival of the group. You needed to keep the numbers up to plow the fields, pay the taxes and man the standing army. All those privileges and incentives now associated with marriage started as incentives to encourage procreation and the development of the a social construct to raise the subsequent children in the setting of early states without any form of public welfare.

Over the ensuing centuries, of course, much has changed. Procreation is no longer the main point of marriage, women no longer considered as chattel and simply baby-makers in the contract, two-parent or extended families are no longer required for the successful raising of children thanks to modern social welfare constructs. All that remains is the symbolic issues associating marriage with "a good thing" as really the only remaining justification for state sanctioned special privileges favoring the institution over single individuals.

Of course the symbol is vitally important. For gay marriage it is an indicator of acceptance and not just mere tolerance, a marker of true equality. But if we could drop the symbolism (which I suspect we cannot without another 5000 years of social engineering) then there really is no distinction between marriage and civil union and indeed no justification for the state to get involved in either.

If Somerville is honest, though, she will have to admit that her argument, if it is to be taken consistently, means equal opposition to ALL forms of state supported marriage - ie that the state should get out of the marriage issue completely.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 1:03 PM

Also, Brock -- I believe in the majority of states, those who identify as trans can already get married to someone of the opposite sex. So say someone is Male to Female. She can marry a man. Not all states require the person to have undergone reassignment surgery. And if you don’t identify as either identity, you do still have M or F on your birth certificate, and so you can still marry the opposite sex. You however, cannot marry the same sex. Ergo, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Especially considering the fact that by allowing gay marriage, we are OPENING UP the definition of marriage, which is a GOOD THING, as I said above.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 1:06 PM

@Matt Penfold (71): Stop putting words in my mouth! I'm tired of correcting you. You've consistently misrepresented my viewpoint. You're LYING. Knock it off. You can't read my thoughts, so let me speak for myself, lest you be an arrogant prick.

I am not misrepresenting you. You though have tried misrepresenting yourself, claiming at one time to be pro same-sex marriage when we all know you are not.

Yes I do! I've said in no uncertain terms that my favored method is demoting hetero marriage to the same legal status as same-sex unions, NOT by privileging both types of relationships at the expense of single or polyamorous people.

And as been pointed out to you many times, marriage/civil partnerships are not intended for non-sexual/romantic relationships.

You are also employing an argument used here in the UK by the anti-gay lobby to oppose same-sex civil partnerships. I cannot therefore accept you are pro same-sex partnerships.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 1:07 PM

It certainly is Michelle R, and I really feel for you. I have many poly friends. My best friends are in a long-term triad poly relationship -- a married opposite sex couple, and a gay man (who is obviously in a relationship with the bisexual married man).

That said, it's not realistic to start advocating for poly marriages. Our society is just not ready for that. I don't know that it will be ready for it for many years, if ever. HOWEVER, by opening up the definition of marriage, you are only making it easier to make that argument in the future. By keeping marriage as it is now, you are stifling any growth and change and only supporting the bigots.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 1:12 PM

I'm a polygamist and I can't marry multiple guys you know. That's discriminatory too.

Yes, it is. But the longest journey starts with a single step. Or, as my father used to put it, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Not that any of that helps you....

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 1:17 PM

My post at 77 assumed that "Martin Brock" and "Brock" are one and the same. If that is not the case, I apologize.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 1:20 PM

@marilove: I'm er, 98% straight I guess? Kinsey scale and all. My girlfriend is probably more like 95% gay and a big fan of the Human Rights Campaign, FWIW.

To those advocating the "one step at a time approach":

I'm just not entirely convinced that promotion same-sex rights and poly rights necessarily have to be separated by any sort of gap. I thought the "just keep waiting" argument is the bane of gay activists everywhere, so why should poly people have to accept it?

Again, I know this idyllic, but... why can't the law just acknowledge the complexities of hominid mating/relationships and be written broadly enough to just let people do what they want (with consenting adults of course)? That's really all I'm asking with this back-and-forth.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 1:26 PM

Michelle R:

I just think that the definition of marriage would still be vague and constricting...

Completely agree!

And trust me, my best friends also agree. The married bisexual man is reminded every day that he and his long-time gay partner will likely never able to get married. It's very sad. They have such a great relationship, better than most "traditional" relationships I've seen.

