scientific evidence doesn't mean anything... especially to those who don't believe in science, who are largely the same people so vehemently opposed to allowing homosexuals to be anything but second-class citizens in this country.

Of course, you have to ignore the scientific studies concerning the effects on society being documented in those European counties that legalized so-called homosexual marriage.

Next on the list, a law that states you can make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

"European Counties"? Let me guess, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Howard?

More bigotry from the Right. No surprises here.

You need to learn to read a bit more thoroughly, Rufus. While it is true that there has been a decline in the number of people married in some European countries that allow same-sex marriage, there is no "scientific" proof that same-sex marriage caused the decline. Marriage in those countries was already in a free-fall downward spiral. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that allowing same-sex marriage may have actually slowed the decline of heterosexual marriage in those countries.

People who disagree with this "science" are bigots. How lovely. This is not science. This is politics. Lots and lots of politics. Let's have the debate! But the very limited "science" out there is mostly politics. This blog post is biased, lame, and lazy. And it only took a couple comments for the "bigot" charge to come out. Blog the issue, please. The WHOLE issue. Thanks.

How would one expect same-sex marriage to negatively impact children in a way that same-sex long term partnerships would not?

Oh please . . "This is not science. This is politics. Lots and lots of politics. Let's have the debate! But the very limited "science" out there is mostly politics."

You enocourage us to get into the debate and scoff at the science discussed, yet you offer none of your own to contradict what was presented. You seem to be ignoring your your own advice.

Merriam Webster defines bigot as "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". When you deny equality that is hatred and intolerance. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then change your actions so you're not a bigot. No one is asking you to "approve", they simply request to be treated as equals within the borders of the country where equality is a founding principal.

Rufus: Please provide links to these studies that you insinuate show a negative impact between same sex marriage and children's health, marriage stability, etc. Provide the exact quotes and findings.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

You can't. Because they don't exist. This is an old canard put forth by ONE nutcase psychologist who has been discredited for 20 years and has had his psychiatry license revoked because of his virulent anti-gay lies.

So go ahead. Please provide the link.

Has anyone attempted to predict the impact of gay divorce and separation on children, and on the court system? Divorce is an inevitable consequence of marriage, and divorces between gay partners will raise legal and ethical questions that few are prepared to answer, I'm afraid.

Spencer, what type of legal and ethical questions would be raised at the Divorce of same-sex couples that are different from those of opposite sex couples?

I'm not trying to be sassy, I really am curious what your thoughts are here.

How does same-sex divorce differ from opposite-sex divorce? It smells like red herring in here. Rufus?

Go ahead orangeline and hillman! It is encouraging to hear comments from forward-thinking citizens who acknowledge the crude injustice and hypocrisy that still exists in this country. I find it dispicable that there is next to no legal protection from discrimination against this minority group and that people are working to institutionalize the deprivation of one of the most fundamental rights of human beings. And it's all happening right here in the land of the free. How much more intrusive can the government get??? And how can we allow for this? This is the civil rights movement of our generation and we all need to take responsibility to protect the rights of every US citizen.

to Hillman:

In an above post you request links to scholarly articles relating to the negative impact of homosexuality, the following link leads to a fact paper published by the Family Reseach Council.

While you may not agree with this organization, I use this link because it is the most comprehensive clearinghouse for this information. Please note: the articles referenced in this link ARE NOT the work of religious wackos (as I am certain you are presuming), rather they represent the work of tenured professors and researchers at major institutions such as Princeton, UVa, and others.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

Here are the ten reasons given by the nutball Family Research Council:

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
2. Children need fathers.
3. Children need mothers.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

That top ten list is fit for the David Letterman show. My personal favorite??

"10. Women and marriage domesticate men."

There you go folks... Scientific evidence against single-sex marriage!!

Dr. Matthew,

Looking at the site you mention, a reasonable person could easily argue that the exact same arguments could be used to outlaw divorce.

From the article, there are 10 points:

(1) Children hunger for their biological parents.

Q: Should we outlaw adoption?

(2)/(3) Children need fathers / Children need mothers.

Q: For those soliders killed in Iraq that have children, should we remove them from the widowed spouse unless that spouse can quickly re-marry?

(4) Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

Q: What evidence exactly is required?

(5) Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

In this case, it defines homosexuality to be a disorder and then indicates children of homosexuals are more likely to have or be accepting of this disorder.

(6) Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

???!!!! Count the number of cheating spouses on Match.com -- contrast straight to guy count.

(7) Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

So should we outlaw marriage among seniors if they are beyond child-producing age?

(8) Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

Again, would be easier to address if we just outlawed divorce.

(9) Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

Then promote a law indicating that women are not allowed in the workforce while they have young children [and see how much support you get for this argument].

(10) Women and marriage domesticate men.

