Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » New Jersey Civil Unions: Separate But Equal

New Jersey Civil Unions: Separate But Equal

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Was the wording of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage a deliberate attempt to create an industry of litigation, guaranteeing a steady stream of income–mostly in taxpayer dollars–for lawyers and state and federal courts over the next few years? It's an interesting, albeit conspiracy theory-ish question.

The mandate from Jersey's highest court was clear: call it what you will, but provide the same rights for same sex couples that are provided to married opposite sex couples. But the "call it what you will" notion, as simple as it seemed is clearly going to drive dozens if not hundreds of court cases in the months and years to come.

Language is a thorny matter and not as simple as we often pretend. Consider the recent media circus over Michael Richards. Even though the meaning is clear and it's obvious what's being said, in our minds there is clearly a vast world of difference in power and impact between "the N word" and "what it stands for and we're not supposed to say."
Paula Zahn can say "the N word" on CNN until her roots turn black, but she wouldn't dare says "the N word."

Now that we're faced with the result and reality of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision: a civil union law; the difference between calling it "marriage" and calling it a "civil union" is not less meaningful, no less impactful and even more complicated than the difference between using "the N word" and the actual word that we're not allowed to say.

At one end of the spectrum, gay men and women are demeaned and insulted by "civil union." Furthermore, American history teaches us the specious notion of "separate but equal" is simply ridiculous.

At the the other end of the spectrum "civil union" is neither morally, ethically or legally equal to marriage. "What you call it" matters greatly. Will federal and out-of-state employers, insurance companies and other institutions that automatically provide benefits and protections for married couples provide equal respect and recognition to civil unions? Maybe, maybe not. In social and business situations, will couples united in a civil union be afforded the same respect and accommodations afforded married couples? Who can tell? Of course, they can lie and claim to be married; but how sad is that? It hearkens back to the days when gay men and women would travel as best friends, check into hotels separately and then sneak into each other's rooms under cover of darkness.

We can argue semantics and play word games until we're lavender in the face, but the reality is that a simple word diminishes same-sex couples to second class citizens and all that entails.

While New Jersey's spanking new civil union law may seem like a major advance in the cause of American civil rights, it is actually nothing more than a sad and tired replay of the the old Jim Crow laws.

Every American should be embarrassed by this and none of us should be celebratory. Well, except for the lawyers. They'll profit mightily from this as gay couples begin to face the reality of this discriminatory and unconstitutional law.

And for those of you who think this is a "step in the right direction." No, it is not. It's a diversionary tactic and no more a step in the right direction than the institution of racial segregation.

Powered by

About Ricky

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it anything you like, but it still tastes awfully good when you fry it up and make the skinm all crispy.

    dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Richard, it’s so damn easy to be self-righteous.

    Just a few years ago, same-sex civil unions, let alone marriages, were not even part of the national conversation. I don’t think anyone cried “Jim Crow” when the first civil-unions law passed in Vermont. This development in New Jersey is good news. It’s also part of a process; a step along a path; not the destination or final word. Throwing a tantrum about it shows a silly form of tunnel vision. Patience, in this instance, is definitely a virtue.

    The word ‘marriage’ has a religious connotation for many people. To just pooh-pooh their genuine misgivings is a really unfortunate and inflammatory reaction. Insisting on marriage, right here right now, is what caused the ridiculous backlash around the country in the form of regrettable ballot initiatives that will take decades to undo.

    And invoking Jim Crow should be reserved for instances where it is genuinely relevant.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    That self-righteousness you mention is one of the main forces holding back the gay efforts towards equality.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I have mixed feelings about this, because righteous indignation definitely has its uses in politics – certainly if issues of war/peace and poverty/wealth are involved. And Richard has written eloquently on those and other subjects. But in this instance we gay folks run the risk of looking like crybabies.

    This is a recurring conundrum with many special-interest issues and ‘pressure groups,’ as they are pejoratively referred to sometimes, on both the left and right. But it can be especially debilitating politically on the left.

    James Carville, of all people, had wisdom to offer about this, referring to the Clinton presidency. “Liberal interest groups are just never ever satisfied. You try to satisfy them at your political peril.” [I’m paraphrasing from memory, sorry.]

  • zingzing

    dave: “That self-righteousness you mention is one of the main forces holding back the gay efforts towards equality.”

    the other would be bigotry.

    i say that “civil union” is better than nothing. it’s not everything that it could be… but it is what it is.

    both sides are stoopid for fighting over a word. in the interest of fairness, however, i side with the gays. yep!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t disagree with a word you’re saying here, Zing. The word means nothing outside of its religious context, and if they have equality under the law, that is a more than reasonable compromise given the vehemence of the forces arrayed against them.

    What makes no sense to me is their willingness to take an all or nothing attitude and throw away the very thing they are campaigning for just because they don’t get the superficial label they prefer.

    The bigotry is a given, but why do they have to play into the hands of the bigots by being as extreme as they are – often falsely – accused of being?

    Dave

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    As long as we get tax-breaks for couples, inheritance rights, and next-of-kin hospital rights, I’m all for anything that irks Jerry Falwell.

  • Jerry

    Jet,
    I think that the requirements you hold put you in the minority. It is that “superficial label” (married couple) that the majority is insisting on.

    If, or should I say when gay marriage is universally recognized, what will be the next milestone reached for?

    I’m beginning to believe that gay activists will never be happy until everyone is somehow forced to complete acceptance, that would require the gov’t to “legislate morality”.

  • zingzing

    not everyone has to completely accept. just the government.

  • Leslie Bohn

    The poster is 100 percent correct. If “civil unions” and “marriage” are exactly the same thing legally, as supporters claim, then why are there two different words? Because they are NOT the same, obviously. It is sad that some (even some who absolutely support equality for everybody, like Mr. Nalle) portray a simple desire to be treated equally as “self-righteousness.”

    Maybe the courts will just decide that a gay marriage is three-fifths as real as a straight marriage.

  • Leslie Bohn

    I wish I wrote what Mr. Zing just wrote. This principle should be much more widely applied.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Leslie, I don’t consider the desire to be treated equally to be self-righteous, I consider the push to force acceptance on the population in general as self-righteous, and the insistence on the word ‘marriage’ as self-defeating. I’d rather see gays get the rights they deserve than waste their efforts and throw away their victories for a meaningless word.

    Dave

  • Leslie Bohn

    As zz just wrote, Mr. Nalle, no one is forcing anything on any individual citizen. Just the government. And I repeat that if the distinction were truly meaningless, as you say, then why does the government need another word? Truth is, it’s not meaningless.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The government needs another word to placate the opponents of this policy. Placating the opponents by throwing them a meaningless bone makes it possible to pass civil unions legislation. It’s a small price to pay.

    As for forcing things on individuals, what some are concerned about is that there’s a desire to legislate morality and somehow reeducate the ignorant and bigoted. But it’s their right to be ignorant and bigoted as much as it is the right of gays to have full familial rights.

    Dave

  • Leslie Bohn

    No, Mr. Nalle, respectfully, the right of citizens to equal rights under the law is enshrined in the constitution. People’s rights to their own opinion on the matter aren’t infringed in any way.

  • STM

    I think it’s very interesting that in Australia, which has a gay community largely treated with acceptance and which is comfortable about its “difference”, if you like, gays are not agitating for use of the term marriage in same-sex unions, as under common law same-sex couples now have exactly the same rights as any other couple (as they should), including claims on a partner’s estate in the case of death or separation.

    It seems to me that once everyone has the same rights, there’s not really much to worry about … so is this just another bit of political nonsense?

    Perhaps the rights themselves are the things to be fighting for. Or would that not serve political ends?

  • Clavos

    STM asks:

    It seems to me that once everyone has the same rights, there’s not really much to worry about … so is this just another bit of political nonsense?

    Perhaps the rights themselves are the things to be fighting for. Or would that not serve political ends?

    That’s the nut…it’s not about rights.

  • Jerry

    What is it about Clavos?

  • Clavos

    I dunno, Jerry.

    I thought I was agreeing with STM, and even your #8.

    I guess it didn’t come off that way?

  • Jerry

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound critical, but maybe somewhat rhetorical.

  • Clavos

    Jerry,

    I apologize. I readit your question as:

    What is it about Clavos?

    And just now realized it was really:

    What is it about, Clavos?

    Don’t know if that was clear or not, but suffice to say I read a totally different meaning to the question than you intended. :>)

    Anyway, my answer is:

    I don’t know, but it seems that there’s a greater goal than simply equal rights. Otherwise, civil unions with equal rights would do. I hate to pick on Jet, but there seems to be a hint of what it’s about (beyond equal rights) in his #7, though I’ll admit that that may just be a clumsy joke.

  • Jerry

    Thanks Clavos,
    Sounds like a viable assessment.

  • STM

    The old missing comma again, eh?

    “What’s this thing called, luv?”

  • Leslie Bohn

    Hmmmmmm.. different, but equal. I just know I’ve heard that before.

    Mr. Clavos et al: If “civil unions” and “marriage” are the same under the law (provide “equal rights” in your words, Mr.C), why do they have two different names under the law?

  • STM

    “Mr. Clavos et al: If “civil unions” and “marriage” are the same under the law (provide “equal rights” in your words, Mr.C), why do they have two different names under the law?”

    Probably because the law actually defines marriage, at least in my country and I assume in the US since the roots of our common law come from the same place, as an official union between a man and woman.

    In the US, lawmakers could almost certainly go back to English common law to assess this question (yes, it still applies as much of what is contained in US law pre-dates the Declaration of Independence), and if they find there is a case that it exists as a definition applying only to unions between men and women, could probably mount a genuine case to legislate to have it instituted permanently under law.

    So instead of fighting to have the word marriage used, and banging your heads against a brick wall, why not fight for the right in ALL states of the US to have same-sex relationships properly recognised under common law, ie: full rights for partners, including access to estates in case of separation or death, and next-of-kin rights, equal to those in an officially performed and state-recognised marriage ceremony.

    Really, I have to ask here: what’s in a name?

    My suspicion is that the answer to that lies in the desire for a bit of political points-scoring among a small and vocal minority of agitators within a gay community that in truth would prefer to quietly go about its business and be given the same rights as everyone else, without regard to what it’s dressed up as or what label it’s given.

  • Lelsie Bohn

    Your suspicion is wrong. Most gay people I know want their marriages recognized as the same as everybody else under the law. The same. No hidden political agenda, as you insist.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    No, Mr. Nalle, respectfully, the right of citizens to equal rights under the law is enshrined in the constitution. People’s rights to their own opinion on the matter aren’t infringed in any way.

    People have rights to equal treatment. They do not have equal rights to claim on a name which is essentially a religious sacrament. The word ‘marriage’ belongs to religion, not to the state, and it has been a mistake for the state to use it inappropriately for all these years, a holdover from a time when church and state were a lot closer than they are now.

    Up until now, the word marriage has been on loan to the state from the churches. Perhaps it’s time for the churches to take it back.

    Dave

  • STM

    Leslie wrote: “as you insist.”

    That’s your word mate, not mine. I said suspect

    Big difference. Great example though of how words can be twisted, and probably timely here.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    I continue to be astonished by men who call themselves Americans, who seem to support the United States Constitution and yet have such difficulty grasping such clear cut concepts as equality under the law and non-discriminatory civil rights for all citizens. I’m also disgusted by the enduring belief on the part of certain elements in our society that white Christian heterosexuals retain the “right” to decide on who is entitled to full civil rights in this country. Such people do not deserve to be called Americans. As for the Bible, it condemns the eating of shellfish, a man lying with a man, mixing cotton and wool, adultery and divorce. The Bible demands the adulterers be stoned to death. The Bible condones slavery and keeping women as property. So if you believe the Bible is right and is the word of God, you have much bigger fish to fry than a few gay men and women. Start by stoning the makers of mixed blend clothing.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I love it when right-wing family-protectionist fools start screaming THEY WANT “SPECIAL RIGHTS!!!”. What bullshit. We want the same rights as everyone else and nothing more, but some would have you belive that if gays have their way, we’d be bussed to schools to teach our filthy ways to your children, companies would be fored into having a quota of a certain percentage of faggot workers on their payrolls.

    That kind of fear-mongering is completely irresponsible. Next thing I hear will be “Well if we give them fags rights, next we’ll have to let old men marry young boys, and-and-and who knows what. Them damned Mormons will want 10 wives, and them A-rab for’ners will want to bring their whole harems over here. Convicted sex felons will want equal rights to hang around playgrounds, Farmers marryin’ sheep. our whole judy-crisyun values will go down the dumper!!!”

    Dear God where will it all end!!!! What if a Southern Baptist woman decides she wants to marry one of them northern negro Cath’licks or worse some Jew????

    It comes down to this,

    Gays want to be able to visit a lover in the hospital without being denied because they’re not his next of kin.

    Gays want to be able to inherit the property they bought together and have lived in and put their hearts and souls into for 10 years, without some greedy relative coming out of the woodwork and saying they have more right to it because fom fag’s not his next of kin.