That said, they are all 100% for gay marriage, because of the reasons I explained above: Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 1:31 PM

I'm just not entirely convinced that promotion same-sex rights and poly rights necessarily have to be separated by any sort of gap. I thought the "just keep waiting" argument is the bane of gay activists everywhere, so why should poly people have to accept it?

They don't. But you don't need to tear down the entire institution and rebuild an exact duplicate when modifying the one we have will suffice.

Again, I know this idyllic, but... why can't the law just acknowledge the complexities of hominid mating/relationships and be written broadly enough to just let people do what they want (with consenting adults of course)? That's really all I'm asking with this back-and-forth.

This is getting tedious. You're opening post, the one that started this whole argument, asserted that marriage was "not fair to single people (of any orientation) for the state to give privileges to those bound by any sort of romantic partnership," and as of three posts ago still apparently asserting it having yet to support it. Have you abandoned this position or are you hoping we wouldn't notice?

Really. This has all the earmarks of someone with an objection being shown his reasons for it are utterly wrong and is now fishing around for new reasons to hold onto it.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 1:37 PM

Also, Brock, this:

why can't the law just acknowledge the complexities of hominid mating/relationships and be written broadly enough to just let people do what they want (with consenting adults of course)? That's really all I'm asking with this back-and-forth.

Reminds me of a question a friend posed to me the other day: "Why is it SUCH a big deal when celebs come out? Why is it NEWS? I don't get it!! It shouldn't be a big deal! It shouldn't be news!"

Of course it shouldn't, but that's just not reality. Of course the law should "just acknowledge the complexities of hominid mating/relationships and should be written broadly enough to just let people do what they want." But the reality is that just isn't fucking possible in our current climate of bigotry, and sometimes you just have to admit that reality is not going to bend the way you want it to, and deal with the cards you’ve been dealt.

It’s ALWAYS been about baby steps when it comes to citizens getting what should be basic human rights. Unfortuntley, people as a whole tend to be slow to change. It sometimes takes generations. Believe me when I say that society as a whole just isn’t ready to accept poly relationships as mainstream. That said, we are making progress in that arena. My best friends, mentioned above, are very open and honest about their relationship, including the gay man’s family, who tends to be pretty traditional. I don’t know that they *fully* understand, but it really didn’t take them long to at least accept it, and they LOVE his partner and his partner’s wife. Indeed, all three have visited his family for Christmas the last two years. That *is* progress.

Posted by: Pin Galaxy | December 3, 2009 1:42 PM

But the reality is that just isn't fucking possible in our current climate of bigotry, and sometimes you just have to admit that reality is not going to bend the way you want it to, and deal with the cards you’ve been dealt.

Now kindly go sit at the back of the bus.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 1:44 PM

I dunno, marilove. I've heard "society is just not ready" to treat atheists like human beings plenty of times, and part of me really thinks that argument is crap.

Did you see that Beyond Marriage site that Alex linked? I doubt you'd oppose any of the principles, but you seem to disagree with the strategy. What do you think of the way they've framed the "conservative marriage agenda"? Is there not strength to be gained in combating that with a broader alliance, instead of the singular "wedge" issue of marriage?

This is a matter of alliance politics. A friend of mine has a good piece on how this works with regards to the atheist community. I can see a lot of parallels. It's worth reading.

Posted by: Dídac | December 3, 2009 1:51 PM

I support gay marriage because it is a demand for equal rights. That said, I find objectionable discrimination against polyginy, polyandry and group-marriage, or against a person being polygamous, or against self-marriage. Perhaps, marriage as an institution has no sense whatsoever in our society. Although we are very far from individual freedom and marriage could be needed in order to protect some rights and benefits, I think that marriage has no place in a society of free individuals.

Posted by: BdN | December 3, 2009 1:56 PM

I was wondering : is there something akin to the naturalistic fallacy but referring to the historical inertia applied to some concepts ? I know that the "historical fallacy" exists, but it is a completely different thing.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 2:02 PM

he spoke strongly against giving marriage benefits to gay people in the meantime before the end goal of eliminating state-sanctioned marriage could be realized

Re:Paul - Yeah, I wouldn't dream of that. The sooner gays get equal civil rights, the better.

But (in response to others) it's not worth pushing poly people or bisexuals off a cliff in order for gays to get a pat on the head from conservatives. Those groups have a mutual interest in civil rights so I think an alliance benefits them both.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 2:09 PM

Wait what, Pin? That's not what I said. Poly couples are making progress. It's just not reality right now to advocate for poly marriage -- it would really hinder the fight for equality, because people are seriously slow to progress.