So advocate a law that all men must marry [and again see how much support you get for this argument].

Sorry -- all of the above come down to is a really pathetic attempt to rationalize bigotry.

"Nutball council"? Well, glad to see it's going to be an intelligent, argument-based debate this morning.

The Family Research Council has no credibility as an actual scientific research organization.

It's mission:

The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

Dr. Matthew

I did follow your link and was shocked when in the opening paragraph Sara McLanahan is quoted as saying "the fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."

This would indicate that somehow adoptive parents are less well able to parent than biological parents. Are we as a society ready to undercut parents who may literally wait for years to adopt and care for a child that isn't biologically theirs? If not, then why use this argument against same-sex couples?

There is no doubt that people who are going to treat children poorly should not be parents. Period. But there is no reason to assume that gay parents are automatically grouped in this category.

On the contrary, gay parents can not physically end up parents by accident, it must be a conscious choice, which weeds out many who do not actually want to care for a child. If the sole reason to assume that gay parents will hurt their child because they are more likely to raise a child who is supportive of lesbians and gays, that isn't science. It is a religious belief that people are certainly entitled to, but when did your right to believe that supercede someone else's for equality?

Here's a fact for you, the state with the Lowest Divorce rate in the Union also was the first to allow gay marriage. I'm not saying there's a connection, unless you agree with Rufus, research, then the connection is exactly the same.

Let's not forget, the pseudo-scientific, nutty FRC also opposes the use of the new HPV vaccine:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200507/ai_n14824000

so is it nutty or nutball?

It's too bad that so many posters on this blog choose to go personal, to attack the source instead of the arguments.

I don't agree with all of the FRC's mission as you describe them, but surely there are some pieces you must find logical. It's likely that the institution of marriage and the family have done more to keep women and children out of poverty than anything else since the stone age. They (and most of America, if the ballot initiatives are any guide) see homosexual marriage as debasing that institution. You may personally disagree with that position, but keep in mind, *you* would be in the minority.

I guess if you don't believe in God, you would find their position a little tough to follow, but that doesn't make it invalid (or 'nutball').

JD -

First, can you speak to exactly how the same-sex marraige would "debase" the institution of opposite-sex marriage? How does one person's marriage at all impact another's? I don't see the logic there. Are we saying that opposite-sex individuals are so fragile in their marriage that same-sex marriage might do them in? That doesn't seem accurate. So what is the argument?

Is it religious? Because if it is, we should say that and have the courage to say that one groups beliefs is more important than another's.

Again, everyone is obviously entitled to their own beliefs, but since when does one person's beliefs (religious or otherwise) trump another's right to equality in the USA? Also, I think it important to note that one can absolutely believe in God and not understand the "argument" presented by the FRC.

What, oh what, has this country done to deserve being saddled with a Christian majority that can rally itself around itself around restricting a woman's right to choose and denying rights to homosexuals, but finds addressing poverty, global warming, and AIDS anathema?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112800602.html

Just out of curiosity, how is it "likely that the institution of marriage and the family have done more to keep women and children out of poverty than anything else since the stone age."? I'd really like to know your thoughts...

Orange, my point is that marriage, as originally constructed (over thousands of years), has primarily been implemented to protect women and children from poverty (and perhaps to 'tame' men, if you believe that we need to be tamed).

Surely you can see why some (most) people don't like the idea of arbitrarily watering down the requirements of this long-standing institution for the sake of equality. Some people base their view of the 'pristine-ness' of marriage on religion, some on tradition, and some I'm sure because they hate gay people. Whatever.

I'm saying that, no matter what side of this debate you're on, one should be able to see valid points in the other person's point of view. Unfortunately, some (such as Marylander) just want to spill vitriol and bile at anyone who doesn't agree with him/her.

Beamer, if you don't see the intrisic value of marriage in protecting the economic interests of women/kids, I'm afraid I don't have the time to educate you.

I suggest you Google the concept (or just read this http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA02-04.cfm )

Marylander-

Merry Christmas to you.

It seems as if you have the same intolerance for Christians as you claim the "Christian majority" has for homosexuals.

The simple fact is that the electorate (Democrat, Replublican, black, white or purple) is not ready to allow gay marriage-for whatever reason.

As someone put it, Merriam Webster defines bigot as "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". Don't be one yourself by pigeonholing Christians.

I was wrong to equate the Christian Coalition with the majority of Christians. You're right. My statement should have been:

What, oh what, has this country done to deserve being saddled with a Christian Coalition that can rally itself around itself around restricting a woman's right to choose and denying rights to homosexuals, but finds addressing poverty, global warming, and AIDS anathema?

"Beamer, if you don't see the intrisic value of marriage in protecting the economic interests of women/kids, I'm afraid I don't have the time to educate you."