    They want to file jointly with my lover of 10 years just as other married couples do.

    Unfortunately the laws requires the label “married” in order to acquire the label “next of kin” that civil unions don’t.

    That’s not radical, that’s not special fucking rights, that’s reasonable.

    Period.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Jet, Leslie, Richard –

    As far as I can tell the right-wing Christian conservative family values folks have yet to find this thread, so who are you responding to, exactly?

    The closest anyone here is coming to oppressing you is suggesting that you be deprived access to a WORD.

    You know, ‘marriage’ isn’t the only word which is being denied to the gay community. Why don’t you demand to be called ‘straight’ and ‘heterosexual’ too?

    For that matter, I insist on the return of the word ‘gay’.

    Dave

  • STM

    Jet said: Unfortunately the laws requires the label “married” in order to acquire the label “next of kin” that civil unions don’t.

    As you yourself acknowledge, same-sex marriage stirs up controversy, for want of a better word, and a tidal wave of opposition when the word marriage is used. Why not fight for that right under common law and have the courts accept same-sex relationships as marriages under common law.

    Most states of the US don’t recognise common law marriage, unfortunately, but in the ones that do, that is a good way to start IMO. And once the precedent has been set, there is a case under law that can be taken to the federal jurisdiction.

    Otherwise you are going to be banging your heads against a brick wall.

    It is what happened here … now anyone in a same-sex relationship generally has the same or similar rights as any other couple living together, married or otherwise (as they should), although it is state legislation not federal at this point and so is slightly different in each state.

    Mostly, there is no “qualiifying period” of living together either, but to make claims on property or an estate, you would only need to be able to show that you were in a relationship.

    A joint title on a house, or a simple statutory declaration that you have been living together, would be enough to prove a common law marriage exists.

    In Tasmania, under the Relationships Act, same-sex couples can simply register their union at the registry of births, deaths and marriages, and even gives a same-sex partner the right to adopt the child of their partner.

    In the Northern Territory, government ministers can take same-sex partners on overseas trips, for instance, at taxpayer expense – and as a spouse.

    You have an almost identical legal system so I don’t see why it couldn’t work there. In my view, it couldn’t fail if it was tested through the courts. The New Jersey ruling would seem like a good place to start.

    It is certainly not a perfect outcome in Australia for many I suspect as some discrimination still exists at the federal level (right-wing government) but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Chipping away at granite eventually turns it to rubble.

    The feeling here is that once some of the contentious issues around next of kin rights (such as making medical decisions), etc, access to superannuation, property and the like, had been largely resolved, some of the other issues seemed to be non-issues, at least less important.

    Perhaps it is the insistence of the use of the label of “marriage” that is hindering that process in the US.

    And if anyone should choose to reply, I’d appreciate a reasoned response rather than a rant about what it’s like to be discriminated against, something I’m very familiar with – as we’ve discussed before, Jet.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Dave, I know this is very hard for you to understand, but gay people want to be treated the same by the government.

    The same.

    Nobody gives a crap what Dave from Texas calls gay people. Call yourself gay when you’re happy and call your gay neighbor straight, what do I care?

    As long as people are treated the same by the government.

  • RedTard

    More gay whining. Feels like I stumbled upon a NAMBLA convention. Same arguments, same lame “logic”. I don’t give a rat’s ass who marries who, but the whining eternally persecuted victimhood status that all these minority groups try and hide behind is vile and repugnant.

    This has very little to do with marriage. This is about acceptance and those gays that have a little bitch fit because everyone doesn’t love their lifestyle as much as they love the old traditional family.

    It’s very analogous to those who constantly rail against christmas. The majority enjoys christmas and it pisses off it’s detractors to no end so that act “offended”. An oobservant person would notice that christmas ornaments and reindeer don’t really offend anyone, the fact that no one gives a shit about their lame little alternative holidays does.

  • D’oh

    Bullshit, Red. It’s about equal treatment under the law.

    It’s about people deciding how to make their families, and having the same legal recognitions as everyone else.

    Just that simple.

    But you do get bigotry points for trying to conflate this issue of equal protection with NAMBLA.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Yes, and STM, I know you used the word “suspect,” but you mentioned this “hidden political agenda” theory of yours in both of your multiparagraph posts. Sounded more like insisting to me, so that’s the word I carefully chose there.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    As predicted men marrying little boys would come into the conversation along with defying “traditional marraige”.

    sad really

  • whosaiditbest

    Im just sitting here with my little bag of popcorn reading this. Please continue.

  • RedTard

    “Bullshit, Red. It’s about equal treatment under the law.”

    Then we’re in agreement because civil unions do just that.

  • RedTard

    “As predicted men marrying little boys would come into the conversation along with defying ‘traditional marriage’.”

    Why are the ‘rights’ of groups such as pedophiles and polygamists not deserving of equal treatment along with yours? Also, when in the history of marriage were gay couples considered as candidates?

    Those two points keep coming up because you have no good answer for them, only crying and whining about how you’re being persecuted.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    According to United States government statistics, over 30% of teen pregnancies in the United States are a result of adult heterosexual males raping girls under the age of 14. Based on that statistic, it’s nothing short of shocking that heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry!

  • Clavos

    Richard writes:

    According to United States government statistics, over 30% of teen pregnancies in the United States are a result of adult heterosexual males raping girls under the age of 14.

    Would you provide a link to a government site that says that?

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    I will not provide links or research on anything until the homophobes who post on this site provide honest statistics on their outragous and deeply offensive association between gay marriage and pedophilia. However if one were to research statistics the the Morbidty and Mortality Reports published by the United States Centers for Disease Control one would find too many horrific statistics on the abuse of children by heterosexuals in this nation. In fact tha latst CDC stats cite a 10.3% increase in the pregnancy rate for females aged 12-14 years sired by adult males. Overall there are about 23,000 pregnancies in this nation annually among girls younger than 15 sired by adult males.

  • S.T.M

    Come on Richard old boy, you can’t just take your bat and ball and go home.

    That’s a legitimate question. I’d also be interested to see what study that’s contained in.

    Not so you can be proved wrong, either. It’s a fascinating statistic if true.

  • D’oh

    Red asks, “Why are the ‘rights’ of groups such as pedophiles and polygamists not deserving of equal treatment along with yours?”

    You asked the wrong guy, here’s the reason why NAMBLA is a different case, it doesn’t involve consenting adults, it involves minors who are under the legal age of consent, hence it involves a fucking crime.

    Consenting adults getting married is not a crime, now can you see the difference? More bigotry points for you, and you get 3 ignorance stamps as well.

    You r alleged second question doesn’t make sense as worded, so clarify and I’ll hit that one for you as well, Red Santorum.

  • Clavos

    Richard writes,

    I will not provide links or research on anything…

    So much for credibility…

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Do your own damned homework for a change and learn something. Education is a wonderful thing but it requires some effort.

  • D’oh

    Not really, Clavos. Many use the Socratic method, and there are plenty of disciplines which require people to source their own info, with the thought that the process of doing so educates.

    You could try Planned Parenthood’s statistics, the amount of rape in home is primary reason they fight against parental notification, as an example.

    Oh, and for Red about polygamists, that is a better analogy. Again, if it involves consenting adults, then it is wrong to deny them equal protection. Even better, some can claim it as part of their religious doctrine, tossing that into the mix.

  • Clavos

    Richard,

    You’re the one making assertions, not I. The onus of backing them up is on you. When I write an article for BC, I DO my own homework, and link to it. Likewise, when I make factual assertions in thread comments.

    By refusing to link to your sources you’re sacrificing all credibilty. Perhaps you don’t HAVE a source for the “statistic” about teen pregnancies in #41?

    We can only assume that’s the case.

  • Clavos

    D’oh,

    Richard is not my teacher, and I’m not his student. This is a debate, not a sociology lesson.

  • D’oh

    Clavos, the socratic method is learning by debate, is it not?

    I understand your point, but I also get his as well. And I gave you a source for such statistics, did I not?

    There have been many cases, here at BC alone, where folks link to “sources” that turn out to be bloggers making unsubstantiated claims, or otherwise of dubious origins.

    So no matter what, some might have difficulty with some sources being cited, if one finds the info themselves then they might be more inclined to trust it’s veracity. Just a thought.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Clavos: I’m impressed with your use of the royal “we.”

  • Clavos

    D’oh,

    There have been many cases, here at BC alone, where folks link to “sources” that turn out to be bloggers making unsubstantiated claims, or otherwise of dubious origins.

    Absolutely correct. That’s the principal reason I asked for HIS (not yours, with all due respect) source.

  • Clavos

    D’oh,

    Also, I was specific in my request for a source; I asked for a government source.

  • D’oh

    No worries, Clavos. I understand, and do not presume to speak for Richard in any way. I was merely attempting to point out that in some cases, no matter the source cited or the data used by said source, the accuracy and veracity of info can and should be questioned.

    Under such light, a skeptic should indeed look things up themselves, since such a skeptic would more than likely find provided sourcing by the person being argued with, dubious.

    Example; if in discussing race relations, someone cited a Prussian Blue lyric, then it is a reasonable assumption that they are coming from a seperatist outlook and that their viewpoints may be skewed by their personal beliefs.

    Plenty of other examples out there, from the Bible to Fox news. It’s only when one has checked their facts and sources, then drawn their own conclusions, that they can be reasonably certain when it comes to the validity of their thoughts.

    “trust but verify” – Reagan

  • D’oh

    Ah, missed the government source bit. Don’t you think that in the case of incestuous rape under discussion, that such statistics are suspect due to under reporting to authorities?

    I agree anecdotal sources are suspect as well, however this is why I cited Planned Parenthood.

    Pregnancies lend credibility.

  • Clavos

    D’oh,

    Good point about underreporting of incestuous rapes.

    However, Mr. Rothstein’s original satement in #41 referred to “teen pregnancies,” resulting from “adult heterosexual male(s)” rapes. He asserted that such pregnancies were “over 30%” of all teen pregnancies, a figure which seems impossibly high, and the reason I asked for a citation.

    Incidentally, he’s the one who said the figure was from the government, so I asked for the link.

    One other point about adult heterosexual male rape. If a 17 year old boy has sex with a 15 year old girl, that’s legally rape, but is it really rape, especially if the girl consents? How many of the readers of this thread actually had that experience when they were teens?

  • D’oh

    Actually, the rules for statutory vary from state to state. I know of no instance where a 17 year old and a 15 year old fall into said category since the 17 year old is a legal minor.

    In some states, consent can be as low as 16, unless it has been changed other states go as low as 14.

    Not too suprising considering the age of Mary or Juliet.

    As for the minor pissing contest twixt you and Richard, I’ll leave it be, I was merely attempting to expand a viewpoint here and there as is my wont.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    OK,I’ll chime in one more time. First of all, a certain lazy and dishonest person simply ignored by direction to the Morbidity and Mortality Reports at the Centers for Disease Control website where one will find many disturbing statistics. Secondly when an adult male of 18 or older engages a girl of 15 or younger in sex it is rape and in no way consensual sex between two informed adults. Finally, it is odd that one would claim that sex between an of age male of 17 and an under age female of 16 or 15 is not rape, but does not challenge the other commentors on this site who would claim that in a gay stiuation this would be called pedophilia. Why not demand links from those who publish outrageous claims about gay men on this site?

  • Clavos

    D’oh says,

    Actually, the rules for statutory vary from state to state. I know of no instance where a 17 year old and a 15 year old fall into said category since the 17 year old is a legal minor.

    Not true, D’oh. The age of consent for sex in most states is 16. That’s why I used that particular example. For sex, the boy is an adult, while the girl is not. And BTW, in some states the age of consent is even lower — in at least one, it’s 14.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)

    An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

    77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997)

    According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were an estimated 248,000 rapes and sexual assaults against victims over the age of 12 in the US in 2001. (US Department of Justice)

    According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)

    Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)

    Women of all ethnicities are raped: American Indian/Alaska Native women are most likely to report a rape and Asian/Pacific Islander the least likely. (National Institute of Justice 1998)

    Reported rape victimization by race is: 34% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 24% women of mixed race; 19% of African American women; 18% of white women; 8% of Asian/Pacific Islander women. (Tjaden and Thoennes, National Institute of Justice 1998)

    80-90% of rapes against women (except for American Indian women) are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994)

    American Indian victims of rape reported the offender as either white or black in 90% of reports. (Department of Justice 1997)

    In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best, Jnl. of Anxiety Disorders 13, 6.)