I'm an activist for gay civil rights in Arizona. We DO NOT focus on gay marriage because it is not at all realistic. It would detrcact from the other gay civil rights causes that are also important. We can't even get same-sex domestic partner benefits to stick (FUCK YOU GOV. BREWER), so there is NO WAY that we'd get anywhere with gay marraige. Indeed, it'd hurt all the other things that we are trying to fight for.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 2:14 PM

@tsg: Good? All I've gleaned is that you didn't read the short article. If you did, my perspective should be sufficiently illustrated.

I did and it's not.

Posted by: Peter B. Perlsø | December 3, 2009 2:25 PM

IMO, most of the anti-gay/gay marriage statements can be rationally and easily countered with a "so what?" or "so what if that happened?".

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 2:34 PM

Man, do Pharyngulites find me so suspect that they have to ask my orientation and age? I usually fit in just fine with skeptics (to the extent it's possible at least). I'm not sure this is a sign of a good conversation.

Anyway, suffice it that I'm under 30.

@Uncle Glenny: Not sure what you're asking. I think one example I used earlier was "genderless" folks, which is not at all the same as intersex, although that group would probably work as an example too.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 2:43 PM

Man, do Pharyngulites find me so suspect that they have to ask my orientation and age? I usually fit in just fine with skeptics (to the extent it's possible at least). I'm not sure this is a sign of a good conversation.

Oh, please. One person asked about your orientation. One other asked about your age. Both gave reasons why.

I find you suspect because you can't answer a simple question.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 2:51 PM

My point in asking about your sexual orientation, Brock, was to point out your inherent privilege, which most gay couples/people in the US do not have: You can get married if you want to. They largely can’t. It wasn't because I distrust you (indeed, I don't even *necessarily* disagree with all of your points, I just don't think they are logical arguments if we want to reach full equality), but rather that it's important to understand that you do hold that privilege and that makes it much easier for you to argue such hypotheticals.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 2:55 PM

Not sure what you're asking. I think one example I used earlier was "genderless" folks, which is not at all the same as intersex, although that group would probably work as an example too

Brock, that's irrelevent. See my comment at #97 for reasons why.

I think you're thinking of those who generally identify as "genderqueer" -- those who don't identify as either male or female. Gay marriage would actually make things easier for them -- they then won't have to choose one sex or another, as they now have to do. Their gender identity would be completely irrelevant, as they would be able to marry any one person of either (or neither) sex.

Posted by: David | December 3, 2009 2:59 PM

The issue of "poly rights" is a red herring.

Given that homophobes routinely insist that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy, anyone raising the issue 'what about polyamorous marriage' is automatically, intrinsically, supporting the anti-gay regime.

There is a fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy - the difference between one and more than one.

Pretending the two are equivalent is a tactic of homophobes, used only to invoke the taboo about polygamy to smear same-sex couples.

Some homophobes are honest about their use of polygamy as an argument in discussions of same-sex marriage, others pretend to be progressives, but whenever polygamy is raised in a discussion of same-sex marriage, it only serves to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry at all.

Polygamy has no bearing on the issue of same-sex marriage. Direct opponents of same-sex marriage consistently raise the issue of polygamy as an argument against same-sex marriage. Those who raise the subject are attempting to derail equality for GLBTQ people. That includes people posting here, under any guise.

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of people supporting polygamy in discussions of same-sex marriage, self-identify as either heterosexual or bisexual - in other words, they already can marry someone they are emotionally and sexually attracted to. They are complaining that they cannot have multiple marriages, while others are denied even one.

Pro-polygamy supporters are like someone who already has one house demanding that he be allowed two or more houses while there are people with no house at all.

This is selfish beyond excuse, and it jeopardizes the equality and safety of GLBTQ people for what is historically, an example of heterosexist sexual greed.

Posted by: NitricAcid | December 3, 2009 3:09 PM

When religious folk tell me that "homosexuality is a choice", I point out that they chose their religion, and yet they are guaranteed that they may choose whatever religion they want, without being faced with discriminatory laws or oppression.

Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 3:21 PM

When religious folk tell me that "homosexuality is a choice", I point out that they chose their religion, and yet they are guaranteed that they may choose whatever religion they want, without being faced with discriminatory laws or oppression.