Yes, I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for on the Heritage Foundation website. They're notorious for their balance.

"Surely you can see why some (most) people don't like the idea of arbitrarily watering down the requirements of this long-standing institution for the sake of equality."

Surely you can see, if you have any respect for the Constitution, why putting the rights of a minority (or anyone in society) up for a plebecite would be offensive to the senses of those who believe in the promise of American freedom.

In many child custody cases, mothers are ruled by the court to be able to provide a better environment for the child. What merits will determine child custody between two men? Earnings? Detailed psychological profiles?

Some what-ifs: Joe & Steve get a divorce. Steve moves in with Mary. Joe moves in with Dave. Which stepfamily should have custody of Joe & Steve's adopted son?

John & Sue divorce. They have a son & daughter, aged 14 & 13. John, a former minister, comes out, leaves his church, and marries Philip. Sue remains single. Does John get custody by virtue of his marriage? Is Sue less desirable as a single parent? What of the children's religious sensibilities, learned from their father, who has now repudiated much of what he taught them?

The hypotheticals could go on. The fact is that as marriages of any orientation increase, then divorces and separations will also increase, bringing with them an increased load on the legal system, and an increasing number of children subjected to bitter custody battles. I have never read anything considering the potential impact of gay divorce on our already burdened legal system. And childrens' welfare goes unconsidered, as usual. We are already suffering through the effects of the breakdown of the nuclear family. I shudder to think what will happen when the children of broken 21st-century families grow up.

JD:

You wrote "I don't agree with all of the FRC's mission as you describe them, but surely there are some pieces you must find logical."

Looking at all 10 items in the list -- there is not a single one that is a logical argument against same-sex marriage -- unless you are also willing to outlaw divorce and adoption.

Well anonymous poster, sorry you and I must disagree on the value of a father and mother in the house when raising kids. Not that it's de rigeur, but there's value there. I tend to think that, as human animals, we're generally biologically wired for heterosexuality. Even homosexuals should agree with that (since the the population is 5% homo and 95% hetero).

Marriage was created to protect and promote procreation, and promote a better standard of living throughout a child's rearing period. Now, if you want to open up the institution for non-traditional purposes, you must expect some resistance.

As for the Constitution, I'm not sure I follow your argument. My copy doesn't mention gay marriage.

"The fact is that as marriages of any orientation increase, then divorces and separations will also increase, bringing with them an increased load on the legal system, and an increasing number of children subjected to bitter custody battles."

Is the solution to seat belt related-injuries outlawing seat belts in new cars?

"I have never read anything considering the potential impact of gay divorce on our already burdened legal system. "

Probably because it's not a significant issue. Would you oppose an increase in heterosexual marriage on the same grounds?

"And childrens' welfare goes unconsidered, as usual."

Their is no governmental consideration of childrens' welfare in heterosexual marriage (or outside marriage). Any adult physically capable of having one an finding a partner is free to do so.

"We are already suffering through the effects of the breakdown of the nuclear family."

I suspect this cuts to the core. The dying gasps of marriage traditionalists, who long for the day when a woman couldn't leave her marriage.

"I shudder to think what will happen when the children of broken 21st-century families grow up."

Perhaps they'll grow up to be president, like others have.

Spencer:

You wrote: "The fact is that as marriages of any orientation increase, then divorces and separations will also increase, bringing with them an increased load on the legal system, and an increasing number of children subjected to bitter custody battles."

Then why not eliminate marriage altogether and really help out the legal system?

Look, the number of gay people is not going to change if you recognize same-sex marriage or if you don't. The number of gay couples with children is unlikely to change much either [except in the isolated adoption case]. These issues already exist and they will continue to exist -- the only question will be whether the existing marriage protections -- which are designed in part to PROTECT THE CHILDREN -- will be a factor in the decisions.

"Well anonymous poster, sorry you and I must disagree on the value of a father and mother in the house when raising kids. "

Got it -- then let's outlaw single parent families, shall we? Let's forbid divorce to ensure that children have access to a mother and a father -- right?

I see the value in a good college education -- should we make that a requirement for marriage as well? I see value in not smoking -- shall we forbid smokers from becoming parents?

You wrote "Marriage was created to protect and promote procreation, and promote a better standard of living throughout a child's rearing period."

Ok -- then sponsor an amendment that adults beyond the age of child-rearing are no longer allowed to marry. Let's go after those widowed senior citizens who are debasing the institution of marriage by getting married well after they have the ability to procreate.

Okay, anyone up for a non-emotional debate? I'm trying to step through the reasons why marriage has traditionally been reserved for man-woman, and some of the reasons why most Americans are reluctant to monkey with that institution. And in response people throw up extreme arguments to prove that the entire institution is flawed.