    93% of women and 86% of men who were raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18 were assaulted by a male. (National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)

    Among female rape victims, 61% are under age 18. (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995)

    22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years; 32% are 12-17 years old; 29% 18-24 years old; 17% over 25 years old. 83% of those raped are under the age of 25 years old. (National Institute of Justice 1998)

    In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)

    13% of college women indicated they had been forced to have sex in a dating situation. (Johnson and Sigler, Jnl. of Interpersonal Violence, 2000)

    In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police. (Warshaw 1994)

    1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 “I Never Called It Rape”)

    In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 “I Never Called It Rape”)

    A study of 477 male students, mostly 1st and 2nd year students, found 56% reported instances of non-assaultive coercion to obtain sex. Examples included: threatening to end a relationship; falsely professing love; telling lies to render her more sexually receptive. (Boeringer 1996, Violence Against Women:5)

    Women with disabilities are raped and abused at twice the rate of the general population. (Sobsey 1994)

    Of the 22 substances used in drug facilitated rape, alcohol is the most common finding in investigations. (Jnl. of Forensic Sciences 1999)

    According to the First National Survey of Transgender Violence, 13.7% of 402 persons reported being a victim of rape or attempted rape. (Gender PAC 1997)

    A 1991 study of college gay, lesbian and bisexual students found that 18% had been victims of rape and 12% victims of attempted rape. (Jnl. Of College Student Development)

    15% of men who lived with a man as a couple reported being raped/assaulted or stalked by a male cohabitant. (1999 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

    6 out of 10 rapes are reported by victims to have occurred in their own home or home of a friend, relative or neighbor. (US Dept. of Justice 1997)

    Sexual assault is reported by 33-46% of women who are being physically assaulted by their husbands. (AMA 1995)

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Jet: You’re my hero.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Nope, just the research department.

  • Clavos

    An impressive collection of rape statistics, Jet.

    Did you find a statistic for how many of those rapes result in a teen pregnancy, and what percentage of teen pregnancies are the result of rape?

    With rape so prevalent in our society, it seems to me that we should start castrating (physically, not chemically) all men convicted of it. Even if we only castrate the 2% who are convicted, the deterrence factor should be significant; men are really afraid of being castrated.

    That won’t deter the females who rape, but I’m sure we could come up with something for them as well.

  • David

    What is it about American culture that state after state in your country has so much difficulty enacting equality? Why are Americans such petty people? Why don’t you just give all your citizens the same rights and stop screwing around. You come across like a bunch of dipshits that can’t even get their legislative act together.

  • Leslie Bohn

    David:
    There are different reasons for the passage and non-passage of various civil-rights legislation. In this case, fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives don’t believe gays should have these rights, and that is a very powerful voting bloc, especially in the South and Midwest of the US.

    That’s not really an indication that our government is run by dipshits, but incidentally it is.

  • Clavos

    That’s not really an indication that our government is run by dipshits

    No, but it IS an indication the country is full of them.

  • S.T.M

    A dipshit? American equivalent of a dickhead?

    Please explain …

  • zingzing

    not really a dickhead… cause refers to cruelty, i suppose… “dipshit” is mostly used to describe someone of low intelligence, or someone who just did something really stupid.

  • STM

    No zing, dickhead doesn’t refer to cruelty in our parlance. It’s some one who’s behaving in a silly or needless fashion (big-noting, arguing or generally behaving badly). A yuppy lawyer who thinks he knows everything would be a good example of a dickhead. A drunk annoying everyone also qualifies. It’s a fairly broad term, covers a whole range of transgressions from the minor to the major and is wonderfully descriptive. It can also be used sometimes as a term of endearment in Australia, as can bastard. No wonder Americans get very confuused here for the first few weeks.

  • Clavos

    I think dickhead is pretty generalized here also, STM. And I’d say it and dipshit are fairly interchangeable, at least in some areas of the country.

    One thing about American slang (or a better way to put it: slang used in the USA):

    It’s highly regionalized. Even nouns are. e.g. a soft drink can be called a soda, a pop, or a soda pop, also a cvold drink. In fact, particularly in parts of the south, ALL cola drinks are referred to as Coke. Coca-Cola has a whole stable full of lawyers whose only job is to keep that practice to a minimum (a friend of mine is one of them); which is why, when you order a “Coke” in a restaurant which doesn’t serve it, the server will ask you, “Is Pepsi (or whatever) OK? The reason Coca-Cola guards it so jealously is to avoid losing control of it as a trade name, as Bayer did with the word aspirin. Once a word becomes the generic term for an item, it’s no longer a trademark.

  • STM

    It all become clear then old chap … I still think we are one people separated by the barrier of a common language, although Australians don’t help by stringing together every word in a sentence so that it comes out sounding like a stream of consciousness (or not, as the case may be, especially if it’s in the pub).

    We also have that regional slang stuff. My favourite bizarre one is party/cocktail frankfurts (wieners in the US?) In Adelaide, they are appropriately and universally known as Little Boys).

    I know it’s an obvious one, but geez, they could’ve thought about it a bit more couldn’t they? Mate, we also have the Coke/Pepsi dilemma here. I’m a Pepsi fan myself and will go out of my way to get it rather than Coke (which I don’t mind with ice).

    Also, I’m struggling with moonraven in that other thread of yours. She’s not a happy little vegemite is she? Is there anything she doesn’t bloody know? Fair dinkum, it’s like talking to a brick wall. She reads between the lines and finds things that aren’t even there, like sneering, for instance.

  • RedTard

    “Red asks, Why are the ‘rights’ of groups such as pedophiles and polygamists not deserving of equal treatment along with yours?

    You asked the wrong guy, here’s the reason why NAMBLA is a different case, it doesn’t involve consenting adults, it involves minors who are under the legal age of consent, hence it involves a fucking crime.” – D’oh

    That’s a really weak defense of your position. Your kind says you can’t practice pedophilia because it’s illegal. Others say gays can’t marry because it’s not legally recognized. That’s the same weak logic.

    The next step is to say, well pedophilia is gross and disgusting. Again, that’s what some people say about homosexual sex.

    Finally, one might say that most people sensible people agree that pedophilia is wrong. Apparently, most sensible voters disagree with gay marriage.

    In the end all those so called ‘rights’ and morals are a bunch of made up random bullshit, what’s legal today will be taboo tomorrow and vice versa. Everyone wins on some and loses on others. Some just whine about it alot more. It’s those people I dislike, fucking whining persecuted malcontents.

  • D’oh

    Hey Red, you do realize the US was founded and freed by some whiny malcontents, don’t you?

    We are talking about civil rights here,and equal protection under the law. The law says no adults banging minors, I tend to agree for obvious reasons such as the minors not being adult enough to formulate a proper decisions when it comes to consent.

    Now as to what makes the difference between that child who cannot make such a decision, and what constitutes an adult who can, there we can have some discussion. As I alluded to earlier, Mary was 14, married and pregnant that first “christmas” according to some. S what makes an adult?

    All that is just bullshit and distraction from the issue of legally recognized adults according to our laws, not being allowed equal protection under out laws.

    I ask again, what is so difficult to comprehend about something so simple?

    Oh yes, and believe that the quote, “Some just whine about it alot more. It’s those people I dislike, fucking whining persecuted malcontents.” is saved, and will be whipped out the very next time you start being a whiny malcontent about some social incident that you don’t like….again.

  • STM

    Red’s under the bed ….

  • Clavos

    STM 72,

    Yeah I’m following the thread. You’re right about her. As the saying goes, “her mind’s made up; don’t confuse her with facts.”

    Did you see her as Marthe in the thread on Nalle’s article about Chavez a couple of months ago? Same story.

    Funny thing is, she doesn’t even recognize when one really tries to debate with her. She starts out antagonistic and goes downhill from there.

  • zingzing

    ahem. no more marthe. no more nambla. back to the dickheads.

    i suppose dickhead and dipshit are pretty interchangable. but i would say that “dickhead” is more appropriate when someone’s stupidty affects someone else, as opposed to harming just the dickhead/dipshit of the moment.

    say you pull the waterbucket on the doorframe thing. say your friend walks in. the water, and unfortunately, the bucket, come crashing down upon your friend’s head. he’s not going to call you a dipshit. he’s going to call you a “dickhead.”

    now, say, you pull the same trick, but enough time goes by and you forget. so, next time you enter the room, you get a bucketful of water on your head. your friend asks you, “who did that?!” and you are forced to say, “… i did.” at which point, it’s only fair game that your friend label you, appropriately, a “dipshit.”

    i guess that’s just the way i see it. language is a funny thing. people use it differently all the time. my mom tells me to stop “barfing” whenever i burp. i’ve told her time and time again. but she still says it. my dad things the capitol of the united states is “waRshington.” fuck, i’m supposed to use a “waRsh cloth to waRsh up” for dinner or some such nonsense. it’s fucking crazy. that’s why they are dead now.

    anyway, nambla sucks, gay rights for all, and marthe is a weirdo.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Zing it’s all too common of their ilk to try to weld the images of gay and nambla together.

    As for dickhead, I was under the impression that the term was refering to what they think with.

  • Clavos

    Zing,

    my dad things the capitol of the united states is “waRshington.” fuck, i’m supposed to use a “waRsh cloth to waRsh up” for dinner

    Was your dad from Kansas or thereabouts? My father in law was. He used to say he was going to “warsh and rench” the dishes.

    He’s been dead for years, and my wife and I still say it in fun now and then. A terrible thing, mocking a dead man.

  • Zedd

    Richard: I am missing the logic of your submission. The connections are missing.

    The problem with”separate but equal” was that it wasn’t equal and that the law didn’t specify RACE. The constitution didn’t specify that the rights were for white people only. It said people. Blacks are people so everything that applied to whites applied to everyone else, in the same way.

    Marriage is clearly a union between man and woman, simple. Not because of religion or anything else you said. Its just what it is. Its like saying a cat cant claim to be a cat by itself. Dogs should be allowed to say they are cats too, its not fair. Marriage is what we call a union between men and women. If we include other combinations, we will have to come up with another name for a union between a man and a women… because in order to speak to each other (communicate), we have to name things; specific things. Marriage is a name for something. You cant just say you want to be called something you are not. I cant get mad and say that I want to be called tall. I’m not. Too bad for me.

    If a civil union affords the SAME rights to same gender people as a husband and wife, than whats the problem. Perhaps if we called all unions civil unions, legally, the controversy would go away.

    I didn’t follow your n word point. What does not saying profanity on CNN have to do with anything??

    The N word is profanity. Any time you use profanity or say anything hurtful, you say it at your own risk. Whats the big deal…. You can use it but you may get punched in the nose. You may loose your job, you may loose your respectability, etc. Whats contriversal about that… If you call your wife a big fat pig you may find yourself in the dog house, even though you heard her say that she is one just that morning…. I don’t get the confusion about the N word.

    Blacks can call themselves anything they want. You cant them anything you want. Your wife can say she is fat, all day. You cant say she’s fat. Controversy over!!

  • Zedd

    Leslie Bohn

    They are called different things because they are different things.

    One is a union betwee a male and a female the other is a union between people of the same gender. Because they are distict, they have different names. Whats so confusing about that.

    We name everything. The differences determine the distiction in name. We name cats, cats and dogs, dogs. They are both pets, have four legs but there are very distict biological differences that have been carved by millions of years of evolution. The same is true for gender and what their unions mean. You can have two men canoodling all year and no one gets concerned about the possible expansion of human civilization but when a male and female canoodle all sorts of things are at stake… Hitler may result or Nelson Mandela may emerge. ITS DIFFERENT.

  • STM

    Zedd, I find that statement really, really offensive. Please don’t use it again

  • Zedd

    Hey why do we even bother to call women, women and men men. Its not fair. Lets just call everyone MEN. Men have had more rights in our society. Why are they being called men and we cant?

    This is the most ridiculous debate ever. The name defines what something is. The law gives rights. If the law is equal for everyone, why would having the same name be significant, especially when the two things are not the same. People do we have to go back to biology 101? Two woman don’t do what a man and a woman does together… neither do two men. They try to facilitate but they don’t and just cant. What happens in a union between a man and a women (humanity, evolution, expansion of civilization) is different from what happens in a union between people of the same gender (nothing). So I would say that the official recognition of those unions should have different names. I also think the deserv different considerations under the law. Procreation vs. nothing… ummm I don’t know.

  • Zedd

    SMT

    What statement? fat? fat pig? big fat pig? n word? or what?

    I didn’t call you that why are you so offended??

    Are you making a funny???

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    The arrogance of people who believe themselves entitled to superior civil rights is simply disgusting. That aside: so the sole purpose of marriage is procreation? Hetero couples who adopt, are barren or who wish to not have children should not be entitled to the instituion of “marriage?” Children who are raised by gay couples need to accept that their parents are second class citizens? Do you also believe that women should be subservient to me? Fortunately there are places in this world where civilization is moving forward as it has done for thousands of years. Sadly, many Americans will be suffer the same fate as the Neanderthals, Zedd among them.

  • Zedd

    SMT #25

    For the first time, I actually agree with you.

    However I think the real problem is that gays want people to accept them. They got the rights but what they really want is an okay from everyone in society. The name has nothing to do with civil rights. It has to do with always feeling different, being picked on through school and just wanting to be considered as the same in every way.

    Well they are not. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Like gigantism, if indeed gays are born that way. We don’t really know. That hasn’t been proven yet. But lets say that they are. Same gender people don’t fit (as in a puzzle). Biologically something went wrong like other defects. It doesn’t mean that someone with a cleft lip doesn’t deserve full rights but they cant force us to say that they don’t have a cleft lip. A person who is a dwarf cant force us not to acknowledge their dwarfism. A mongaloid has to be acknowledged in order to be accomodated.