This has always annoyed me. Whether it's a choice or not is a red herring. Even if we could scientifically prove beyond the shadow of a doubt homo/heterosexuality is a choice, it doesn't justify discrimination against it.

What they're saying is "you know we hate gays, so any discrimination you suffer is your own fault."

Posted by: catgirl | December 3, 2009 3:36 PM

This chart left out the biggest anti reason: some people think that gay male sex is just plain yucky, and they like to pretend that it never happens outside of marriage.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 3:58 PM

I do at least have a proxy in the socials stigmas against atheism. If you think it's a poor proxy, I'd be curious on your thoughts.

As a bisexual woman who would likely marry a woman before I'd ever marry a man (though I have no real desire to get married), and who also happens to be an atheist, I don't know if they are all that comparable. You don't have any rights being trampled on by just being an atheist. Sure, it's hard for us to be honest about our atheism, but my marriage rights are not being taken away from me just because I'm an atheist. As atheists, we can still get married, and we don't even need religion to be involved. You and I could go up to a Justice of the Peace right now and get married, easily.

There IS discrimination toward atheists, but I just don't think it's on the same level.

And no, I don't think it disqualifies you completely from hypothesizing on strategy, etc., though you really need to work at keeping in mind that you are NOT affected by anti-gay laws or bigotry, and so your views/hypothesizing may very well be colored by that fact.

Going back to an earlier post: I don't know the politics of Arizona (except that it's conservative), but... is it possible that your activism group is hindering its own progress by limiting its membership? I know when I see an event advertised for "The LGBT community and friends", I'm always happy to see the "and friends" part added, because I think, "cool, I'm happy to give them support, I'm glad the invitation is open".

No, we aren't. Well, at least not in this regard. We are alllll about the allies! We have MANY straight allies that are also gay rights activists. Most of my straight male friends are involved. It is very important to have straight allies. I don't try to shush straight allies, though I do try to educate them about their privilige. And as you said, the Pharyngula can handle this kind of discussion, while it may not be appropriate while out on the field.

The problem in Arizona is that we can't even get domestic partnership benefits to stick, so aiming for gay marriage is unrealistic and does nothing to further gay civil rights in our state, at least at the moment. First we need to get the basics down before we can move on to the big shit.

Anyway, the rest of your comment is basically right on.

You are on our side, unlike Martin Brock. ;)

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 4:06 PM

The other thing to note about polyamory, as far as a contiual struggle for rights go, I think that as marilove said, many are very idealistic, not viewing them as organized under a patriarchial polygamist.

Using the model of civil marriage as a contract, the contracting gets more complicated. Another reason not to jump in too fast.

Bravo, Uncle Glenny. That's perfect.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 4:39 PM

Brock, the good news is that you're clearly self-aware and open to discussion, and don't get offended when someone says, "Check your privilege!" That's a good thing. So even though you'll never *quite* understand, I think you get the gist.

Posted by: marilove | December 3, 2009 4:58 PM

just figure the government should have nothing to do with that contract; you draft whatever you want with your loved one(s) (and possibly a lawyer to keep thing straight), and as long as all parties are consenting adults, the gov't rubber-stamps it. Isn't that the simplest way to avoid needless bureaucracy?

With how things are now, no. Do you know how expensive that is?

It is REALLY expensive to be gay in our country, especially if you have a long-time partner or children, because you are required to bring in lawyers to write up contracts ... and those contracts don't always stick. It's SO MUCH cheaper to just get married.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 3, 2009 5:18 PM

The other thing to note about polyamory, as far as a contiual struggle for rights go, I think that as marilove said, many are very idealistic, not viewing them as organized under a patriarchial polygamist.

This is my major objection to polyamory. I keep thinking of Brigham Young marrying 55 women, one of them 15 and three 16 at the time of marriage. Young, who was the "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" of the Mormon Church, told several of his wives that God had commanded him to take a specific woman as his latest wife. He even threatened two women with excommunication and "dismissal from the community" if they didn't become his bedwarmers.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 5:32 PM

'Tis Himself: Ew. I tend to forget about the Mormons. I've only ever met a few. But anyway, your categorical opposition to polyamory comes down to "well a group of people over a century ago abused it via religion and allowed pedophilia"? That doesn't make sense. Everything in the thread so far has been about consenting adults. Or are you trying to say it's some sort of fruit that's ripe for cults?