Anonymous poster, your arguments are silly, I'm sure you realize that. Because of brake failures we don't ban brakes on cars, and because of drunk driving, we don't ban passenger automobiles either. But that's what your arguments are similar to.

Try to follow me here - because marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of history, people are reluctant to water it down through allowing other kinds of marriage. In other words, it's been beat up enough through the conditions you mention, let's not do more damage to families in the process.

It's funny, your arguments kind of make my point though - you bring up single-mom households, forbidding divorce, etc as things to outlaw, the implication being that they are bad for kids and therefore government has an interest in eliminating or at least minimizing those conditions. So, by implication, you are putting same-sex marriage in the same category?

Hmmm....

There is no bigotry or discrimination here, gay people can marry some one of the opposite sex (a simple, common-sense prerequisite) just like any heterosexual can. No difference = no discrimination.

Yes, our nation does not recognize marriages between same-sex couples, nor does it recognize marrages among more than 2 people, nor does it recognize marriages between parents and children or between siblings, not does it recognize marriages if one or both are below the age of consent.

Now some of you may consider that to be discriminatory practices but it cannot be considered bigotry by any stretch of the imagination.

So, who wants to be the first to buy a silk purse made only from the purest sow's ears? ;-D

And would you believe those nasty Judeo-Christian types forbid marriage between different species? Oh, the humanities! Heh-heh.

We see how far that argument got Santorum. Keep trotting it out, please.

Whose interest is served by children placed with, or by surragate birth, to same sex couples? It certainly is not that of the children. And there is no body of evidence that has real standing that can support such a position.

The problem is that it is only with generational anaylsis that such a position can even begin to be suported. The bigger problem is that in order to do this, it is necessary for the placement of children into such circumstances for what, 40, 50, 60 years.

And so the first and most important question is not one of appropriatness, or of its being a legal right. More simply stated: Is this natural? It is not necessary even to bring in questions of religion or theology.

I'm confident the self serving proponents of this unnatural sexual relationship will come up with some historically obscure, or current deviant culture to refute my positon. But can it be proved to be throughout the history of man (I know this is not PC) to be a natural relationship?

In the animal and insect world, this is a snap, but I cannot believe they would even dare to go there.

When do we hear from the children proposed for this relationship? I'd hope never. But a current statistically small number could, I suppose, be already be heard from. Not from the span of experiences of a sexually balanced long life, but from an unreasonably short life during which they have been influenced and inculcated (and yes, loved) by those who cannot have been able to in any way, provide a possible balanced life experience.

Childhood experiences set the paths we take for innumerable choices and values. It is this very fact that is most disturbing because in the process of trying to simply prove or to establish what gays want for themselves, first and ultimately, and then, presumably, for the child, there will have to be sacrificed, hordes of children for at least an entire generation... without any guarantee or reasonable assurance their premise is will be supported.

Along with the many other in-your-face issues they propose, they use children to position for their "rights". I find this reprehensible. But I do go along with many of their issues...as to taxes and property, etc.

Non-sexual co-habitation of two devoted men or women is a clear choice. But this has not been given the first word or consideration that I have heard. I can just hear the wails of protest in this regard. Doing so brings into sharp focus, the unchallengable premise, that homosexual sex is, and has always been the driving consideration among those for whom sexual chastity is just a hoot! Kids are a plus that just might bring legitimacy.

This is as far as I have to go, except to say that my opposition comes first and foremost from my religious faith, that marriage is integral to faith and morals. However, I have found it necessary to be able to find other than religious faith to oppose the question. I'm satisfied that I have done so.

JD:

There will be the same number of gay couples regardless of whether the USG approves of their marriages or not. There will be the same number of gay couples with children whether the USG approves of them or not. The only question is whether as a society we see value in encouraging long-term monogamous relationships or not.

It's amazing that the radical right is actually arguing that they would prefer gays to be more promiscuous.

John Danahy:

Your argument against same-sex marriage appears to rely on the premise that the marriage will include children. Is your position that same-sex marriage is ok if no children are involved?

My beliefs on this topic are based on an experiece I had growing up. I would like to share them with you: Growing up, my parents were "friends" with a couple -- Paul and Diane. Paul was white and Diane was black. Paul & Diane wanted to marry. My parents said, "Oh we support you, but don't have kids because it would be way too hard for the kids to be raised by a mixed couple." "Its not good for the kids." Paul and Diane married and had two beautiful children. Paul and Diane are still married -- my parents are not. The point that I take from this is that history has repeatedly shown us that change is not always comfortable and there may be a lot of resistance, but don't use "do what is in the best interests of the children" as a shield for uncomfortable behavior. My 2 cents

Anonymous, why does the banning of gay marriage have anything to do with how promiscious gay couples are? Surely you'd be the first to say that marriage between a man and a woman doesn't mean that there won't be affairs, etc. Frankly, I don't see a societal interest in encouraging gay relationships to be long term or not. What's the difference?