    Basketball is for tall people not for dwarfs. It just is. Marriage is for men and women not gays. It just is…. Quantum physics is not for mongaloids, it just isn’t. All of these things are man made but not all men can participate. Its not bigotry its just what is brought on by biological limitations…. If homosexuality is biological.

  • Zedd

    Richard

    I made a lot of points dont just pick on one to try and water down the significance of my statement.

    And YES over history procreation has bee and still is one of the MAJOR purposes of marriage. Do we live on the same planet????

  • Clavos

    zedd,

    Your “arguments” are totally devoid of logic. How can you write something like this:

    It doesn’t mean that someone with a cleft lip doesn’t deserve full rights but they cant force us to say that they don’t have a cleft lip. A person who is a dwarf cant force us not to acknowledge their dwarfism. A mongaloid has to be acknowledged in order to be accomodated.

    And not see that you’re not even addressing the issue at all?

    Gays aren’t asking that we all pretend they’re not gay; they’re not asking us to ignore their “gayness.” They are only saying that they shouldn’t be treated differently i.e. not be allowed to marry, simply because they’re gay.

    Your points I quoted above make no sense at all in that context.

  • Zedd

    Clavos:

    You miss my logic. I prob went to fast for you. I figured that the slow ones would miss it.

    The point is nomanclature. My point is about calling something something what it is not because the thing wants to be called that. Comprende?

  • Zedd

    Clavos sez: They are only saying that they shouldn’t be treated differently i.e. not be allowed to marry, simply because they’re gay.

    The point of the article is that if civil unions are allowed, should there still be strife about getting to use the word “marriage”.

    My point is, marriage already has a definition. You cant just change what marriage is because others want to be called married even though they don’t, CANT, fit the definition of what married people are.

    They can be united. No Problem with that. They can call it whatever they want but marriage is a union between a man and a women. Its just biologically impossible for gays to fit that definition.

    Hope that helps.

  • D’oh

    Zedd, you missed some points, but folks probably went to fast for you.

    The point is that as you pointed out, the name of the relationship that forms families in a legally binding and recognized sense is called marriage.

    As long as you call it marriage, and deny the rights pertaining to said legal contract to everyone on the basis of sexual preference, you hit the same “separate but equal” wall that happened with the Jim Crowe laws.

    Now, we know from you rprevious comments, that you are firmly against discrimination based on race, what is your problem with understanding that the same thought and equality should be extended to those with regardless of sexual orientation?

    All that being said, I personally think the answer is to get rid of the legal term “marriage”, leave that word to churches, and strike it from the legal lexicon…render it meaningless except to churches.

    But no matter what, equal right sand equal protection under the law is the issue.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Its difficult to read everything that everyone says so I will over look the fact that you didn’t read my full position.

    I said that the civil rights should be the SAME. If they are citizens and are just Gods creation, they deserve all of the rights that everyone else has.

    I am saying don’t call it marriage. Call it what you like. But YES by all means civil unions YES.

  • Clavos

    zedd #89,,

    You have no logic. You say:

    The point is nomanclature. My point is about calling something something what it is not because the thing wants to be called that.

    There is no point. That sentence doesn’t even make sense; either gramatically or philosophically.

    What you call “logic” is sophistry.

    I’m done. This is agonizing.

  • D’oh

    And, I do read everything in a thread…do notice I correctly described the salient points of your position and agreed with the basic principle.

    You might want to read this again, and let it soak in before you type…
    “All that being said, I personally think the answer is to get rid of the legal term “marriage”, leave that word to churches, and strike it from the legal lexicon…render it meaningless except to churches.”

    And my own thoughts are that no one can fully understand a discrimination not aimed at them, one can see parallels in their own experience and draw inferences.

    Either the legal definition of marriage needs to be changed, or the term stricken from legal meaning, anything less does not afford equal protection.

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It’s not the definition of marraige that’s the issue as much as the definition of “next of kin”

  • STM

    Yes, Zedd … you are being very bloody contradictory today. Are you having a rotten day or something??

  • Zedd

    SMT:

    Clearly state what it is that you did not understand or thought was contradictory and I will respond.

    I am confindent in your ability to do so.

    Clavos: Just stew over what I said for a couple of weeks. You’ll catch up. Don’t pretend to be an intellectual. That is something that cant be faked.

  • Zedd

    D’oh sez: “All that being said, I personally think the answer is to get rid of the legal term “marriage”, leave that word to churches, and strike it from the legal lexicon…render it meaningless except to churches

    Zedd sez: If a civil union affords the SAME rights to same gender people as a husband and wife, than whats the problem. Perhaps if we called all unions civil unions, legally, the controversy would go away.

    D’oh what are you on about. Ummmm seems like the same thing.

    However, I will say that even within the government, it is important to support certain institutions for the sustinance of the society. We advocate education for all children per say to promote a vibrant, and productive society. We support marriage because it promotes more stable children and promotes a better society in the end.

    If we water down that institution, one that has existed since the begining of humanity, what will happen…. a brave new world I suppose.

    Your statement about “marriage” being left for religion is sort of weak. We name things because we have to know what they are. Sociologists and the general public will come up with a word for what we call marriage. Again that union is very different from same gender uniions for a number of reasons (biology 101, psych 101, Sociology 201, Anthropoligy 201,etc). So what we BOTH suggested may not make much sense. We will hve to come up with another word for marriage so why don’t we just keep it and let everyone else call what they do a civil union.

  • Zedd

    Jet in Columbus #95

    Please expound. I am interested in what you are saying.

  • STM

    On the one hand, you are giving me the metaphorical boot up the bum over my use of the term “arab mind”, but are then guilty of the same kind of supposed bigotry in your post about same-sex relationships and why they shouldn’t be called marriages.

    So all the poor gay guys, who are under that reasoning defined according to the views of other people, for which you have which taken me to task, are getting what they describe as second-rate rights, but you seem not to be able to see the apparent contradictions in your two arguments.

    And I am certain you are not a bigot …

    Which means you are either being very silly or having a very bad day.

  • Zedd

    SMT: I’ll try to make this simple.

    The WORD marriage in this regard means LIKE YOU SAID – a union between man and woman.

    It is impossible for gays to be that by virtue of the fact that they are GAY.

    They can and should have civil unions but they cant be married. It alread means something.

    Why is that wrong to say?? And how does that have anything to do with our other discussion.

  • SonnyD

    It looks like, if I wait long enough, you all will understand that you are pretty much saying the same thing in different ways.

    Just a couple of points, though: The terms “different but equal” and “separate but equal” do not mean the same thing. Civil unions would only be separate but equal if they were only used to join gay couples. If both gay and straight couples made use of civil unions then the only difference would be not using the word marriage.

    There would be no reason to get rid of the legal term marriage. It could be used in churches who perform the holy bonds of matrimony in whatever way they see fit and still be accepted as legal. Some churches may choose to only join straight couples in marriage, some might choose gay or straight couples, others may choose to switch to civil unions.

    Everyone else outside an organized church would perform only civil unions. That would include any representative of the government, judge, Justice of the Peace, ship’s captain, even the so-called ministers in the Las Vegas wedding chapels would only perform civil unions.

    If, then, the term civil partner took the place of husband or wife, thereby not denoting whether the partner is male or female, (as the term business partner is used today) there would be no thought given as to the make up of the couple. There would be more straight couples joined by civil unions than gay couples, so there would be no reason for anyone to think they were being treated as second class citizens.

    Instead of fighting each other now about changing the meaning of the word marriage, we would just outgrow the need to use it.

  • Clavos

    Zedd,

    Don’t make me laugh.

    You wouldn’t know an intellectual from Adam’s off ox.

    Heed your own words and stop trying to fake being one, you’re not pulling it off, you’re just looking silly.

  • Clavos

    zedd:

    If we water down that institution

    A divorce rate above 50% of first marriages and serial marriages haven’t already made it all but meaningless?

  • Zedd

    SMT

    Are you refering to me saying that it hasn’t been proven that homosexuality is something that you are born with? It hasn’t. It just hasn’t. Thats not bad. Its just true.

    Are you refering to me saying that if they are born that way than homosexuality is a anomoly. It would have to be. In nature, genders “puzzle up”. Well homosexuals don’t. Something didn’t work right and they don’t or cant. Also nature didn’t give them “something” else for them to “puzzle up” with. So somethng is wrong. Not bad, but wrong (speaking from a biological stand point not a moral one). In primates, there are none that are born to not puzzle. They all try to “get some”. There are no “gay primates”. There is no biological reason for gay primates among “puzzling” primates.

    Again I am not making a value juddgement just doing what I was doing in our last conversation, sticking with logic.

    Help me out. Am I missing something. If I am I want to correct myself.

  • D’oh

    And here I spot the difference. Zed says,”If we water down that institution…”

    The thing is, it isn’t watering it down, it’s adding to the institution. The idea is that removing the discrimination against some people will add to the idea and institution of families.

    So that same sex couples can adopt like others can, have their spouses and kids legally be next of kin, inheritance issues… all of it.

    How does that water down anything? How does recognizing these rights for everyone without discrimination harm marriage , or anybody for that matter, at all?

    It doesn’t. So logic dictates either remove the secular use of the word marriage for legal purposes and definitions since it cannot be applied to all equally, or allow these folks to get married in the legal and secular sense like anybody else,without discrimination.

    Oh yes, Zedd says, “D’oh what are you on about. Ummmm seems like the same thing.”

    Yes, I know we were saying the same thing there…I deliberately made that point with emphasis so you might notice it. Our point of disagreement is that you think somehow marriage is harmed by allowing these people to use the word marriage, and I don’t.

    In this comment I demonstrate my position that recognizing these rights for everyone is adding to marriage, and our society, in many ways.

    Can you please explain why you think that there is some kind of “watering down” involved? And/or how anyone , or our society, is harmed ion any way by recognizing equal rights for all in this matter?

  • Zedd

    SonnyD

    You make good points and you are right, up to your last point.

    We need to have a word for same sex relationships and a word for what we call marriage right now. You see demographers and social scientist need to have these distictions. The general public as well, needs to have a word for everything. We just do.

    A marriage IS ALREADY a civil union.

    Does that help!!

    Why don’t we come up with what gay couples to. Perhaps pairriage. It would mean a civil union between people of the same gender. QED

  • D’oh

    Zedd says, “There are no “gay primates”.”

    You are factually wrong. Many studies by naturalists and zoologists have shown that there are gay everythings. All kinds of species, there’s even a zoo exhibit with a whole colony of gay penguins.

    Logic only helps when your tenets and axioms are factually accurate.

  • Clavos

    There are no “gay primates”. There is no biological reason for gay primates among “puzzling” primates.

    Absolutely untrue. Check this link. Homosexual individuals have been observed in most animal species.

  • Zedd

    D’oh:

    The idea is that removing the discrimination against some people will add to the idea and institution of families

    If they have a civil union how are they being discriminated agains?

    Anyone who adopts has parental rights. If two people have joint custody TODAY regardless if gender, they get full parental rights.

    I can share custody of my nephew with his paternal aunt or his step mom, or whomever is rewarded joint custody. That is a non issue. No laws need to be made and no one is being denied anything.

  • Zedd

    Clavos:

    People who study primates and have no agenda say that there is no such thing as a gay primate (a primate that wants to mate exclusively with primates of the same gender).

    Even so, the larger point was that homosexuality is an anomoly. If it is in born, it is a deviation in the same way that cleft pallets are. Again, not a value judgement, just logic.

  • D’oh

    Zedd, do you miss the point that in some places gay couples are not allowed to adopt, or are disciminated against?

    Do you miss the point that in a hospital, a gay partner may not be allowed to visit as family?

    I did mention the inheritance legalities.

    And you still have not explained how you think anyone is harmed, or diminished in any way by allowing everyone to be married in the legal definition of the word.

  • STM

    Actually, there is a species of chimp that is bi-sexual. They just mate with any other chimp of their species around, just for the heck of it.

    They are called bonobos, and they are the only type of chimp that lives in total peace – they have no violent behaviour in their society and seem much more willing to share their food and parenting duties.

    Possibly it’s because they are so busy rooting each other they haven’t got time for much else.

    Marriage counsellors take note …

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    Sorry I don’t pretend to be an intellectual. Too many typos. I’ve explained on a number of occasion just how much of a goober I am.

    I will however give you a thorough thrashing if you don’t think. I will spank you generously if you come waddle on here thinking that your tet a tet is viable without thinking it through; If you seriously think that you will challenge me by employing simple tricks that impress the simple minded people in your real world. But no. I’m not an intellecual. They impress me though.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    We are talking about a world when civil unions are legal. They are not yet… We know that.

    Also, you keep forgetting. I am not against rights for gays to have union and get kinship rights, etc.

    My contension is with calling that union marriage. Marriage is a type of civil union. I think gays should have one too. No prob.