@Paul: Oh I was pissed when I saw that. If I get a chance I'll read your back-and-forth with Martin Brock. I'm especially curious what could compel a judge to deny such a contract (well, other than sheer bigotry).

Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 3, 2009 5:48 PM

W.H Heydt @158:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=gay_on_trial

It should be interesting, and it could prove to be a lot bigger than California or just gay marriage in particular. It's definitely a very important (and very, potentially, risky...) case to watch for gay rights activists.

Posted by: W. H. Heydt | December 3, 2009 6:11 PM

Re: BRock (#157). I wish it was "over a century ago". The splinters from the change are *still* doing it. Look at the current (and near current) trial in Utah, Arizona and Texas.

Posted by: W. H. Heydt | December 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Yup...going to be interesting to see how Boies does. I will admit to mixed feelings about him. He did very well on the government side against Microsoft, until the Bushies got in and basically gave MS a free pass. On the other hand, his firm has been key to dragging out the baseless case of SCO vs. just about everybody for *7*years*, when there is (basically) no case there.

Posted by: Lynna | December 3, 2009 6:41 PM

"Leaving Bountiful" was made into a film. Excerpt from review:

The film opens with Debbie recalling the circumstances of her leaving (she had to set her house on fire, get her children out, pile into the car and drive off into a world they believed was "hell"). "The earth shall be cleansed with fire" is the refrain that kept going through her head. "It was the only way to stop the pain", Debbie said. "The house was saturated with pain." In a classic understatement, the narrator said, "Debbie did not find plural marriage joyful".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 3, 2009 7:10 PM

Brock,

What three or more consenting adults do is one thing. Other than make divorce and family law much more complicated, I don't see a downside. However, I'm not thinking about Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. I was thinking about FLDS men "marrying" 13 year olds. "If they're old enough to bleed they're old enough to breed." This is going on right now! It's the anti-polygamy laws that are sending these men to jail and freeing their "wives."

Posted by: Jefrir | December 3, 2009 7:15 PM

Brock, you mention bisexuals as people who would be excluded by gay marriage, and I really don't see how that can be. A bi person would be able to marry someone of the same or the opposite sex, in the same way as a straight or gay person.

With regards to poly marriages, while in principle I support them, there are reasons beyond the politics of public opinion why they are harder to acheive. Same sex marriage can be introduced fairly simply as far as legislation is concerned - you just specify that a same-sex married couple counts the same as an opposite-sex married couple, and the rest of the laws can probably be left unchanged. Poly marriage is far more complex and would require a rewriting of all sorts of legislation, such as child support and inheritance. It also brings other issues in how you enact it, eg. Are you marrying one person, or the group? Can you prevent your spouse from marrying someone else? Do members of a poly marriage have parental rights over the children of other members? It's a great ideal, but it's a long way from being as simple as enacting SSM.

Posted by: Chris | December 3, 2009 7:31 PM

@155, 164, etc.: Are you saying that poly marriage is some kind of *slippery slope* to kidnapping, child abuse, coerced marriage, and de facto slavery? The FLDS seem to me like kind of a red herring in the discussion of poly marriage because they do all those other obviously morally wrong things. Frankly, none of those marriage practices would look any better with only one victim. Many of them have been practiced in monogamous societies too, and it didn't improve them any.

It's analogous to the notorious anti-gay tactic of pointing at a gay pedophile and then claiming all gays are pedophiles. They're not, and it's dishonest to rely on the assumption that they are, even if you make it implicitly.

On the other hand, if you get rid of all their other objectionable practices, *then* what's wrong if more than two people want to form a family (without being forced into it, because we already have laws against that)?

The FLDS (and other similar societies) are only ever brought up to smear polyamory, never to seriously discuss it. Serious discussion would quickly reveal that the real problem with the FLDS patriarchs is not how many wives they have, but how they treat them.

P.S. "Just accept your oppression for the next few decades because society isn't ready to change it, and instead devote all your efforts to helping MEEEE!" isn't a very convincing argument. I suspect the appeal depends greatly on whose ox society is "not ready" to stop goring.

Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | December 3, 2009 7:34 PM

Actually, here's one way to handle poly marriage: Everyone gets full legal rights to be married to one person at one time, because that gives everyone exactly the same rights (e.g. one person doesn't automatically qualify for family insurance benefits, etc. for one spouse while another gets three.) But: Formalize poly marriages via legal contracts that spell out the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved. Not valid under duress, not valid with a minor, not valid unless every participant in the marriage agrees to it.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 3, 2009 7:40 PM

Here's an idea:

Stop allowing clergy to certify civil contracts.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 3, 2009 7:56 PM

Thanks, Carlie.

What I don't get is why so many people are going on and on as though civil marriage is the purview of churches. It's a fucking civil contract. There are two ceremonies going on simultaneously when clergy perform religious ceremonies that include civil marriage contracts. Separate the fucking things. But, do so in a way that maintains what is going on: a civil marriage. There is a civil contract being signed and certified. Go to city hall, sign the paperwork, and your married. If you want a religious ceremony fine...but fuck this idea that religions have some kind of exclusive claim to marriage. There are atheists on this thread who have said, "I am MARRIED." Why should they be subordinate to fairy-tale believers? Separate the ceremonies and make it clear who has control over which aspect. Clergy should not be certifying civil contracts. Period.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 3, 2009 8:09 PM

@MAJeff: A lot of people (most) don't treat marriage as a civil union though; they use terms like "sacred vows", when clearly there's nothing sacred about the government's secular role in it.

No, they do recognize the legal status. They conflate the two forms of marriage, the civil and the religious. I say separate them. Make it clear which is which. Fuck the clergy. People definitely know it's a legal relationship. They know they need that legal license. They just refuse to recognize that there are two ceremonies occurring simultaneously. Separate them. And make it clear that the minister, priest, rabbi or whatever other religious figure has nothing to do with funerary rights.

Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2009 8:17 PM

MAJeff & Carlie: Ah, okay, I totally agree that the two activities are conflated. I agree 100% on separating them, if that somehow wasn't clear (I think I said it in my OP at #27).

Posted by: Chris | December 3, 2009 8:35 PM

It's the anti-polygamy laws that are sending these men to jail and freeing their "wives."

Because we don't have any other laws about marrying unwilling 13-year-olds? If you marry just one you're in the clear?

Even you don't believe that, I suspect.

Posted by: Wry Mouth | December 3, 2009 10:18 PM

:o)

Posted by: Will | December 3, 2009 11:49 PM

It's obnoxious to see that anti-trans dig, especially in such a pro-LGB picture.

Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 9:25 AM

'Tis Himself, OM, #155: But that's not what we're talking about. Most of the poly women I know have multiple partners of either sex, depending on their sexuality. Most poly people I know are bisexual, but everyone is different and it really depends on the crowd. Many are straight (most poly men ARE straight, but not all; I know an unusual amount of bisexual men, I think, because my group of friends is unusually accepting of bisexual men, even in Phoenix of all places). I have a woman poly friend who is bisexual but mainly dates men. One of her straight boyfriends has two girlfriends who are very independent and strong. My best friends are a triad -- two men, one woman.

The poly lifestyle we are speaking of is much different from Mormons. Women generally have a lot more control. And the lifestyle is FULL of geeks and nerds – go to any Dungeon’s and Dragon’s roll playing event, or an SCA event, and you’re bound to find a lot of poly people. Of course, there are abusive relationships no matter where you go -- including traditional relationships. So to say that because some subsets of poly relationships are abusive and therefore all poly relationships are abusive is really short-sighted and illogical.

And basically what Jefrir said. It's complicated. But I think Chris had some good suggestions.

I've thought about the lifestyle myself, but in the end I'm not even really all that interested in being in a relationship at all right now, and the idea of having to "keep track" of multiple people makes me a bit anxious. Because I REALLY enjoy my alone time. :) You have to really, really love being around people to do the poly lifestyle. And I do, just ... not quite that much lol.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 4, 2009 1:08 PM

Re #190 (so much for Six Apart fixing the login system, OpenID is a mess!),

See #59. And it is a little hard to get it when the C's are O's: "Human saorifoe, dogs and oats living together..." In other places, lowercase "c" is distinguishable from an "o", like in the one just below the Venkmam misquote.

Posted by: KM | December 4, 2009 6:44 PM

"Canada's leading bioethicist Margaret Somerville..."

Too bad for Canada.*

See Somerville's completely irrelevant and often offensive (esp. to those suffering, in pain, and/or dying) arguments contra assisted dying.

-----

Fun diagram, though...