PS I hope you're not suggesting I'm a card carrying member of the 'radical right'; if you knew me, you'd know that's very far from the truth. And by that measure, you'd be calling more than half of America part of that same 'radical right'.

JD:

"Frankly, I don't see a societal interest in encouraging gay relationships to be long term or not. What's the difference?"

The difference is that I see a high value in it -- I believe that stable long-term relationships reduce poverty and help build effective communities. My neighborhood is a better place for me, my wife and kids because of the presence of stable couples on our street -- both straight and gay.

It's always nice to read people discuss so many things they have no personal stake or experience with.

Personally, I have friends, a gay couple, that have been together for more than 20 years, living happily together. During those 20 years, they have raised two boys that were placed with them as toddlers, at different times. The older is now in his early 20s, a college graduate, making a decent living, married, who just had his second child. The younger is a teenager, excelling at school, and preparing for college.

It's a shame that such good parents and good people are demonized for doing so much for two kids who I would wager would not have had such a well-balanced home if they had been placed with just about anyone else. The fact is these two gay men wanted a family and knew what kind of commitments and responsibilities that meant. They needed to believe they were up to the challenges of being parents. And they were (and are). And that's a hell of a lot more than I can say about many heterosexuals with children.

"This is as far as I have to go, except to say that my opposition comes first and foremost from my religious faith, that marriage is integral to faith and morals."

Surprise, surprise.

"However, I have found it necessary to be able to find other than religious faith to oppose the question."

That's always nice.

"I'm satisfied that I have done so."

I suppose self-satisfaction has got to be worth something.

"Is this natural?"

Is it supernatural? Why is it that the folks often asking questions about what's "natural" often have the poorest understanding of natural history? Mr. Danahy, what is your opinion of "intelligent design?"

JD - You can't believe in God and be in favor of equal treatment of gays? Really?

Actually, JD, in most societies marriage was created to provide a way to move women as property - from the parents to their husband. Women had no rights in most 'traditional' marriage societies. 'Traditional' marriage often involved polygamy, zero rights for women, rape of women, arranged loveless marriages (often the woman was astonishingly young).

So before you say you want to harken back to 'traditional' marriage, you may want to rethink what you are asking for.

So, Rufus, you couldn't find these mysterious studies you referred to? If I were a less kind man I'd say your original post was a lie.

As for there being no discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, that's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

How about if we changed the rules and said you could ONLY marry someone of the same sex. Would that mean there would be no discrimination against straights?

Really, Rufus, I've been posting with you on this topic in various forums for the better part of a month now. You have yet to mount any sort of actual argument. And your posts are often filled with distortions and dishonesty.

Yet you continue to call for gays to be treated poorly.

Not very Christian of you. And not very decent either.

John:

Your premise that homosexuality is unnatural is false.

Homosexual behavior has been found in hundreds of animal species. One list can be found on Wikipedia. There are countless others out there. Books have been written on the subject. Do you need me to link you to them?

And gay marriage has nothing to do with gay sex. In fact, if anything it would create more monogamous gay relationships. That's one of the reasons many of us find value in it.

Since you've taken the position that you won't allow gay marriage, I never want to hear you complain about gay promiscuity again. Ever.

I don't really understand the argument against gay marriage on the grounds that it's "unnatural" or somehow not in keeping with our origins.

Any number of things are unnatural; we wear clothes and eat cooked meat. We burn millions of tons of coal to generate electricity and heat, neither of which are in any way "natural." Since when does "doing it the way the chimps do in the wilderness" justify anything? In addition to which, scientists are finding homosexuality in a number of mammalian species. So homosexuality is arguably more natural than cooking your steak and wearing shoes.

"Doing so brings into sharp focus, the unchallengable premise, that homosexual sex is, and has always been the driving consideration among those for whom sexual chastity is just a hoot!"

I don't understand this either. Homosexual relationships don't necessarily involve sex at all; for those that do, however, the vast majority are no more promiscuous than non-married heterosexual relationships. If the problem you have with gay relationships is that they might involve non-marital sex, it seems awfully unfair to criticize gay people for having non-marital sex when our country doesn't let them get married in the first place.

JD - banning gay marriage has everything to do with gay promiscuity. Married couples tend to be a lot more monogamous. It's disingenuous to ban gay marriage and then complain about gays not being monogamous or in healthy long term relationships.

Hi, Hillman. Apparently we're sharing a brain today. :-)

Sorry Hillman, I'm afraid you're wrong. While I'm sure that 2000 years ago polygamy and other non-standard arraingements were more common than they are today (marriages other than 1 man - 1 woman), I'm talking about a reasonable timeframe here. Let's say since America was founded and keep the conversation reasonable, if we can.

