Wednesday, April 03, 2013

77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

I got a link to this thing recently, it's been going around, and you might get a kick out of it. It is a flyer entitled "77 Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage," posted at Eagle Forum but originating with a certain Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, an economist who founded the Ruth Institute -- you can purchase mass quantities of this pamphlet there. The Ruth Institute is a spin-off of the National Organization for Marriage.

I notice that our little suburban Maryland county is mentioned in Reason #43: "Montgomery County, Maryland, removed all references to gender in the county code. The words 'father' and 'mother,' 'husband' and 'wife' are becoming suspect." I think I have figured out what they are talking about. There was a 2008 press release HERE, which describes our county's gender-identity nondiscrimination bill by saying "... the Montgomery County Board voted to render the citizens of their county legally androgynous by removing all references to gender from the county code ..." It really says something when a statement like this can be elevated to one of the 77 reasons. I'll bet the other 76 are just as good.

The flyer itself is posted in a beautiful PDF format with a tasteful background of "US Route 77" signs. It does not seem possible to copy from the original, but luckily some other bloggers have transcribed the text. Here they are, seventy-seven non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage:
1. The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

2. Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.

3. Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for children to have the same biological, legal, and care parents. Same sex marriage separates these functions among different people.

4. Man/woman marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural, and social heritage.

5. Even though it is not always possible, children have the best life chances when they are raised by their biological married parents.

6. The research in this area is preliminary. we don’t have studies that last long enough to show the long term impact of being raised in a same sex household.

7. Much of the research in this area does not use a representative sample of same sex couples. People volunteer to be in the study. Volunteers are often more affluent, more educated, and more likely to be better parents regardless of sexual orientation.

8. Each member of the same sex couple may be a fine parent. But two good mothers do not add up to a father.

9. This looks at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage.

10. Look at marriage from the child’s point of view. Not every marriage produces children. But every child has parents.

11. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.

12. Every child is entitled to know and be known by his parents.

13. No child can possibility protect these entitlements on his or her own.

14. Adult society must protect the child’s right to affiliation with both parents.

15. Adult society must protect these rights through prevention of harm, not through restitution after the fact.

16. Man/woman marriage is the institution adult society uses to pro-actively protect the rights of all children to affiliation with both parents.

17. Same sex marriage changes marriage from a child-institution to an adult-centered institution.

18. Without man/woman marriage, there will be no institution specifically protecting the rights of children to be in relationship with both parents.

19. Adopted and foster children tell us that they long for relationship with their biological parents.

20. The law in most states helps adopted children find their birth parents.

21. Deliberately conceiving a child with the life plan that he or she will never have a relationship with his or her father is unjust and cruel to the child.

22. If the love between adults were the only important factor, we would expect stepparents to be interchangeable with biological parents. But this is not generally the case.

23. Children in stepparent households, on average, have more emotional problems and lower school achievement than children of married parents.

24. Discipline can be complicated in stepparent households compared with households with married biological parents. Some biological parents exclude the stepparent from discipline, saying “they are my kids, not yours.”

25. Some children in stepparent homes expertly pit the parents against each other.

26. Loyalties in stepparent households can be complicated. The biological parent can feel torn between commitment to the child and commitment to the spouse. Intact biological families are more likely to feel that loving their child is also an act of love for the child’s other parent.

27. Research shows that stepfathers spend less time with their spouses’ children than do biological fathers. Remarried mothers, on average, spend less time with their own children. The child and the spouse become competitors for the mother’s attention.

28. Same sex parenting means that one of the adults will have no biological relationship to the child, and may be more like a stepparent than a biological parent. We can’t assume the adults’ love for each other will resolve the complications inherent in stepparent families.

29. Same sex marriage makes an implicit statement that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrelevant to parenting. The burden of proof should be on those who make this strong, nonintuitive claim.

30. Even same sex couples believe sex is relevant: the sex of their partners. A gay man insists on a male sex partner. He is not satisfied with a female sex partner, no matter how masculine she may be. A lesbian insists on a female sex partner. Even a very feminine man will not do.

31. It is unjust for the law to decree that adults are entitled to have what they want, namely, partners of the same sex, while children have to accept whatever we give them.

32. Mothers and fathers each make unique contributions to the child’s development. Father absence creates risks in children that mother absence does not create.

33. Teenaged girls without fathers are at risk for early sexual activity, multiple sex partners, out of wedlock pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.