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | December 4, 2009 8:25 PM

MAJeff #174 - that is exactly the point i'm making.

No, it isn't.

marriage is a civil contract, and the government should only recognize that.

Allen, that is already exactly what the government recognizes.

The government licenses some clergy to officiate the contract. This doesn't make the civil contract a religious contract. The government lets other civilians -- notaries public -- oversee other contracts. And if a notary public is also a member of the clergy, that doesn't make those civil contracts into religious contracts.

MAJeff is only saying that clergy should not be permitted to officiate this particular form of civil contract.

Marriage, according to the religious, is god's sanctioning of that relationship as sacred, and the gov't should have no part in it,

That is already exactly the legal situation. The government does not tell religious people which religious marriages they can and cannot perform. The government may not recognize all these marriages as civil marriages, but that's a different matter.

nor should a couple's belief that god holds their relationship sacred result in the gov't granting them more rights.

It doesn't. And again, that is already exactly the legal situation. The government decides whether or not a relationship is granted legal recognition regardless of the couple's beliefs.

The government does not legally recognize polygamy, Mormon or secular, regardless of whether the parties involved believe God wills it. The government does recognize marriages between Catholics and atheists, regardless of whether bishops condone such marriages.

Everything you're advocating in #182 is already the status quo. And it isn't what you were advocating in #172. There you said that the government should only recognize civil unions, which are a separate legal construct from civil marriage.

And you are wrong about that.

Atheists and gay people should not give up our claims to the word "marriage." Marriage is a socially normative arrangement that establishes relationships to the community as legitimate. I'm not saying it should be so, but for now it is so, and while it remains so, such social recognition should not be denied to atheists and gay people.

I don't know how this simple fact escapes you. I do get pretty tired of pointing it out over and over again to subliterates who think they're being clever.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 5, 2009 1:51 AM

Will #196,

Of course it's an insult; every item in that list is meant to be an insult, and yes, it would be so for any other term stuck in there.

Here's more of an explanation of what I was thinking: "Las Vegas Transexual Elvis Taco Stand Wedding Followed 2 Days Later by Divorce" is the short form of a response to a bigot saying, "Marriage is sacred", by which they mean "opposite-sex marriage" of course. The response to the bigot highlights the blatant hypocrisy behind what these bigots profess. For them, marriage only becomes "sacred" when they are arguing against allowing people of the same sex to marry. The truth is, the bigots don't mind having a long line of ex-spouses. They don't mind eloping in Vegas at a drive-thru chapel. They don't mind if the officiator of the ceremony is a transsexual Elvis impersonator. They feign a set of bigoted standards when there are none. They don't treat marriage in any way that you'd expect them to treat something they call "sacred" in the first place. So they can shut the hell up about it being a sacred institution — it isn't. That, or the word "sacred" expresses nothing more than delusional thinking on their part.

So it doesn't have to be taken as a list of things that are a joke, but rather as a list of truisms. It's not that this kind of quick, "anywhere anytime but not for long" marriage is being portrayed as a sham, it's that this kind of marriage is the real thing and happens all the time while the "sacredness" of marriage argument is what is the real sham. I really don't think Patrick meant it the way you said in the last paragraph:

Responding to "we can't let teh gays marry, it'll undermine the institution!" with "You think SAME-SEX MARRIAGE will undermine the institution? What about all those Las Vegas lesbian taco stand weddings followed two days later by divorce that already take place!?!?"

---
*facepalm* I misspelled Venkman while criticizing the misspelling of the Venkman quote.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 5, 2009 10:29 AM

It is REALLY expensive to be gay in our country, especially if you have a long-time partner or children, because you are required to bring in lawyers to write up contracts ...

Lawyers are not required to contract. A contract is any agreement between competent parties not violating a public policy. You and I can contract here and now without any lawyer's involvement. Our contract's weight in a court depends on many factors, but a lawyer's signature is not one of them, not officially anyway.

A lawyer can only advise you of the likely acceptance of a particular contract by courts. You can do this research yourself, and if it turns out that your contract is not widely accepted, a lawyer is irrelevant.

It is more expensive to be unmarried with children than to be married with children, regardless of sexual preference. I favor reforms addressing this discrimination, regardless of sexual preference. The issue for me is discrimination against the children of unmarried parents, not the sexual preference of parents.