BTW, surely your not comparing homosexual marriage to polygomy, child marriage, etc., are you? Obviously rigged marriages of girls too young are an abomination and a crime.

Sorry, most of America agrees with me. If you don't like it, there's always Canada or Europe.

Matthew:

That's not exactly research. It shows absolutely no relationship between gay parents and this supposed negative effect on kids.

And others in this forum have adequately addressed the stupidity and bias evident in the Family Research Top Ten List and the organization as a whole. I basically agree with them on most every point.

JD -- let me see if I have this right -- because we are in the minority to believe gays should be able to marry (not admitting that we are in a minority) -- we cannot have our opinion and fight to change the status quo??? well how about this -- I bet you are pro-life (just a guess). Well, sorry the status quo is that abortion is legal so sit down and stop fighting against it. Is that logical?

JD = you said traditional marriage. That's how traditional marriage got it's start.

But let's go with your more limited time frame - since the founding of the US.

Actually, I'll win this one as well (just letting you know in advance).

First, slaves in the US weren't allowed to marry without permission from their masters.

Second, blacks and whites weren't allowed to marry.

Third, men were often allowed to divorce, but women were not.

Fourth, men could legally rape their wives.

Fifth, women were treated as property of men. They had no rights in and to themselves. Often no property rights, no financial rights, etc.

This is how 'traditional' marriage in America has been for many.

Should I go on?

JD - I thought you were all about non-emotional argument and politeness.

So why the 'theres always Canada or Europe' dig?

Actually Hillman -- Fourth should be stated: Men could not legally rape their wives -- there was no cause of action for rape from a wife against a husband :) Good points though -- I am just being technical :)

Or, I'll put it more succintly.

My partner fought for this country. My ancestors fought for this country. Gay men and women have fought and died for this country.

I pay taxes and get less in benefits back from this country.

I support this country. I support my neighborhood. I'm a good citizen.

So I refuse to move to Canada or Europe. It's my country, and I'm damn well going to fight to make sure that it's a decent place for everyone, including gay people, blacks, women, and others that the majority at one time or another felt it was their obligation to hate and denigrate.

Marie: I believe you are correct.

JD - no, I'm not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, child marriage, etc. I'll leave that to Rufus.

I'm just pointing out that the 'sanctity' of marriage is a bit of a canard at best.

If there was any 'sanctity' left straights destroyed it long ago. Anybody care to defend Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire or Britney Spear's 24 hour marriage and then with a straight face tell me about the sanctity of marriage as it stands today?

Hey, I'm the first to admit that the pillars of marriage are on the rocks (adultery, quickie divorces, etc). Still, I argue that it should be strengthened, and you argue that since there's nothing to protect, what's the harm in watering down the definition a little more. You're certainly entitled to your opinion; just realize that it's the minority one (sorry Marie, there's really no other reasonable way to interpret the ballot initiatives this decade).

As for the Canada/Europe quip, sorry if that insulted, it was meant as a joke.

JD:

"You're certainly entitled to your opinion; just realize that it's the minority one."

Yes, and at one time in US history the majority believed that slaves should not be allowed to marry without their Master's consent.

And at one time in US historty the majority believed that blacks should not be able to marry whites.

One day our children and grand-children will look back and wonder what all of this fuss was about -- and same-sex marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage.

JD:

You wrote: "Still, I argue that it should be strengthened, and you argue that since there's nothing to protect, what's the harm in watering down the definition a little more."

We are not talking about watering anything done -- we are talking about allowing individuals who value the sanctity of marriage so much that they are willing to fight to obtain it to enjoy the same rights that the rest of the American population takes for granted.

The sanctity of marriage is enhanced when it is sought by couples willing to make lifetime commitments to each other -- regardless of their sexual orientation.

JD - you've presented absolutely no evidence that allowing gays to marry endangers straight marriage in any way. Once you present such evidence then we can have an argument about marriage as an abstract. Until then, you are simply advocating second class citizenship and pain and difficulty for me and millions of other Americans.

And I never said good marriages shouldn't be protected. I simply found your premise in favor of 'traditional' marriage to be unsupportable.

And certain basic rights aren't subject to popularity contests. If they were, blacks would still be second class citizens legally in many states. As would women. Interracial marriage would be illegal. The list goes on and on and on.

JD and others - please explain to me in detail how me marrying my partner of 18 years in any way weakens or endangers your marriage. Please be specific. Many of you have alleged this, but none of you have provided any actual proof or reasonable argument.