  • SonnyD

    No Zed, we cannot have a special term that denotes this is a same sex couple. No matter how you dress it up, they will still feel discriminated against. I suggested leaving the term marriage as a legal term for those who feel the strongest about it because of their religious beliefs. There is no way to argue with one’s religious beliefs. They just say – because God said so or because the bible says so.

    I understand how you feel about the meaning of a word. My gut feeling is the same. Marriage just means one man and one woman and I am not a religious person in the common definition of the word religious. But times change, the society we live in changes. One has to be able to adapt to those changes. Sometimes we even come to see those changes were good and we were wrong. Other times changes are not so good, but we learn to live with them.

    The problem is we have some people in this country who are not getting a fair deal and we have to deal with it in a way that is not condescending or acting like we are doing them a favor. So maybe it would seem strange for a while if we all, or at least most of us, had to get used to having civil unions instead of marriages. But it would be fair and everyone would have the same legal rights. We would get used to the change and wonder why we ever made such a big deal out of it.

  • D’oh

    Ah, SonnyD…good to *see* you around again, and well said.

  • Clavos

    zedd #111,

    Even so, the larger point was that homosexuality is an anomoly. If it is in born, it is a deviation in the same way that cleft pallets are.

    Again, wrong.

    The following is excerpted from an article, “1,500 animal species practice homosexuality” published on News-Medical Net:

    Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

    From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

    “One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,” explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the “Against Nature’s Order?” exhibition.

    The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity’s closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

    The dwarf chimpanzee is aka the bonobo, as mentioned above by STM.

  • D’oh

    Zedd says, “My contension is with calling that union marriage.”

    Again, I ask the simple and salient question here. How does allowing everyone the same rights to marriage hurt or harm any individual, or the institution of marriage itself?

    Time for your logic, be explicit.

  • SonnyD

    D’oh Well, I’ve been sort of lurking around from time to time but couldn’t seem to get into the spirit of things. It just wasn’t any fun without “my Gonzo”. And a good argument is really a lot of fun, is it not?

  • Zedd

    STM: Yes. They are bi sexual. They are not gay. They use sex to resolve agression.

    Those who don’t believe that people are born gay say, it is not a surprise. People will have sex with anyone or anything for that matter. Wanting to be stimulated sexualy is human. Being stimulated sexually by touch is human. They say that most people will/can be aroused by whatever or whomever (genderwise). The claim that people are born to like or love any one type of person is a farce. People however are with one gender because of marriage and the social rituals that lead up to it.

    In other words, if a person has a rubber doll and doesn’t ever have relations with another human being ever, it doesn’t mean that they were born to mate with rubber dolls. They just like what it feels like and therefore keep doing so. They certainly cant ask society to change its laws to accomodate their rubber doll compulsion.

    The bonobos, are just as reproductive as chimps, proving that the same sex activity is recreational (in other words, they have discovered that it feels good) but that these animals still “puzzle up”.

    I hope I explained that well. Its late.

  • Zedd

    Clavos:

    If any species is homosexual it becomes extict.

    Being you are refering bi sexual activity in animals.

    Animals rub their genitals or hunch on inanimate objects as well. Humans have devised all sorts of devises :) to accomplish that end. You see the issue is not whether animals like to be stimulated sexually. Whether it is by another animal or by an object. The issue is homosexuality. Not bi sexuality either. HOMOSEXULITY.

  • STM

    “I will however give you a thorough thrashing if you don’t think. I will spank you generously.”

    Zedd! You are very naughty. This is about gay marriage, not S&M … try to stay on topic.

  • Zedd

    D’oh:

    You must not be reading my posts.

    I say GIVE them the same rights.

  • D’oh

    As for the gratification versus “puzzling up” as it has been so quaintly put.

    We are talking about people, their relationship and commitment and the legal rights involved…

    NOT SEX!!

    The bullshit factor rises whenever people get hung up over who does what to whom. And that distracts from the real issue at hand.

    What is that issue, you may ask?

    See comment #119. No one has ever answered it on this website in the last few years.

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    There is a huge distiction between homosexual behavior and a homosexual

  • Zedd

    SMT:

    Funny stuff. No you are naughty. Where is your mind??

  • Clavos

    zedd,

    It’s the SCIENTISTS whose works I cited who say that there ARE homosexual animals, including primates. Where are your citations and proof there are not; from RECOGNIZED authorities?

    You say:

    I say GIVE them the same rights.

    So then they CAN marry in your view?

    Calling it marriage is one of the rights.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Can women decide to be called men because men have more power in society?

    We will adjust to the change eventually (???)

    You would answer by saying (i hope) that men and women are different. You cant call different things the same thing without having a name which differiciates them. RIGHT?

    It would be confusing and even dangerous on many levels to never use a gender distiction.

    Everything has a name because it is a seperate thing. It is a seperate thing because it has different qualities.

  • Zedd

    BTW we have to make it clear that bonobos only do the Monica Luinsky, male to male.

    Just a point to sustain the integrity of this site.

  • Zedd

    Clavos Clavos Clavos…. sigh

    You say: Calling it marriage is one of the rights.

    WHAT???

  • D’oh

    As far as the legal issues, there are no distinctions between genders, or colors, or creeds, or denominations, or hair color, or cultural distinctions, or economic class and I contend sexual preferences.

    Do notice I said in the legal sense. We are all individual human beings, and citizens under oru Constitution.

    In reality and day to day life, we allknow there are many times and instances of inequality and discriminations.

    My thought is that it is part and parcel of our individual civic responsibilities to strive for minimizing those unjust instances where ever and whenever we can.

    You still have given no attempt at answering #119.

    Reason and Memory.

  • Zedd

    D’oh sez:
    You still have given no attempt at answering #119.

    It would take to long.

    It depends on your understanding of what the purpose of marriage is in a society. Again looking at human societies in general. If you ponder or study on the role that marriage plays and has played over the ages you will understand what the hopla is about.

    I think the problem is that I am comming from an anthrological/sociological perspective and I see institutions and designations as having a more significant role than most.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    As for the “watering down” comment…

    Look if you let women who want to be called male, call themselves a male, wouldn’t the meaning of maleness or masculinity be watered down? It wouldn’t have its significance.

  • D’oh

    I am speaking purely about legally, under the laws of the United States.

    I can understand the caveats from an anthropological standpoint somewhat. But even there we have many examples of different kinds of marriage over the course of human history and in the diversity of cultures.

    Take your time, formulate your thoughts,and when you can…try and answer #119.

    Recognizing these rights for people harms and diminishes no one.
    Not recognizing equal protection for all people harms those affected, and therefore our society as a whole.

  • Clavos

    Not recognizing equal protection for all people harms those affected, and therefore our society as a whole.

    Exactly.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Youve been answered several times. You missed it.

    Giving rights is not the issue. They should have rights. So there is no issue of weakening anything. Calling it marriage is weakening marriage because its not marriage so marriage would no longer be marriage.

    Like calling everyone MALE would weaken the meaning of maleness or masculinity. Its destiction would be lessoned because everyone would be called a MALE. Same thing with marriage or any word. If you apply everything to that word, it looses its meaning and distiction.

    Do you know that tropical cultures don’t have words for blizzard, why? Because they don’t know that they exist. But they have specific words for everything that exists. The distiction between the words is based on function and physical characteristics. Two men have different characteristics than a male and female. They also function differently as an “equation” thus their union is called something different that a union between two males (or two females).

    Are the clouds rolling away from your mind now???? Is the fog lifting??

    I think we have very strange ideas about what prejudice is. I find it funny that when whites are around me, they hesitate to say my race to discribe anyone as if saying my race is the prejudice or a racist act. ITS NOT. The bigotry is making condescending statements about me or to me, and denying me my rights, etc.

    Saying that two men are different from a man and a woman is not bigotry its a fact in every way possible.

  • D’oh

    Zedd,thank you for the attempt, you clearly demonstrate where you are coming from.

    Zedd says, “Calling it marriage is weakening marriage because its not marriage so marriage would no longer be marriage.”

    This statement is a non-sequitor, a meaningless bit of circular logic that says absolutely nothing.

    Where is the harm? How is your marriage, or mine, or anyone’s harmed or lessened by recognizing these rights for everyone?

    You are correct that it is ADDING to the definition, but still have not shown any reason why it is lessening the rights of ANYONE.

    “Is the fog lifting??”

    Updating and expanding the definition of a word is not “harm”, words do NOT have rights, people DO!

    The very name I am using on these forums was NOT a word a few years ago,but an exclamation used in a cartoon series. It is now a legitamate word in the american-english lexicon,why?

    Because we have decided it, and so it went into the dictionary.

    So, recognizing the rights that surround this word for all of our citizens neither harms nor infringes on the rights of ANYONE in ANY demonstrable fashion but denying that recognition DOES harm and infringe upon the rights of some.

    This isn’t about calling someone gay, or male, or black, or plaid..it’s about recognizing LEGAL rights in an equal fashion , for everyone.

    Calling men, male is not bigotry, denying people their equal rights under the law, IS.

    I appreciate your communicating your thoughts on the matter. But obviously we disagree on a very basic level, since you don’t seem to understand or accept the premise of equal protection in these circumstances.

    And the record is still intact, NO ONE has ever been able to show how anyone is harmed by recognizing these rights for everyone.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I believe the distinctions between gay and straight, civil union and/or marriage, will eventually seem less important, and legally committed couples will be accepted, at least in most places, whatever exact wording is used. This may be years off, and the NJ law is an intermediate step. But a positive one.

    I still say that making comparisons to the Jim Crow South is way over the top, and this kind of unearned hissy-fit trivialization of the whole-picture issue does gay rights more harm than good.

    Take a deep breath. Look around you. It’s gonna be all right, at least in the Northeast. But because some of us insisted on being confrontational and on arguing with some folks’ very sincerely held religious convictions about marriage being a sacrament, we now have constitutional amendments in over 20 southern and midwestern and western states that will be on the books for a long time. What possible good did that do? And those silly ballot initiatives brought out voters in 2002 and 2004 (if not this year) that consolidated Republican gains. I think some people would rather fight than win.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Why do you HAVE to call it marriage?

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Why do you HAVE to call it marriage?

    We’ve already settled that all privilages would be gained by a civil union.

    You mentioned bigotry, where does that come in. If they have their full rights how are they being discriminated against?.

    Why do we have to change definitions? If it (gay union) is a new thing (new in human civilization) lets give it a name.

    If I discover a new element, one that has a similar function to another, I can not name it the same name as the element that it resembles. I have to give it a new name because it is different and it does a different thing.

    Men and women do different things together than same gender people… that is fundumental.

  • D’oh

    I’ll point to #119 and #138 and leave it at that.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    You didn’t answer.

    Why do you HAVE to call it marriage?

    If you have all of the rights.

    Why MUST you call it marriage?

    ANSWER Please.

    You’ve been demanding answers now its my turn.

    GO!

  • SAQ

    For those who worry that we will loose the ability to recognize a heterosexual marriage if we don’t maintain a distinction in the language, why don’t we come up with a new name for it? How about ‘heterosexual marriage’?

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Zedd:

    Because it is marriage. And it’s not up to you or anyone heterosexual to decide this issue. The Constitution does not give anyone the right, not even a self proclaimed “majority” to deny any American citizen full civil rights. And words do matter, especially in law. “Marriage” provides protections and benefits nationally and internationally. “Civil unioins” provide a more limited set of protections and are not honored in as many municipalities, states and countries as are marriages. The arrogance of some heteroexuals when it comes to civil rights for gay Americans is identical to the arrogance harbored by some men when it came to women’s rights; and the arrogance on the part of many white Americans when it comes to full civil rights for African-Americans.

    The notion that a heterosexual American believes himself entitled to make decisiona about a homosexual American’s civil rights is simply unconstitutional, unAmerican and profoundly offensive.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Richard: blah blah blah.

    Keep ranting, and maybe 5 or 6 more states will pass disgusting constitutional amendments that will push the resolution of this issue ever further into the distance. Then you can have the pleasure of ranting some more. Sound fun?

    And if there is anyone on this site who does not deserve the insult “arrogant,” it’s Zedd. Naive maybe, and not always the most graceful writer, but good-hearted and sincere.

    Save “arrogant” for me. And for yourself. We have both earned it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Richard. Marriage is NOT a civil right. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is a sacrement of the church and it’s a violation of the constitution for it to be in any way sanctioned by the state. That’s the real problem here, not this ridiculous issue of what we call these unions.

    Dave

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. The constitution guarantees equality under the law. And marriage is regulated by secular law. A religious ceremony is nothing but window dressing. The legal state of matrimony requires a secular marriage license–without it marriage by a member of the clery is not legal. However, marriage by an officer of the court or government is legal and is legally called “marriage.”