34. Teenaged boys without fathers are at risk for juvenile delinquency, violence, criminal activity, gang membership and incarceration.

35. Pre-teen girls not living with their biological fathers get their menstrual periods earlier than girls who live with their fathers. Getting an early period is associated with a host of health problems including unhealthy weight gain, breast cancer, cancer of the reproductive system, and emotional problems (such as body image disorders, depression, anxiety, aggression and substance abuse) not to mention early sexual activity.

36. Children need help and guidance in developing their sexual identities. Same sex marriage will make this task more difficult, if not legally forbidden.

37. The claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable will affect men and women differently.

38. When a child is born a mother is always somewhere close by. Fathers are intrinsically less connected to children than mothers. The essential purpose of man/woman marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. Same sex marriage implies that the attachment of fathers to their children is irrelevant.

39. Countries with same sex marriage symbolically diminish fatherhood. The Province of British Columbia, Canada changed its birth certificates. They have a place for the mother's name and a check-off box for the “other parent/father.”

40. The United Kingdom used to have a requirement that unmarried women could not use artificial reproductive technology unless they could show that the child's need for a father would be met. They dropped this requirement after instituting same sex marriage, for fear of offending lesbian couples.

41. Once same sex marriage becomes legally and socially acceptable, more women will decide to raise children together. They will view this as easier than putting forth the effort of crossing the gender divide and cooperating with a man through marriage.

42. In today's climate, we can imagine people looking at two women raising children together and saying, “See, it is just as I have always thought: women don't need a man. Children don't really need fathers.” It is almost inconceivable that people would look at two men raising children together and conclude that children don’t need mothers.

43. Same sex marriage will further marginalize gendered language and gender roles. In Scotland, schools stopped celebrating Fathers Day. Montgomery County, Maryland, removed all references to gender in the county code. The words “father” and “mother,” “husband” and “wife” are becoming suspect.

44. No one has a right to have a child. Children are not objects, to which other people have rights. Children are persons, with rights of their own.

45. We will not be able to maintain a free society if some people come into being as objects, created by other people for their own purposes.

46. Artificial reproductive technology violates the dignity of the child.

47. Using donated sperm or eggs necessarily involves the alienation of the child from one or both parents.

48. Children who were conceived by artificial insemination with donor sperm often experience a sense of loss from not knowing their fathers.

49. Advocates of the unlimited use of artificial reproductive technology argue “our children will be fine, because we wanted these children so badly.” Turn this statement around: “We got to manufacture another human being, because we wanted to.” It no longer sounds so appealing.

50. Same sex marriage creates an entitlement to the use of artificial reproductive technology.

51. An “entitlement” to the use of artificial reproductive technology means that anyone with money gets to do anything they want. This cannot be correct, from any moral or religious perspective. Yet same sex marriage advocacy is driving the law in this direction.

52. The state creates same sex marriage by saying that marriage is the union of any two persons, instead of the union of a man and a woman. Same sex marriage affects everyone because the new legal definition applies to everyone.

53. Genderless marriage will drive out gendered marriage. Same sex marriage transforms marriage from a gender-based institution to a gender-neutral institution.

54. Judges who have imposed same sex marriage have made statements that appear superficially plausible in the context of same sex marriage, but which are certainly false as general statements.

55. The judges who imposed same sex marriage in Iowa stated, “The research … suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.” This is not true as a general statement.

56. The judge who overturned California’s Proposition 8 stated, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under the law is a union of equals.” The first statement assumes what needs to be proven. The second statement creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that unless gender is irrelevant, marriage is necessarily something other than a union of equals.

57. If enough judges say enough implausible things, people will lose respect for the law.

58. Creating one legal institution for both same and opposite sex couples requires the law to strip away all the essential public purposes of marriage and leaves only the inessential private purposes of marriage.

59. The judge who overturned California’s Proposition 8 stated, “Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.” By this definition, college roommates or members of clubs count as “married.”

60. By the time the activists are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships.

61. Man/woman marriage is the institution that attaches mothers and fathers to their children. Same sex marriage transforms marriage into an institution that separates children from at least one of their parents.

62. Same sex marriage opens the door to children having more than 2 legal parents, as it has in Canada.

63. Same sex marriage routinely places biological parents on the same legal footing with adults who have no genetic relationship to the child.

64. Same sex marriage eliminates the legal principle that biology is the primary means of establishing parental rights and responsibilities.