Hillman, clearly I am not advocating this position, but my father is rather close minded and when we discuss this (rarely I might add) -- his answer is that "it just ain't right." I personally think that it is fear of the unknown. Just like whites were afraid of giving blacks equality, men afraid of giving women quality. I really do believe that nay-sayers on this issue believe that homosexuality is wrong because they are afraid of it. "It will corrupt our children." But never say how.

For me, I think for ahile I just did not understand homosexuality. Then I realized that there was nothing to understand. It is nature not nurture. So how can it be unnatural/wrong etc. I still admit to being uncomfortable at times because it is "different." But as I teach my toddlers over and over and over again -- different is not bad -- it is just different.

My 2 cents

The best solution I've seen to this issue is the civil union / marriage suggestion.

The State does not marry anyone -- the state only has the authority to recognize civil unions and these unions include gay couples.

Churches are free to choose to marry or not marry anyone based on the tenets of that faith. If the Catholic Church chooses not to marry gay couples that is their concern. If some Protestant sect decides to marry gay couples, that is up to them as well.

States do civil unions and don't discriminate. Churches do marriages and are free to discriminate.

Hillman-
Don't forget the cult of true womanhood while we're describing marriage in the past few centuries in the US. It also tied women to the home and made it nearly impossible for them to make money on their own. Not to mention femme couvert...

At any rate, good luck to you and your partner. My friends (and my Gender Studies class which has been following the thread) are all behind you.

JD:
I promise you that I'm not asking this question with any hostile intentions, but we're truly curious as to what you're defintion of marriage is and why it is what it is. Again, just curious, but what is your stance on civil union?

I saw on T.V. a few years back that being gay or Lesbian was caused by an imbalance of some kind of liquid in the brain. So then why is the government legalizing people with brain disorders to marry and/or take care of children, if science has proven it to be a disorder or disease? I am not prejudice against these type of people but wonder if these types would cross the bounderies and teach their children how to do sex with the same sex or worse such as have sex with their own kids if they are too chemically imbalanced. I even had a doctor tell me this,so now I wonder since this is a chemical imbalance in the brain if they would do other imbalanced things that would jerpardize the very safety of their own children. Any one can hate me for writing this but this is my opinion based on what i know of and at least i am being compassionately honest of my fears and letting people know it. I will never shut up just like you.

To the anonymous posting that seems to believe lesbianism is caused by some sort of liquid on the brain:

"Science" has never "proven" homosexuality to be either a disorder or a disease.

I don't know what television show you watched, or what doctor you spoke to, but you seem remarkably ill-informed for someone that seems to be able to manuever the internet. My simple advice is to go ahead and do some honest to God research on your own if you have these "fears" about homosexuality and gays raising children. You should find (making sure you avoid anything from either lunatic fringe) that your fears are, at the very least, entirely baseless. Good luck!

I hear the presence cerebro-spinal fluid around your brain causes an attraction to the same sex. A doctor told me this. A Doctor named Doolittle. I may not be the smartest person on earth, but that's not going to stop me from showing off my ignorance to the world.

To: Hillman
You are already married by love and devotion...something that is not hard to understand...now we just need some matching legal rights!!
I don't happen to be gay but I have been married more than once and actually it took more rights away than it proctected...do you know that a violent spouse has more rights than the victim unless you divorce them....it's a strange world, nearly killed by a loving heterosexual husband...broken face, broken back...this has nothing to do with God. sanctity of marriage...let some of the millions of women who are abused tell it like it is.

Marie - thank you for your comments. I admire your honesty. I realize that the whole idea of gay marriage was a bit shocking for many. And I used to cut people some slack because of the newness of the idea. But we've now had several years to get used to the idea. Numerous other countries now have gay marriage. It hasn't resulted in the sun not coming up, the birds no longer chirping, straight marriages crumbling, etc. But I respect the fact that you are honest enough to say that you have some discomfort level with gay issues, but that you are able and willing to deal with that.

Beamer: Thank you for your comments. I post on this subject in various forums. Unfortunately, due to several years of combatting the same comments I've become a bit overly harsh in my posting style. Please try to look past that. But after literally thousands of posts comparing my partner and I's 18 year loving relationship to sex with animals, Hitler, Satan, and any number of other things, it's sometimes hard for me to remain dispassionate.

I view the whole idea as an idea of fundamental human decency and fairness.

First, fairness - My partner and I pay taxes. In fact, because we can't marry, we pay a lot more taxes and fees than straights do. For instance, we can't pass property to each other without incurring real estate taxes and fees (in DC, that's thousands of dollars). We support our local schools and charity organizations. We are good, solid citizens.

Yet we get less for our tax money. I can't get his military pension or survivorship benefits. Neither of us can get social security survivor benefits. I hate to shill for a particular website, but here's a list of 1000 plus benefits that I am denied.... http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html . True, many are arcane. But many are quite substantial.