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Religions have presumed that they have some kind of monopoly on marriage when in fact, under law, they have no role whatsoever. It’s appaling and outrageous that religion is meddling in a legal matter that is defined by our constituion under the basic prinicple of equality under the law. If clergy does not want to officiate at a gay wedding, that’s their business, but eqaulity under the law is not.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You’re just wrong, Richard. The state may have wrongly appropriated the term ‘marriage’ for convenience, but civil ‘marriages’ are not marriages and are not recognized as such by many churches. Churches have a claim on the term which goes back thousands of years more than our government has even existed. The law is wrong and the use of the terminology is wrong. And frankly, if you want to win this battle for ‘equality’, the easy way to do it is to get the law to acknowledge the misuse of the term marriage, and give it back to the churches. That’s a course you could pursue if you were genuinely interested in equality. That is your main objective, right?

    Dave

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    What matters, my friend is that “marriage licences” are issued by the state, not by your silly and superstition-crippled religions. Freedom of religion was intended to protect us from the tyranny of religion, from psychopaths who irrationally believed themselves ordained by god to govern the rest of us. Freedom of religion was intended to protect our right to worship or NOT worship as each of us sees fit. When religion works to change that, it betrays the constituion and the legacy of 1776. The question is will law or superstitution prevail in this nation? And to answer your question, I want more than equality, I want what Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin wanted. And since you clearly don’t understand what that was, I suggest you go back and read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

  • D’oh

    Dave, what does it say on the fucking license (pun intended)?

    As long as the legalities are such, then some people’s rights and equal protection under the law as outlined in our Constitution are being violated.

    handyguy, “blah blah…”, bullshit. The reason the very same lawyers who are pushing those anti-gay marriage statutes are pushing for a Constitutional amendment is that those statutes will NOT stand up to the Supreme Court test after a state recognizes marriages for everyone, and then the couple crosses state lines.

    Zedd, 119+138+this one. Your answers are delineated.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Richard, they’re not MY religions. I want the terminology stripped from state certificates because it’s a violation of the separation of church and state.

    And again, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin didn’t write on the subject of marriage and certainly not in the declaration of independence of constitution. One of them didn’t believe in the institution at all and designated an illegitimate child as his legal heir and one of them had a decades long non-legal spousal relationship with a slave.

    Clearly taking the term ‘marriage’ away from the state would be absolutely in keeping with the beliefs of the founding fathers.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Richard Rothstein

    No marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

    Its not Marriage. It is a civil union. FINE but marriage involves to seperate genders who in most cases can procreate and in all cases posses one person with a vigina and anther with a penis. These two organs unite like a puzzle and are designed by nature and millions of years of evolution for that purpose.

    Since the conception of human societies the union of these people has had a sacred status for a number of very important reasons (not religious either); practical, sociological reasons which have ensured the furthering of humanity.

    A small percent of people who are throwing a tantrum because they want something that they cant have (sameness as heterosexuals) want to destroy the institution, make it into a free for all for any combination of person where it doesn’t have the status it once had because of its tie to our very existance as a species.

    It is not marriage.

    What you want is not equality, you want sameness. Its impossible.

    The law will and can grant you equality. Asking the rest of society to change what it is to accopmodate your fanciful desires is spoiled and will still not grant you sameness.

    Do you want us to pretend that you can procreate. That your sexual organs fit each other. That one of you will menstrate and get PMS and the other will get a midlife crises. That one will have the sensativity of a mother/a woman (not just emotionally but sensory) and the other will have the uniqueness that a male brings into a relationship. THAT IS MARRIAGE. and that is just the start of it.

    Two women or two men do not make what a marriage makes SORRY.

    It doesn’t mean you shouldnt get rights. YOu should!

  • D’oh

    Zedd, for all your claims to logic, yo appear to think in any manner but.

    Tell me, do barren couples who cannot have children have the same right to get married?

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Yikes. The notion that genitals define marriage probaly worked nicely for Neanderthals. But as man evolved we learned that a man is much more than a penis and a woman is much more than a vagina. Clearly, this blog is visited by many Neanderthals–despite rumors that they are extinct. For some reason I’m reminded of the famous drag queen quote in response to a homophobic insult from a rude and bigoted straight man. “She” said: “I’m more of a man than you’ll ever be and more of a woman than you’ll ever know.”

  • Zedd

    D’oh sez:
    And the record is still intact, NO ONE has ever been able to show how anyone is harmed by recognizing these rights for everyone.

    Could it be because this is the first time in history that two people of the same gender want to be called a married couple.

    The affects of the changes that are suggested will take generations to manifest themselves.

    You are proposing a change to an institution that has existed since civilization began.

    Why?? Because you want sameness and not equality. Well a homosexual union will never be the same as a heterosexual union. IT CANT.

  • Zedd

    Richard and D’oh

    Why don’t we call everyone heterosexual? Why not get rid of the term homosexual?

    I know that both words have definitions but definitions are meant to be changed.

    Even though each means something totally different and functions differently and has very different sociological, political, demographic, consequences but people are people…. COME ON….. what do you say?

    The ridiculousness of this request is no different than calling a gay union, a union between man and woman. Its silly, and just an emotional, hissy fit. Just like with every bratty request, it needs to be ignored and sharply put to an end.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Zedd: you raise an interesting point: changing “an institution that has existed since civilization began.” What insitution are you referencing here? War? Women as property? Slavery? Ritual murder of disabled babies? Human sacrifice?

  • D’oh

    Just like a black man cannot have the same rights as a white man because they are different?

    Just like a woman can’t have the same rights as a man because they are different?

    Neither you nor anyone else has shown how recognizing these rights for everyone hurts or harms or infringes on the rights of ANY individual. Yet it has been clearly shown how denying them harms the people in question, and their families.

    We are NOT talking about in the eyes of a church, we ARE talking about legally, in the eyes of our laws ans Constitution.

    Separate but equal does NOT make the grade, as has been shown in our society. Yes it may take a while, what worthwhile endeavor doesn’t take a while? In the matter of races or women, we are still working on it.

    Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth while, or the right thing to do just because it isn’t easy. The opposite in fact, real character, of a person or a nation, is demonstrated when it ain’t easy.

    And still NO ONE has EVER shown how anyone is harmed or their rights infringed upon by recognizing these rights for everyone.

  • D’oh

    Zedd says, “ANSWER Please.

    You’ve been demanding answers now its my turn.

    GO!”

    and then says,”Just like with every bratty request, it needs to be ignored and sharply put to an end.”

    Goose and Gander here, Zedd now gets ignored.

  • Zedd

    Richard sez: Because it is marriage. And it’s not up to you or anyone heterosexual to decide this issue.

    Its not an ISSUE. Its a definition and no one decided on it. Its part of our language. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. YOu’ve known that all of your life. Its wasn’t an issue and it still isn’t. Its a definition.

    Again call what gays do something else. New words crop up everyday.

    I’ve suggested pairraige. I think its cute and significant.

    And again, the definition tells you that NO its NOT marriage.

    Your championing sameness not rights. Cant help you there, I don’t think anyone can.

  • zingzing

    zedd, i think: “Could it be because this is the first time in history that two people of the same gender want to be called a married couple.”

    is it? hold on. i just called a gay friend of mine. i asked him if he wanted to marry his lover. he said, “sure, maybe, yeah, okay…” something along those lines. he was a little confused by the question. then i asked him if he wanted [them] to be called a married couple. he said, “if and when.” so i asked him again to say that he wanted his lover and himself, as a couple, to be called “a married couple.” he said, “YES! i would like it if we were called a married couple when and if we get married! what the fuck is wrong with you?”

    i felt nothing. nothing changed. my ear hurt a bit from his loud affirmation. is that the “harm” you are so worried about? i’m not really sure. either way, it didn’t hurt for long, maybe a couple of seconds. i’m not too worried about going deaf from it. so, if that’s what you were worried about when you said, “The affects of the changes that are suggested will take generations to manifest themselves,” then i guess i’ll let you know some time in the future.

    what other changes are suggested?

    “You are proposing a change to an institution that has existed since civilization began.”

    wow. the institution of marriage has survived unchanged “since civilization began?” you learn something new every day. so, christianity precedes civilization… i must go back and study up. i thought that organized religion was a product of civilization, but i guess i could be wrong. lucky we have blogcritics for our continuing adult education.

    i guess a homosexual marriage will never be the same as a heterosexual marriage, which by their very nature, and against the implications of the name, are always the same, heterosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage. i’m glad that when i get married, i can completely understand my parents’ marriage by looking at my own, as it will be like a mirror.

    yeppers. thanks, zedd!

  • Zedd

    Richard: What insitution are you referencing here? War? Women as property? Slavery? Ritual murder of disabled babies? Human sacrifice?

    None of these are instituions, they are actions, like digging in your nose and other ACTIONS that are iky.

    Sorry those tired arguments don’t work here.

    I’ve said that YOU SHOULD GET YOUR RIGHTS. Problem solved right??

    You want sameness and not equality. You are not the same. Just not. You never will be. It wont and cant happen.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    It appears that Zedd and others in this conversation are incapable of reading other people’s comments,thinking about them and discussing them intelligently; rather Zedd keeps repeating the same funny noises like some kind of non-sentient species. It’s become boring.Zedd the depth of your ignorance is breathtaking. As others have said in one way or another in this conversation: why confuse your thinking with facts?

  • Zedd

    zingzing

    Do you think that I am retarded. Why are you adding things to what I said to make your point. You are essentially arguing with yourself because you are not arguing with me… You are making up stuff to argue about that I NEVER said.

    Are you feeling insecure about your position? Mine is simple. Respond to that, and I will answer you.

    Were you like hoping I wouldn’t read all of your post?? Shame on you…. making up stuff. I bet you exasperate your wife. You are probably one of those people who are lie arguers. You will make up a lie just to win an argument. Well bud, everything is in black and white that I have said. Why don’t you try to respond to that.

    What does your gay friend wanting to be married have to do with anything. I want to be slimmer and taller SO!

  • D’oh

    Well Richard, I tried to sum it up with “words do NOT have rights, people DO”

    That seems to be unfathomable to some.

    I’ll leave my comments numbered 119, 138, 155 and 160 as all I need to say on it.

  • zingzing

    zedd–what did i make up? i quoted you… that’s all. copy/paste. simple stuff. what did i add?

  • D’oh

    One hour ago,the Governor of NJ signed Civil Unions into law for NJ.

    An interesting bit that goes along with it is, “The New Jersey legislation also will create a three-year study commission to decide whether the state should allow gay marriage.”

    Link is here

  • zingzing

    i don’t feel insecure about my position. it’s pretty strong…

    i don’t really see the point in arguing over a word. a word doesn’t change a thing. in the interest of fairness, however, and because this is a stupid argument that i guess i have to come down on one side of, i’ll side with the gay folks.

    it’s stupid to argue about nothing. it means nothing. i think homosexuals should take their rights and run. i can’t believe that a word is worth arguing about. but, if it comes down to bigots vs drama queens, the drama queens win.

  • Zedd

    Richard Rothstein sez: It appears that Zedd and others in this conversation are incapable of reading other people’s comments,thinking about them and discussing them intelligently; rather Zedd keeps repeating the same funny noises like some kind of non-sentient species. It’s become boring.Zedd the depth of your ignorance is breathtaking. As others have said in one way or another in this conversation: why confuse your thinking with facts?

    Did you forget that you can address me? Are you so defeated that you are TELLING on me to the brainless of this blog?

    Have I paralyzed you? –Nelson Mandela

    Look I repeat the same thing because that is THE point. There is no other.

    ITS NOT MARRIAGE

    Like

    I AM NOT A MAN

    or

    I AM NOT TALL

    The words man, tall, and marriage all have been defined. You just cant decide to be one of them when you don’t fit the criteria of what they describe.

    As for my ignorance, I think you can tell, that that is not one of my issues. Goober, yes, charming- yes (most of the time), adorable- yes (even more of the time), but ignorant? NOPE.

    Why not take the full rights and enjoy them? They have in France.

    BTW we are having this discussion because of a premise that we assume wich is that Gays are born that way. No one has proved that yet. We know that Blacks are human but we don’t know if gays are born gay. We live in a more sophisticated society. You cant just declare your boilogical make up by mouth without any physical proof. “I was born to like the color red… I just know it”…. ummmm yeah. “I feel as if I have O+ blood… I just feel it”. ummm Yeah…

    If there is a biological link to gayness, how do we know who is biologically gay and who is just crazy and confused? I mean since society has to make all of these adjustments and all of these rights must be granted…. Sorry, just trying to add logic to the entire discussion. Its all be based on emotions so far……..

    You made the link to Blacks. Blackness is biological. Your premise is that we are 100% sure that gayness is a biological phenominon. We are not.

    Your entire argument has no bases. SORRY.

    I still however say give gays rights to unite!!

  • Zedd

    zingzing

    I think homosexuals should take their rights and run.

    ME TOO!! Viva La Homosexual rights!!!

    How is that bigoted?? Does that make you a bigot too??

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    As you know that you were born heterosexual, a homosexual knows the same about him or herself. And homosexuals are common in every human society and almost every animal species, thus far reported in over 1,500 species. This nonsense about proving that homosexuality is natural is even more ridiculous than when science was focused on proving that blacks were a sub-species of humans. The perverse ways in which we twist the bigotry argument to defend our own prejudices is sad…and it is even more sad when you see a member of another minority doing so.