65. Some other principle must take the place of the biological principle. That principle will be the state assignment of parental rights and responsibilities.

66. Judges in Washington State created a four-part test to determine whether an unrelated adult counts as a child’s “de facto parent.” These determinations require family courts to examine the most private parts of the family’s life.

67. Same sex marriage undermines the legal principle that children are entitled to a relationship with both parents.

68. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one of their parents, not due to extraordinary circumstances, as arise in adoption, but as a routine procedure.

69. Adoption currently exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want.

70. Same sex marriage is a creation of the state. Man/woman marriage is an organic institution arising spontaneously from society.

71. The state will have to protect its creation of same sex marriage. Man/woman marriage can sustain itself.

72. Governments will enforce the belief that same sex marriage is the equivalent of man/woman marriage.

73. Religious organizations of all kinds, potentially including schools, adoption agencies and marriage prep programs, may be subject to government regulation. Catholic adoption agencies have closed in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. The Catholic Archdiocese of the District of Columbia stopped providing health insurance to all spouses, once same sex marriage was created by the city council.

74. Governments will enforce the belief that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

75. In Massachusetts, a father objected to his kindergartner being read a picture book that featured two men as the romantic couple. The father was taken away in handcuffs from a public meeting. The state declared parents do not have a right to remove their children from lessons they find objectionable.

76. The government of Quebec insisted the Mennonites teach that homosexuality is normal to the handful of children in their little country school. The Mennonites refused, and at last notice, were considering leaving Quebec, rather than surrender the teaching of their children to the Provincial authorities.

77. Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the state.
So there, you homosexual activists. Take that.

71 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Much of these so called reasons are based on the idea that children have a right to be raised by their opposite sex genetic parents.

If that's true then divorce has to be outlawed as well as adoption. I'm sure none of these anti-marriage people will support that idea.

If children have a right to be raised by opposite sex parents then children also have a right to be raised by same sex parents. I'd have happily traded my opposite sex parents for same sex parents - what about my right to be raised by same sex parents? If children have a right to choose their parents, why not me?

Fact is as the old saw goes, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family. No child has a right to decide who their parents should be, you get what you get and that's the way it is.

The purpose of marriage is not to "attach children to their fathers and mothers", its to declare who your primary relationship is with. Many married people choose not to have children, procreation has never been a requirement of marriage and people have never had to be married to procreate.

Allowing same sex couples to marry will not deprive any child of a mother and father they would otherwise have. Allowing same sex couples to marry in no way interferes with marriage supporting heterosexual procreation and child rearing.

Aproximately 100 studies done over 30 years have shown in unanimity that children of same sex parents do just as well, if not better than children of opposite sex parents. Complaints that the studies don't representative samples are unavoidable because its just about impossible to get representative samples with truly random sample selection as the Regnerus attempt showed. This however does not negate the results of the existing studies, the fact is that one can nitpick any social science study on any topic and find so-called flaws but the extensive social science research on same sex parenting has been extensively reviewed by social science experts and all major mental and physical health organizations are in agreement that they conclusively show children do just fine with same sex parents.

Children of same sex parents often do better than children of opposite sex parents because same sex parents don't have children by accident. Children of same sex parents are planned, prepared for, and wanted. Children of opposite sex parents are frequently unplanned, unwanted and the parents unequipped to deal with the demands of rearing children.

All this talk about needing to ban gay marriage for the sake of children is a farce given that up to 30% of same sex couples are rearing children and that won't change by denying them the right to marriage. The only thing that will accomplish is denying hundreds of thousands of children the benefits of having two married parents supported by society and law.

The fact is those opposed to same sex marriage don't give a daman about the effects of banning same sex marriage on children. If they had any concern whatsoever about the effects of such a ban on children they'd be fiercely demanding that the children of same sex parents be allowed the protection of having a married dad and dad or mom and mom.

April 03, 2013 12:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If you examine each of these "reasons" logically you can see once again that there are no valid reasons to oppose marriage equality. All these "reasons" are based on the logical fallacy that allowing gays to marry will result in people choosing to marry a same sex partner when they would have otherwise married an opposite sex partner. The availability of same sex marriage will not result in a single heterosexual choosing to marry a same sex partner instead and thus children being raised by same sex parents that would have otherwise had opposite sex parents.

This ENTIRE anti-marriage argument is based on a logical fallacy. The availability of a same sex marriage is not going to entice any heterosexual to enter one. The illegality of same sex marriage does not take the children of any same sex couple and give them to opposite sex parents. The legality or illegality of same sex marriage has no effect on the gender makeup of couples raising children.