Physical intimacy, divorced from procreation, is a private matter between consenting adults and requires no sanction, subsidy or even recognition from the state.

... and those contracts don't always stick. It's SO MUCH cheaper to just get married.

But it's not cheaper for gays to get married, because gays can't marry, because gay marriage violates a public policy, the same factor that can impede enforcement of a contract. You haven't made any meaningful distinction between contract and marriage.

My opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the sexual preference of gay couples. I have no problem with homosexuality at all. I want various benefits of marriage limited to parents of the same children. In case of adoption, these benefits would accrue to children of couples that haven't procreated, and I have no fundamental problem with gay adoption.

A "marriage" institution that I favor would not exclude gay couples with joint guardianship of children, but it would bind these couples much more strongly than the current marriage institution. A commitment to share guardianship of children is much weightier commitment than romantic intimacy.

In reality, gay civil unions, where they exist now, are as much a pretext for divorce, often after a very short time, as straight marriage. Many lawyers undoubtedly love the idea.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 5, 2009 11:36 AM

it's not because I'm homophobic or motivated by religion -Martin Brock

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 5, 2009 12:25 PM

Owlmirror, Apocamon is great! It takes care of Revelations in comic form, and I think it would go well with Robert Crumb's The Book of Genesis Illustrated.

---

Somebody wake me when Martin Brock provides "contrary evidence".

Posted by: Carlie | December 5, 2009 12:44 PM

Martin, are you using two different usernames? I had assumed you changed entirely to the "Brock" who's been posting lately, because that person sounds an awful lot like you, but now you're using your whole name again. If it is you, just be aware that PZ usually treats multiple changes of usernames as sockpuppetry even if that's not necessarily your intent.

I agree that transsexual was being used for a cheap laugh, and wrongly so. I don't think there was any rude intent behind it, but it's the same issue as using sexist words when one doesn't mean to be sexist. It would be good if "transsexual" got dropped as a way to shorthandedly describe an absurd beyond the norm situation.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 5, 2009 1:12 PM

Somebody wake me when Martin Brock provides "contrary evidence".

My assertion that, far from being homophobic, I enjoy homosexuality myself is the only credible evidence you have on the issue. You can choose to believe me or choose to believe some voice in your own head. Since your voice is not in my head, I can't take it very seriously on this point.

Posted by: marilove | December 7, 2009 9:36 AM

As a bisexual man who may only marry a woman, I don't see marriage to a woman as all that comparable to marrying a man. When I have sex with a man, I don't use a condom to avoid procreation. Ignoring this distinction is laughably ridiculous.

What does this have to do with anything? You do realize not all opposite-sex marriages result in pregnancies, right? Either because the couple CHOOSES not to have children, or because for whatever reason they don't or can't. Or perhaps they are like my above-mentioned friends -- the woman of the triad is, essentially, fixed. She can't have children. They don’t use condoms and there is no chance she can get pregnant.

So no, I don't see the difference.

That argument above is exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd likes to sling around, and it’s just as idiotic coming from you.

OH I SEE! So if I just say so, my health insurance, which I get through my job, will just allow me to have my lesbian partner listed as well ... oh, wait, no, that won't work.

OH I SEE! I'll just sign a contact so that when I'm no my death bed, my lesbian partner can visit me ... oh, wait, unless the hospital denies it anyway, which they do and which they have, and which I am almost positive you know.

OH I SEE! I'll just create contract so that my lesbian partner can adopt my child. Oh wait, that won't work either.

Posted by: marilove | December 7, 2009 9:49 AM

My copy/pasta has failed today, but I'm sure you get my gist.

Posted by: Viv | December 11, 2009 4:42 PM

"Las vegas transexual [sic] Elvis taco stand marriage..." (top right)
It's funny how it's no longer fashionable to have gays or blacks as the butt of jokes but trans people are totally all right as acceptable freakshows now. Why is a trans person's marriage more freakish and outre than a gay person's anyway?
I don't know who this "transsexual Elvis" is supposed to be but I bet his being trans should not be cause of derision for anyone.

And this from someone who's supposedly on our side? Thanks, PZ :(

Viv

Posted by: Aquaria | March 4, 2010 9:32 AM

No, you're the fucking moron.

Homosexuals aren't asking for extra rights that would be exclusive to them. When same sex marriage is legal, everyone can marry a man or a woman. It's up to them, not up to the government to decide.

You're just a homophobe. Admit.