    And Zedd, as for your “word” nonsense, it’s really not worth arguing. It’s just downright silly. If you don’t see the power of a word and the legal ramifications of words, you are truly living blind.

  • zingzing

    zedd, you take words and run with them. i didn’t outright call you a bigot. but, denying equality to someone based on who that person is would be the definition of bigotry, now wouldn’t it?

    i can see that you want equal rights for homosexuals. i think that equal rights under the law, terminology regardless, is equal rights under the law. i say good enough for me. but, it’s not about me. and it’s not about you. you are not harmed one iota by either the rights or the terminology.

    so why waste time and effort denying a word that has no real effect upon anything, other than a little hurt pride, to an entire group of people?

  • Zedd

    Zing

    Sez:but, it’s not about me. and it’s not about you.

    Yes it is. We have a say about EVERYTHING that goes on in society.

    Hey did you just call me a bigot AGAIN? Try and stop yourself… You are misusing the word and that will weaken it.

  • Zedd

    D’oh: Words don’t have rights, people do?????

    People use words D’oh. That was a dumb statement if you will pardon me. Are you embarrased for saying that? Martin Luther King you are not Bud!

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Anyone who denies equal status under the law to any other American on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or creed is a bigot.

  • D’oh

    Ok Zedd, I wanted to just ignore you, but since you feel the need to directly insult me, allow me to point out that a logician you are not. Nor do you appear to have a decent command of basic facts.

    Please quote me from the Constitution whatever rights words have under the law?

    For the record, I’m not embarrassed about anything, and I stand behind all the comments I have made in this thread as accurate and reflective of my views on the matter.

    People use knives and forks, do they have rights in your view?

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com Brad Schader

    Never understood why government was in the marriage business anyway to be honest. The most the government can do is recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil unions are the legal combining of two separate people into one legal entity.

  • zingzing

    zedd, what richard said.

    you say you’re all for equal rights. given. that’s a good thing.

    so, what, may i ask, does denying homosexuals the right to use the term “marriage” change that giving them equal rights already hasn’t? what’s the use in arguing about it?

    the tide has already changed. all of these amendments to state constitutions are just steps to take that homosexuals are already conquering Rocky-style. pretty soon they’ll be at the top, raising their fists outside of a federal building, claiming victory.

    what’s the point in making the foregone conclusion more difficult. admit defeat. at best, you can have a hollow, brief victory which you will only look back on with bittersweet regret.

  • D’oh

    Brad in #179 nails quite a bit of it accurately. As long as the license issued by the government says the same thing for everybody, there’s no problems.

    Since it says “Marriage license”, then everybody gets one equally. Change it to “civil union license” for EVERYBODY and you have no problems, leave the word “marriage” for churches.

    The round and round is like clapping with one hand

  • Zedd

    Richard Rothstein sez:As you know that you were born heterosexual, a homosexual knows the same about him or herself.

    I don’t KNOW anything. I am just a product of society. Sexual orientation didn’t come up until people brought up the notion of homosexuality then I thought about it. But there is still no KNOWING about it. I have a girls part and it fits a boys part. Its not about me KNOWING anything.

    I didn’t have to know anything to speak or to walk or to see. I am just biologically (physically) designed that way.

    Is sexual desire for a specific type of person biological?? If I like tall guys who are dark and sort of nerdy, can I say that I was born to like that sort of guy? I can say I KNOW that I like that sort of guy but I cant claim to be born to only mate with that sort of man.

    Perhaps in the future we will have better knowldge of our biology and we can predict such things but right now WE DONT KNOW.

    However we KNOW of people who haven’t been able to do things that they were perfectly capable of doing biologically (physically) because of some sort of psychosis. They believe that they cant do those things (like walk) and actually don’t do them…. in their minds, they “KNOW” that they are made a certain way. The truth offcourse is oposite.

  • Zedd

    Civil Union Liscenses for ALL!! Yeeepeeee!!!

    I’m all for it!

    Cause its not marriage…. he he he…Okay I’m done.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    Zedd: How old are you, if you don’t mind my asking? I’m beginning to sense a lack of understanding of the human condition and a truly limited knowledge base that would be understandable and forgiveable in a teenager. So if you are under 21, then hugs and kisses and keep up the quest for knowledge. If you are over 21 I would refer to a quote from Socrates: A life unexamined is not a life worth living.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    By the way, it was obvious to me that I was the way I was– by the age of 5…and I understood my sexual orientation fully by the age of 8. It was a natural for me as the color of my skin. Sadly, I was punished for it and learned quickly to hide.

  • D’oh

    Richard, just so you know, I’m not gay, have been happily married for 21 years.

    And I say keep fighting, “until the truth is seen by each and every eye”

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I also posted this in a comment on the vile and hateful “Special Rights” article that was published today on BC. I thought it might be of interest here as well. It’s a page collecting opinion poll data on the civil unions/marriage questions, 2004-2006, from many sources.

    Whether you are a political poll nerd like me or not, it makes for enlightening reading.

  • Clavos

    zedd says:

    I didn’t have to know anything to speak or to walk

    Wrong. You had to be taught both.

    And it took humankind millenniums to learn to do both.

    Learned behavior, not inherent ability.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    This nonsense about proving that homosexuality is natural is even more ridiculous

    The problem is that people – both gay and straight – think that there’s some meaning to proving homosexuality to be natural or unnatural. The truth is that we’re highly enough evolved that issues of natural or unnatural are meaningles. Man is an unnatural creature in the first place. The question is whether it’s consensual and the people involved are adults. If so, then no one else including the government has any right to dictate how they live their lives or find fulfillment.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Wow Dave

    Have you returned? You were sort of nutty last week. While I dont agree with a lot of your views I always enjoy your rational commentary. I thought you’d lost it last week. Glad to see your measured self again.

    On a personal note (not that you would care all that much) Rational Dave keeps me on my toes. I enjoy that a great deal because I love to learn, and grow. Coo coo Dave just makes me hunker down and keep my position. While its fun to do so, I enjoy learning more.

  • Zedd

    Clavos you make it so easy. Please don’t.

    You said “zedd says:

    I didn’t have to know anything to speak or to walk

    Wrong. You had to be taught both.”

    Look that is my point exactly. I was socilized to do what I do. I wasn’t born “knowing” anything.

    Dude, I know English is your second language but geeeez! English was my second language too as a child so I understand but Daaaang Dude!

  • Zedd

    Richard sez: Iam beginning to sense a lack of understanding of the human condition and a truly limited knowledge base that would be understandable and forgiveable in a teenager.

    Ha ha ha ha. Sorry but you don’t know what your saying. Limited knowledge base… ummm not as much as I’d like but not that limited. If you knew how to reason you would know just how off your arguments have been, but you have dull reasoning and critical thinking skill so I keep things simple and answer your irrational statements without commenting on just how under developed you are in that area.

    What is the human condition? Please tell me.

    A teenager would just go along with what sounds good, like YOU and the majority of posters who are posting on this topic.

    Even if you feel gay, have you thought about the sense of claiming that you were born gay? YOu see, you wanting and even feeling compelled to live as a gay doesn’t mean you were born that way. YOu just want to really badly….. Okay fine but you cant EVER say you KNOW you were born that way.

    I cant say that I was born to have any preferance.

    What other preference were you BORN to have.

    I always find it interesting when 40 year old men who’ve been married for 15yrs, with a house full of kids come out and say that they are gay…. that they were born that way…. Ummmm no they prefer males but they certainly puzzled up with a woman a number of times and “got their blessing” meaning that they enjoyed it enough to produce little swimmers who turned into babies.

    You feeling gay doesn’t mean you were born to be gay. You just like the same gender…

    Again a teenager would never have the balls to say such things. They would just go along with what we see in the media because, well teens are dumb.

    Wait a minute, it just dawned on me, you are young aren’t you? Look sorry about responding to you as I have. I thought I was conversing with a middle aged man. I was worried about just how light you were intellectually but I finally realized that you are a young man, not a teen, but a young man…

    Most older gay man that I know have had a long time to think about this issue and have a more sophisticated understanding of the debates around it….

    As you can tell by the last paragraph, I am not young……..

  • Clavos

    zedd,

    My command of English is waaay better than yours, sweetie.

    And English is one of my two primary languages; I am equally fluent in both, and have spoken, read, and written in both my entire life.

    You say:

    Look that is my point exactly. I was socilized to do what I do. I wasn’t born “knowing” anything.

    Which actually is MY point.

    Your statement:

    I didn’t have to know anything to speak or to walk

    Implicitly states that you were born with the ability to speak and walk, which of course, is not true, hence my statement:

    Wrong. You had to be taught both.

    Girl, this is a good time to remind you that not only I, but several others on all the threads in which you’ve posted, have pointed out to you that much of what you write here is illogical and makes no sense.

    Your #191 is an excellent example of both.

  • Zedd

    Clavos:

    Although we are on a blog and we all assume personas which may be different from those that we portray in our “real lives”, you seem like a nice person, one who would be great to be around.

    I however find you to be more emotional than rational. While I found your posting on the Chavez topic to be quite lucid, most of the time you state the expected, not just the obvious. You don’t seem to appreciate nuance, just over stated platitudes and under considered dogma. I find you to be very emotional and less rational with even fewer occasions of expressing logic. When you argue, you connect sentiments that you believe that everyone should hold and use that as a base for the significance of your point. That is not logic.

    When I argue, I delineate the points of the subject, compare them to facts, like the definition of a term (in this case) vs. the desire of a people; or the lack of existence of scientific data vs. the sense or feeling of individuals; the goal of the mission..etc. This is not to say that I don’t employ my intuition, I do. I am an intuitive thinker but I do value critical, almost to a fault. I actually am confused by feelers which I suspect you are. I am confused by people who seem to be reactionary; who just take on an idea without thinking about what its implications are and what it really means.

    As for your language skills being better than mine, you really can’t make that assumption. You see again, I would never make the statement that you just made. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether you have a greater mastery of the English language than me. There are so many factors that contribute to what and how we post on a blog. You stated your statement about my capabilities as if it were fact. You said something that you sense or feel but you said it as if it is true. I am uncomfortable about that sort of thing. You seem really comfy just doing so. It’s illogical and irrational.

  • D’oh

    Again, all that needs to be said…#’s 119&138&155&160

    None of the points there have been capably refuted nor repudiated. Any talk of bringing anything else to the discussion has thus been shown to be sophistry and bluster for the most part.

    Hardly decent, logical or rational arguments.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    But D’oh, should they really have the same rights?

  • D’oh

    All of them. Except you, Suss.

    You get a nice refreshing drink

  • troll

    D’oh – your dealing with stubborn prejudgment here as I’ve learned on the other thread working this topic…the husband/wife (gender) aspect of the definition of marriage is all that Zedd is willing to acknowledge – not going for the ‘intimate union’ aspect nor is she willing to let statute trump ‘natural language’

    (great to see you out of your closet and ready to assume your rightful position once again…and I’m diggin’ the well formed formulae)

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    This is how I think

    Author states that not allowing gays the right to use the term marriage to define their union is equivalent to the “separate but equal” designation that was made for blacks in the mid 20th century.

    1. Separate but equal was illegal because the constitution mandated liberty for all humans. Blacks are human, Whites are human, Asians are human, so are Native Americans, Australoids are human and any combination of those groups is human. Separating the races limits liberty by limiting access to what the other race(s) had access to, so it was not constitutional.

    2. The goal of homosexuals is liberty. Civil unions should provide the same rights that heterosexuals have.

    3. Those rights grant access to the same benefits and institutions that heterosexuals have access to. This point makes CUs unlike “separate but equal”.

    4. Marriage is a CU, there are others such as mergers, partnerships, etc. The other civil unions are not weakened by not being called marriages. What strengthens them is the definition of what is granted by law for those unions.

    If CUs provide access to EVERYTHING in the SAME WAY that marriage currently provides, then it is NOT like separate but equal, because it does not limit access to anything. The author’s argument is flat.

    Civil rights did not grant Blacks respect. Blacks are still denied access to private places. The law does not grant RESPECT.

    The issue of the word “marriage” is mute. Its use will not grant gays respect, However what makes marriage beneficial is the fact that it is a CU. CUs are what grant the desired affects not the name of the union.

    Now about the name….. The name marriage is defined as the union of a man and a women. Gays don’t fit that category so the name of their CU should be different.

    The last point is the most glaring so I chose to begin with the fact that nullified the entire argument instead of going through the entire process step by step.

    When I evaluate information, I immediately and automatically go through this process in my head (I believe its called logic).

    I left out a few more steps in my processing because I don’t feel like going through them… but you should get the idea.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    You don’t understand what logic is.

    Logic
    If x=ac (only), then bc is not equal to x.

  • D’oh

    Unless b=a in the matrix of legal equations.

    troll, I grok in fullness…and thanks, high praise indeed.