April 03, 2013 1:11 PM  
Anonymous poppin' fresh said...

calling hedonistic homosexual relationships a "marriage" means that real marriage has no word to describe it and, thus, can no longer be easily preferenced

so, the institution is hurt significantly

and it's not just rhetorical bragging rights

our society has traditionally made concessions to favor children and their raising up

what is beginning to happen now is that when a father is granted time off to perform some family functions, gays are beginning to gripe that this violates their rights if they don't have kids

a childless hetero couple would never do the same

a society that doesn't favor children is doomed

you can extrapolate yourself and see where this leads

the Supreme Court will rule that the definition of marriage belongs to the voters

there will never be uniform gay marriage in America

April 03, 2013 9:44 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Thank you Jim...77 reasons...wow!

My favorite? Oh, it would have to be Reason #77: "Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the state." To which I would add that it is destructive of the state, and civil society because the state becomes an agent in social counterfeiting. Just as it is destructive to a state economy to have unchecked counterfeiting because it devalues the currency, so also with state when it willfully chooses to ignore the natural purposes of marriage.

April 03, 2013 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 04, 2013 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Public opinion evolves said...

I notice it's all of two Anons and one Orin, a trio of old farts who fear existing marriages will crumble if gays are allowed to wed.

Those must be some weak marriages you guys are in.

Why, for heaven's sake, do you want children being raised by same sex parents to have access to only one of the adults raising them and deny these children access to their other caregiver?

The harm you wish to bring to these children is stunning; that you are blind to it and call yourself "christian" is astounding.

April 04, 2013 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad you call yourself "opinion" because you sure don't have any facts

"I notice it's all of two Anons and one Orin, a trio of old farts who fear existing marriages will crumble if gays are allowed to wed."

actually, I said our society will weaken and crumble if children aren't preferenced

"Those must be some weak marriages you guys are in."

I don't recall saying whether I was married or not

I don't discuss personal matters on blogs

"Why, for heaven's sake, do you want children being raised by same sex parents to have access to only one of the adults raising them and deny these children access to their other caregiver?"

bizarre question. obviously, children have access to their caregiver. the question is who should that be. all children want to know their real parents.

"The harm you wish to bring to these children is stunning; that you are blind to it and call yourself "christian" is astounding."

the harm being done to these children by living with homosexuals is stunning. having two homosexuals call themselves married won't ameliorate it.

April 04, 2013 10:59 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "calling hedonistic homosexual relationships a "marriage" means that real marriage has no word to describe it and, thus, can no longer be easily preferenced so, the institution is hurt significantly".

Married heterosexuals have the word marriage to describe their union. Gays marrying doesn't change that and nor does allowing gays to marry interfere in anyway with providing preferences to married couples. If married heterosexuals are so insecure that they need to distinguish their marriages from same sex marriages they can say they have a "heterosexual marriage" - "problem" solved, no harm in any way. And there is no reason to believe any given heterosexual relationship is not hedonistic and any given same sex marriage is - you're just making stuff up.


Bad anonymous said "our society has traditionally made concessions to favor children and their raising up".

And LGBTs are in favour of that, that's why its important that the children of gay parents be allowed to have the benefits of married parents. Further, allowing gay couples to marry in no way interfers with marriage helping in the raising of heterosexual couple's children.

Bad anonymous said "what is beginning to happen now is that when a father is granted time off to perform some family functions, gays are beginning to gripe that this violates their rights if they don't have kids".

A bald-faced lie - never happens and if it did it wouldn't matter anyway.


Bad anonymous said "a society that doesn't favor children is doomed.".

Allowing gay couples to marry in no way interferes with marriage favouring children. Marriage equality has existed for many years in several countries around the world and has had only positve effects on society. And up to 30% of gay couples have children so if marriage is to favour children then gay couples MUST be allowed to marry. Fact is bigots like bad anonymous don't give a flying f*ck how marriage affects children, if they did they'd be screaming from the highest rooftops that gay couples must be allowed to marry.


Bad anonymous said "the Supreme Court will rule that the definition of marriage belongs to the voters".

LOL, bad anonymous is making predicitions about the future again. We all remember how you told us in 2008 about all the things president Huckabee was going to do and the "sixteen years of the Romney and Ryan presidencies" and particularly delicious was a couple of days before the 2012 election when you fatuously said "popular vote: Romney 52, Obama 48 you heard at TTF first, people". Yes, we heard it and we won't let you forget it - your predictions are usually good for a bell-aching laugh.