I often ask the logical question.... if I can be denied these benefits, why can't I be denied other benefits? Theoretically, using the same rationale for denying me these benefits, I could be denied, say, Medicare. Or social security. In effect I'm paying a special 'gay tax', because I pay more and get less benefits than straights.

The other issue - basic decency.

Denying me marriage and legal protections is simply inhumane. I find it stunning that anyone can actually argue in favor of laws that make it difficult for me to see my partner on his deathbed. Or for a destitute elderly lesbian couple to know that when one dies the other will get some sort of survivor benefits.

These laws have very real impacts on very real people. It's a bit of a myth that all gay people are wealthy. Many actually suffer in their 'golden' years, refused help from their families, churches, and communities. So to me it's the height of hypocrisy for people to claim they are protecting morality when they deny very real help to people that need it. How exactly is making an 85 year old lesbian suffer in her old age protecting morality?

Sorry for the rant. But this issue is central to understanding that we are all human, we all contribute to society, and we all deserve basic human dignity and respect.

Carlene: I'm sorry to hear of your experience. No one should have to go through that.

Hillman:

You claim homosexuality has been found in "hundreds of animal species." I'll bet you can name them all, too.

By saying that, are you claiming to be an animal? If animals eat their young does that give you the same rights? Why do the homosexuals always offer the same meaningless excuses as evidence (animals, slavery, women's rights).

If you sodomites want to play by evolution's rules, WHY DON'T YOU PLAY FAIR?? Us heterosexuals have "evolved" to
produce children naturally over "billions of years."

Once you and your partner can "evolve" up to my level you can have your children. Until then, GET BACK IN THE GENE POOL AND KEEP TREADING WATER.

Homosexuals can't "leap-frog" past all us heterosexuals who obeyed "Mother Nature." If you want children you should have to do it naturally, like us "lucky heterosexuals."

Thank God for evolution (sarcasm, sarcasm)

Hillman, you have the exact same marriage rights that every American reading these comments has: you can marry one person of the opposite sex that is not a sibling, parent, or first cousin (depending on the state) just like anyone else.

"By saying that, are you claiming to be an animal?"

Are you claiming not to be an animal? Your rabid demeanor would seem to qualify you in multiple senses.

Dear Common Sense Avenget:

No, I'm not an animal worshiping Darwin or evolution.

My faith is much more rational- in a loving (and just) Creator God who created all mankind in His image. He has endowed us with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as long as it falls within His generous law which was designed to protect us). This is found in His Word revelation, the Bible.

In other words, as a sentimental plaque I once read in a dear friend's house reads: "If it pleases you to please God THEN you can do as you please."

But break the laws and there will be retribution. It's the same with our little world here, ostensibly. You speed, you pay the ticket. Same as cosmic justice under the Law of God.

PS- My moniker was given to me by Hillman, himself, so don't knock it bro.

PPS- What's an "Avenget" anyway ??

way to go Mary Cheney!

just what moronic evangelical christians who blindly support the republican cause deserve.

Well, what do you know???

Apparently lesbians HAVE evolved to the point where they can procreate. What will they think of next??

Gee whiz, I guess that let's me out.

Just a suggestion- try it the way God invented it:

man + woman = baby

And what elective office did the "moronic evangelical christians" help Mary Cheney to achieve?

That's right, without the Left-wing media, we wouldn't even know about her and the turkey baster's upcoming bundle of joy.

If you really think it is so natural for same sex releationships why do you need approval from those who don't believe it is. If it is all about the love you share why isn't that enough? I don't approve of what you are doing, but why do you need a law that says I should. If it was natural you could do it together.
Human history does not look kindly on societies that allow deviaent behavior but why inject facts into the discussion it just clouds the issue. Y'all just want to do what you want to do just admit it.

if the Tora, Quran and the Bible says "homosexuality is sin", sounds like we will find out when we see God on judgment day. According to these beliefs, sounds like God will have the last word. i wonder if he's going to favor homosexuality or not. If "yes", the Tora, the Quran and the bible was all a lie but if if God doesnt favor it, and if these books say its "SIN". and these books say where sinners go....then "uh oh"....cause this argument about homosexuality comes down to religion, im talking about the majority that are against it, its roots are religion. We shall see what God will say eh God's little eartly avenger?

True.

But there is some WONDERFUL NEWS !
All can be forgiven from ANY sin. All it takes is a humble heart and to TRUST and OBEY God.

His commands are not difficult.

But obedience is a must.

If only people would listen carefully at this special time of year. God will speak to us if we listen attentively. After all, Jesus was born of a virgin to save, so that all "may not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

"Glory to the newborn King!"

Don't forget that even the Dahli Lama said that homosexuality is wrong (against nature).