  • Col. Mustard

    “Do you think that I am retarded.”

    More so, with each comment you make.

    “don’t ask me what I think of you/ I might not give the answer that you want me to”
    ~Fleetwood Mac

  • Col. Mustard

    Here’s a better equation:

    talking to Zedd=talking to wall

  • D’oh

    Colonel, have you met troll?

    Some tea perhaps? No…not in the Conservatory!

    But seriously

  • Zedd

    Col. Mustard, Clavos, Richard

    You see, you are not debating the right to be gay or the right to have civil rights.

    You like the word “married”, the traditional, romantic implications of it, the images that it invokes, etc and you want to use it. The fact that in the world you know, shacking up is not respectible but being married is. So for you marriage= respect. That is understandable, you were socialized in a hetero world and images and symbols of that world are engrained in all of us.

    We could have a civil discussion if only you would stop fooling yourself into thinking you have a discrimination claim because you don’t, not in this regard.

    I understand wanting to feel married. After all you probably were a result of a marriage. You don’t know any other word or thing that defines a permanent relationship between two people who love each other dearly and are LEGAL. So to you the word marriage is THE thing. THAT, is understandable.

    But don’t argue by saying you are fighting bigotry. YOU ARE NOT. I m for full civil rights, full access.

    In 50 years gay young men and women will have millions of examples of gay CUs (whatever they are called) and they will plan large parties and invite thier family and friends and everyone will cry and dance and predict whether they will last…..

    You don’t have a previous image of that so the only thing you can imagine is being CALLED married and you want it.

    Say that, and its understandable but don’t say I am a bigot, because I want you to get all of the rights by law. ALL of them.

    There is no need to get personal with me because of that, Col. Mustard.

    You see homosexuality will never be accepted by society until homosexuals are proud of themselves for themselves. Not overstating who they are or tryig to prove their sameness or flaunting or declaring all of the time (thats a sign of insecurity). Dont forget humans are still animals and we pounce at the first sign of insecurity, unfortunately.

    African Americans made the mistake after attaining civil rights of spending a lot of time on issues that would make them accepted. It didn’t happen. People resented that. Again, it was a sign of insecurity and “animals” pounce on the weak one in the pack. Had AAs spent time on defining THEMSELVES and living their lives with pride and gusto, not apologizing but not asking to be accepted either, I believe that they would be much more advanced. Many AAs feel that way today.

    Just a thought, my intuision could be wrong. But don’t miss the chance to self examine just to be right.

  • D’oh

    What’s it say on the license the government issues?

    If it ain’t the same for everybody, like these civil unions/waterfountains for these people, and these marriages/waterfountains ove rhere for other folks…

    Then I don’t believe a word.

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    Are you thick? Or Slow?

    It says marriage because there were no other types of civil unions like that in the past.

    Who knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that a man would want to be hitched to a man????

    Is it the American education system or what???? Geeeeeeeeez!

    We need to implement “no blogger left behind”. Clavos sign up first please, D’oh next. Unless you are under 30 which I suspect, in that case, you will embarrassed about most of this in a few years.

  • Zedd

    D’oh,

    You do realise that printing new permits and liscenses isnt that difficult in the world that we live in.

    That is a non issue now isnt it.

  • D’oh

    Zedd, you certain you want to call me names?

    Because it seems you are not only slow on the uptake here, but dismally unaware of the points that require comprehension.

    Which parts of same on all issued licenses don’t you get?

    But then again, you appear to have avoided, evaded and just skipped over all reasoned statements aimed towards you, unable to even properly attempting to answer #119or any of the other thoughts communicated.

    Instead you vainly attempt to belittle and insult that which you cannot refute logically or rationally.

  • Zedd

    D’oh,

    I have not called you a name. I ASKED.

    Look kid dont do this “Because it seems you are not only slow on the uptake here, but dismally unaware of the points that require comprehension.”

    When you do that, you show your insecurity. If you have the chops you don’t have to do that sort of thing. If you are intelligent, you don’t have to try so hard. What will speak for you is your staying on point and connecting ideas, apply cause and affect, and use your deductive reasoning skills. If you are not clear on a point, don’t be too proud to ask.

    Your question 119 has been answered a million times over. I dont thing you understand what you are asking. You are looking for something that you understand or expect.

    You see if you call something what it is not, not only do you deminish the uniqueness of what that thing is but you deminish the uniqueness of the thing you named it. That is the broad definition.

    Example:

    African Americans recieve civil rights fully and request to be called Caucasian. Why? because Caucasians, in the past have had all of the rights. Are AAs, Caucasian? NOPE. Does everyone know that? YEP. But they like the clout that Whiteness has so Caucasian it must be. Now we know even medically the distiction of Caucasion has certain implications, osteoparosis for elderly women, for example. However Caucasian does not indicate a trait for sickled cell anemia….. There are specific differences defined by “racial” or familial (for lack of a better word) designation.

    Now to state the obvious…. I didn’t want to go here but, your bugging me with your non point.

    Marriage (the civic union of a male and a female) has specific characteristics which need to be acknowledged which make it different from same gender unions. Its breast, ovaries, periods, vaginas, PMS, pregancies, menapause (hot flashes), female world view, gender bias, vs. penises, testes, midlife crises, denseness (he he), shorter life span, prostates, male world view, gender bias, and many more… all of these factors have many implications for savings, insurance, health care, demographics, etc. The dynamics alone are very specific and complicate. Now including everyone with a civil union under the heading of a married couple certainly weakens the implications of what I have just described. None of what I have just described happens in same gender couples but calling a same gender couple the SAME is not true so it makes marriage not marriage any more its something else.

    Now did we really have to go to this legnth for you to concieve of this notion??? Why was this not at the fore front of your thought pattern? Are you daft or did you think that I didn’t know how to answer your small, yet over stated question?

    Full rights!! Civil Unions!! here here!!

  • Col. Mustard

    “Who knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that a man would want to be hitched to a man????”

    Exactly because gay people only came into existance in the 1930’s.

    D’oh, I’m sure you are aware of the fable of The Woman and the Snake. I believe you know by now what you are dealing with, so you only have yourself to blame.

  • D’oh

    And again you miss it, but that’s ok. I’ve made my points and you are, of course, entitled to your own view.

    I’ll let anyone who reads the thread make up their own minds about logic.

    And I’m over 40, I highly doubt you get to call me kid, you keep guessing incorrectly about things.

  • D’oh

    Duly noted, Colonel.

    Why are you holding that candlestick?

  • Zedd

    D’oh

    You cant be over 40. My apologies. What a tragedy. Oh well good luck.

    I know that you have a lot to think about regarding this matter…

    Thanks for the exercise…over 40…my goodness!!

    Think don’t just join!!!

  • Zedd

    Col. Sez:”Who knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that a man would want to be hitched to a man????”
    Exactly because gay people only came into existance in the 1930’s.
    ———————————————–
    Dont tell me you are over 40 too with that dumb statement.

    Whats wrong with you people. Did you cut school and smoke too much pot under the portable?

    This is getting serious. So “W” is not the only imabacile walking around all confident…. HELP US ALL!!

    Lets hope Rove doesn’t spot you next….

    Well perhaps its because its late. My apologies, most of us get a little wably in the wee hours. Perhaps when you read your statement tomorrow, you will sense the deficient quality of your remark.

    I must have really gotten to you though, you called me a SNAKE. Do you know that when you ascibe the title of “evil” to someone, it means you think they are powerful… for your tiny mind let me say, snakes imply evil in Western coulture hence the use of the word evil in place of snake…. I don’t want to get another tiny mind comment saying you didn’t call me evil.

    Good night Bud!!

    VIVA FULL RIGHTS!!!

    Oh and Viva NO BLOGGER LEFT BEHIND!!!!!!!

  • Col. Mustard

    Zedd, your comments continue to prove that your IQ is under 40.

    In the fable “The Woman and the Snake,” the snake is not evil; it is a snake. I would suggest you read it, but then you have illustrated that you lack reading comprhension and critical thinking skills, so there’s no doubt you wouldn’t understand it.

    Don’t try to pass yourself off as an authority on Western culture when you can barely spell. Also, do yourself a favor and don’t get into an insult-slinging contest with me. You will lose.

  • Col. Mustard

    D’oh, the candlestick is to help light the way, but some people’s blinders are so narrow they cannot see. I think a wrench would work better in this circunstance.

  • Clavos

    Col. Mustard,

    …Or a good, solid 2X4 upside the head, perhaps…

    That’s how you get a mule’s attention.

  • Col. Mustard

    Clavos, I would agree with you, but I wouldn’t want to insult mules.

  • troll

    Col – I counter your fable with the one about the scorpion and the frog…be kind – it’s her nature

  • troll

    (be kind but keep your distance that is)

  • Zedd

    Col. Mustard

    Actually the fable is an African one. I know it well, more than you understand :o)… I won’t bother to go further with my comments on Western culture; as to how it relates to what was stated. You will certainly miss it…

    Now what does spelling have to do with understanding Western culture or any culture for that matter? Would you, with your superior reasoning capabilities make the link?

    I would be very embarrassed to express such pronounced criticism in an area that I have no knowledge of. You don’t understand logic, or deductive reasoning. Your inability to employ critical thinking is more than evident. I say this not to produce a come back but as an observation of your posts.

    You see, misspellings and typos do not reveal intelligence or a lack of it. My confidence with my intellect prevents me from obsessing about such matters. While I should be more conscientious, I figure after grade school, we all should have attain the ability to spell reasonably… overly concerning myself about typos in such a liberal forum is silly. I assume that all of us can spell. If there is an error it is because of carelessness and haste because of impassioned writing. I give myself the right to be careless in my impassioned state. But I however do not accept a lack of measured processing, a weakness in reasoning, cognition, weighing ideas or fairness in myself.

    Perhaps you should consider that you may not have the chops to converse with me (just a thought) . Perhaps what I say doesn’t make sense to you because you are lacking in some way. I know you are male and you will not allow yourself to even consider such a notion, but…..

  • Zedd

    Col. Mustard sez: the candlestick is to help light the way, but some people’s blinders are so narrow they cannot see. I think a wrench would work better in this circunstance.

    I enjoyed that statement and I found it to be funny.

    It looks like you are among brethren on this particular page. You are conversing with like minded people it seems. That doesn’t mean that you are right or that you are talented thinker.

    So slow down happy pants. You may be in a crowd of fools.

  • troll

    Zedd – your definition is not universal…it breaks down in:

    * The Netherlands, 2001.
    * Belgium, 2003.
    * Massachusetts, USA, 2004.
    * Canada, 2005.
    * Spain, 2005.

    nothing never changes

  • Zedd

    troll:

    Thanks for a coherent rebuttal. I have not read one until now. I am well aware of the locations that have allowed same sex marriage. What you have listed are countries and a state that recognize same sex marriages. You are right, they have redefined marriage. The following countries acknowledge civil unions and not gay marriages. They have chosen to maintain the definition as it has always been.

    Andorra
    Croatia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark,
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Iceland
    Israel
    Luxembourg
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Portugal
    Slovenia
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    United Kingdom

    Where we reside, unless we live in Massachusetts, the definition is as it has always been since human beings inhabited this country. Definitions under the law, apply to the jurisdiction that the law applies to. They don’t apply universally, especially when a definition is already in place for that term.

    Denmarks legal definitions do not apply to us.

  • Zedd

    MCH

    If I was “arguing” with a brighter bunch I would actually be intimidated by “the old fourth-grade playground, bully and manipulation ploy”. But these guys are actually boring me because they don’t have the thinking capacity to offer a reasonable argument. Heck I’ve thought of many rebuttals to myself that they never brought up (which I have refuted after some critical thought off course). I feel slightly guilty conversing with them because I know full well that they don’t have a full grasp of what reasoning is. I feel that the only thing that I am doing is revealing their mental weakness.

  • Zedd

    What happens when people who feel as if they can not be monogamous, request for us to legalize polygamy so that they can have access to kinship rights with all of their partners?

  • Marty

    Separate is never equal.

    Two men or two women are no more “equal” to one man and one woman than two apples are “equal” to one apple and one orange. Two left shoes are both “shoes”, and they are “a pair”, but they can never equal “a pair of shoes” now can they? Why? Because separate is NEVER equal.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard

    And that was the point of the original post. Thanks!

  • Zedd

    Richard and Marty

    There is a difference between seperate and different.

    Seperate meant physically seperate; meaning that the access would not be the same.

    Different as in different name but same access.

    What you SAY you want is access. You will have it under civil unions.

  • Zedd

    Richard

    What happens when people who feel as if they can not be monogamous, request for us to legalize polygamy so that they can have access to kinship rights with all of their partners?

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard

    Actually, Zedd, polygamy as you describe it is more common historically and globally than the one man/one woman model and is commonly practiced today in many countries. In most such cultures it’s one man and several women, but there are some cultures where it is one woman and several men. But I also have to say that I’m reaching a point where I’m losing interest in even talking to the ignorant and bigoted.