Bad anonymous said "there will never be uniform gay marriage in America".

LOL, if there is one thing in the future that's obviously going to happen its that there will be marriage equality across the entire United States. The most recent poll shows 58% of Americans in favour of marriage equality and that support grows to 80% amongst 18-29 year olds. Even several staunch Republican oponents of marriage equality have seen the inevitable and decided to get on the right side of history by renouncing their previous anti-marriage positions. When Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly say the war on marriage is lost you know all Republicans know that's true in their hearts - even you bad anonymous. You'll pretend until the bitter end some miracle is going to turn it around for you and then when it finally happens you'll at first claim you don't care and it doesn't matter and people will hate gays anyway, and then in 10 or 20 years as is typical of conservative christians you'll claim it was conservative christians who were responsible for this civil rights victory and you were alongside fromt the very start.

April 04, 2013 12:16 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Orin said "Thank you Jim...77 reasons...wow! My favorite? Oh, it would have to be Reason #77: "Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the state." To which I would add that it is destructive of the state, and civil society because the state becomes an agent in social counterfeiting. Just as it is destructive to a state economy to have unchecked counterfeiting because it devalues the currency, so also with state when it willfully chooses to ignore the natural purposes of marriage.".

I hate to burst your bubble orin, I know that's your favourite analogy because its the last resort you can cling to to attempt to rationalize your bigotry, but its a false analogy.. Counterfitting money has a demonstrable causal effect leading to harm, there is no demonstrable causal effect of marriage equality leading to the harm of your's or anyone's marriage. You cannot name a single way in which allowing gays to marry will harm your marriage. You can raise your false analogy all you want but you can't point to any rational scenario in which allowing gays to marry causes the sort of harm counterfitting money does. The repeated insistance that gays marrying will harm your marriage in some unspecified way is not in any way proof, or even a plausible theory that such harm would happen. Face it Orin - you got nothin'.

And as far as marriage equality being a "hostile takeover of civil society by the state", that's hilarious! The STATE has always decided what marriage is. The state cannot hostily take over itself.

April 04, 2013 12:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "glad you call yourself "opinion" because you sure don't have any facts

Good anonymous said "I notice it's all of two Anons and one Orin, a trio of old farts who fear existing marriages will crumble if gays are allowed to wed."

Bad anonymous said "actually, I said our society will weaken and crumble if children aren't preferenced".
Allowing gays to marry in no way interferes with using marriage to preference children. Once again, the fact is bigots like you don't give a flying f*ck about how marriage affects children, if you did you'd be screaming from the highest rooftops that the children of same sex parents must be allowed the benefit of having their parents married.

Good anonymous said "Those must be some weak marriages you guys are in."

Bad anonymous said "I don't recall saying whether I was married or not I don't discuss personal matters on blogs "
".

LOL, we know you're not married, no married person witholds that kind of information, it inevitably slips out subconciously as people talk about what they did on the weekend, or how public policy affects them, or how their personal experience provides lessons applicable to public policy. You obviously do discuss personal matters on blogs, remember how you told us several times about how you allegedly were going to open a winery and deduct the costs on your income tax, were backpacking across Europe, snorkeling in the Carribean while getting plastered on rum and so on. You told us all about your alleged personal life but it was all about a life ALONE. No heterosexual man is obsessed with gay issues, only self-loathing gay men fret day after day about gays being accepted. Self-loathing gays like bad anonymous resent happy gays because they think they're making a big sacrifice by suppressing their sexuality and they think its unfair that happy gays self-accepting gays aren't doing so. Don't forget bad anonymous, the American Psychiatic Association says gays who positively accept their orientation are happier and better adjusted than those who do not - you might want to spend a lot more time thinking about that.


Good anonymous said "Why, for heaven's sake, do you want children being raised by same sex parents to have access to only one of the adults raising them and deny these children access to their other caregiver?"

Bad anonymous said "bizarre question. obviously, children have access to their caregiver. the question is who should that be".

Once again we see you try to hide your real agenda but in the free-talking you let hints of it slip. You really want to forcibly remove children from the homes of their gay parents and put them in orphanages. That's what you mean when you ask who such children's caregivers should be. You want to rip children from the loving arms of their same sex parents and put them in an institution to rot because you are overflowing with hate for self-accepting gay men and women. That's the only possible way a bigot can justify denying the children of same sex parents the right to having their parents married. You all think this way, but none of you are honest enough to admit it because you know if you told the truth it would show just how incredibly depraved and hateful you are and how little you truly care for children deep down inside.

April 04, 2013 1:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...


Bad anonymous said "all children want to know their real parents.".

Not true. While some adopted children express a desire to know who their birth parents were many hold their brith parents in contempt for not stepping up to the plate and doing the hard part of the job. They recognize that their real parents are the people who loved and cared for them and put forth the blood sweat and tears to raise them. I myself don't give a damn about my biological parents, I'd have happily traded them for two mommies or two daddies and never having known my biological parents.

Conceiving a child is not an acomplishment, its not something to be proud of. Any drunken pair of heterosexual teenagers can conceive a child but the real work and parenting starts when the child is to be raised.
Society needs to reward the real and important job of parenting, not the trivial and often irresponsible act of conception.

Good anonymous said "The harm you wish to bring to these children is stunning; that you are blind to it and call yourself "christian" is astounding."

Bad anonymous said "the harm being done to these children by living with homosexuals is stunning. having two homosexuals call themselves married won't ameliorate it.".

Three decades of social science research has unanimously shown that children of same sex couples do just as well, if not better than children of heterosexual couples. What matters is having two committed parents with sufficient resources to raise a child, not the gender of their parents. Anti-gay conservatives rant on and on about how children benefit from having married parents, if they were sincerely concerned about how marriage affects children they'd be demanding that the children of gay couples be allowed the benefit if married parents. Unless of course their hidden agenda is to forcibly tear children from the loving arms of their same sex parents and institutionalize them.

April 04, 2013 1:04 PM  
Anonymous back from the sugar shack said...

the genders are not interchangeable, they are complementary

those, and you know who you are, who have undergone extensive surgery, in an attempt to artificially change your gender, should know this better than anyone

if you don't think genders are important, why did you go through all that?

that's the whole point of marriage, to create unions where the genders of the individual matter because they complement one another

as a libertarian, I have no problem with a couple of guys doing whatever they want with one another

at the same time, as a libertarian, I don't think they have the right to tell the rest of us we have to pretend they are something they aren't

playing any game you want is freedom

trying to force everyone else to play is not

April 04, 2013 3:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That's a straw man. Of course all gays and lesbians think gender is important. If they didn't they'd be happy to marry an opposite sex partner just as the bigots facetiously suggest they do.

The point of a marriage is to designate who the most important person is in your life and have the state support and strengthen that.

No one's forcing you to have a same sex marriage if you don't want one. As a libertarian you should be happy to restrict yourself to a heterosexual marriage but not ask anyone else to do the same.

You have a right to marry who you choose, you don't have a right to tell others who they can or cannot marry.

playing any game you want is freedom

trying to force everyone else to play by your rules is not

April 04, 2013 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"playing any game you want is freedom

trying to force everyone else to play is not"


Now since when does marriage equality force everyone to do anything?

Oh that's right, it doesn't.

Even when marriage equality is the law of the land, nuns will NOT BE FORCED to marry anyone, and neither will "everyone" else.

April 04, 2013 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the genders are not interchangeable, they are complementary"

That's right.

Just like "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

April 04, 2013 5:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I have no problem with a couple of guys doing whatever they want with one another at the same time, as a libertarian, I don't think they have the right to tell the rest of us we have to pretend they are something they aren't".

That statement by bad anonymous sums up how profoundly selfish he is and how incredibly twisted his sense of justice, freedom, and fair play is. He thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because he doesn't want to treat or refer to them as a married couple even though he can't conceive of any way he'd be forced to do so.

No one has absolute freedom to do as they wish, inevitably one person's freedom clashes with anothers and society has to make restrictions on one individuals freedoms to balance them with anothers. For example, Fred Phelps complains bitterly that its an infringment on his freedom of religion to deny him the right to put gays to death as his bible commands him to do. Society has to look at Fred's demand for religious freedom and balance it with the rights of the gay people he'd like to execute. Society rightfully says there is no real benefit to Mr. Phelps if he is allowed to kill gays and there is a huge harm to gays if they are killed just to suit Mr. Phelps. Society balances Fred Phelp's freedoms with the freedoms of gays and rightfully says the proper balance is to deny Mr. Phelps the right to kill gays even though this restricts his freedom of religion.

We see an imbalance of freedoms of a similar magnititude with Bad anonymous's insistence that gays must not be allowed to marry because this would infringe on his freedom to not "have to pretend they are something they are not.".

Edie Windsor was billed $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died in 2009 - a bill a heterosexual couple does not have to pay. Even though bad anonymous can't conceive of any possible way he'd be "forced to pretend" a married same sex couple is married he thinks a proper balancing of his rights with such a lesbian couple's rights is that Edie pay $363,000 so he can feel infintestimally more secure that he won't have to refer to a same sex couple as married even though he can't conceive of anyway he'd be forced to do so if they were allowed to marry. That's how astonishingly selfish he is and how profoundly he'd stack the scales against gays and yet insanely call it justice.

April 04, 2013 7:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Now, bad anonymous, like other bigots will point to the half dozen or so incidences over the past 10 or 15 years across the United States of anti-gay business owners being required to provide married same sex couples with the same services they routinely provide to other married couples and claim this proves allowing gays to marry is not a just balancing of the rights of gays and anti-gay people. But for him, just as it is for 99% of the other bigots its a lie - none of them own businesses and none of them are in anyway "required to recognize a gay marriage". They just pretend that because in some rare instances a third party was required to treat a gay couple as married this has personally infringed on their freedom, has "forced them to pretend a [married] gay couple are something they aren't" - it hasn't. Same sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on the Orin Ryssmans and bad anonymouses of the world.

And what about that Photographer in Arizona who was fined for refusing to photograph a gay couple's wedding? Is it an unfair balancing of her rights and the rights of a gay couple to ask her to photograph that wedding? Of course not. If she doesn't want to be in the wedding photography business no one is going to force her to continue operating. Its a farce to say if she chooses to operate that business that its in any way an imposition on her or a burdern to her to perform the same actions for couple "D" as she has regularly been doing for couples "A","B", and "C". The same sex couple on the other hand, denying them marriage means denying them 1400 rights and obligations associated with it, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in aditional taxes over a lifetime, likely preventing one from making health decisions for the other in the case of an incapcitating illness, having the immediate family of one invalidate her will and take possessions the deceased wanted to go to her surviving partner, or even having hostile family make health decisions for an incapacited lesbian or gay that are intended to harm them rather than allow that person's beloved to make those decisions. No, there's no comparing the magnitude of the "impostion" on the wedding photographer having to perform a service for a gay couple she's willingly done day in and day out for years with the magnitude of the imposition on a gay couple caused by denying them the right to marry. There's no denying that a just balancing of rights demands that gays be allowed to marry even if that means one heterosexual in a thousand is required against their will to treat a married gay couple in the same way as they've treated thirty heterosexual married couples before them. Only a perverted, evil person would make the false claim that gays getting married in anyway harms any them..

April 04, 2013 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what iya-Pray doesn't get is that marriage isn't something you do why the world watches on in wonder

speech, for example, is something you do that no one need participate in

not so, marriage

so one else has to agree to marry you

it's a community event, not a personal one

someone has to marry you

We the people

then after giving you a license, we have to give you eveyr benefit a real married couple enjoys

it will cost a great deal of money, from our taxes, to support giving breaks to guys that like to slide around naked together

everyone should be allowed to engage in deviant acts with consulting adult partners

but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to endorse and support this

to say its a right is analgous to saying the right to free speech extends to the right to force people to listen to your speeches

well, I hope Priya has learned something from this rhetorical smackdown

April 04, 2013 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 04, 2013 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Cuccinelli Campaign Won't Say If He's Committed Any Crimes Against Nature said...

Virginia attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli had filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, hoping to reinstate Virginia’s sodomy law. The law, which was ruled unconstitutional in March, made it a felony for consenting adults to engage in oral or anal sex.

While this type of moral crusade is nothing new for Cuccinelli — who famously fought to cover up the exposed breast on Virginia’s state seal — it seems unlikely to help the GOP expand its base. After all, as Mother Jones points out, if Virginia’s sodomy law were applied nationwide, 90 percent of men and women between the age of 25 and 44 would suddenly become felons [for as Anon says, committing "deviant acts with consulting adult partners....everyone should be allowed to engage in"].

"That statute outlaws oral and anal sex between consenting adults—gay or straight, married or single—making such "carnal" acts a felony. The law is unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated such "anti-sodomy laws" across the country."

And the GOP wonders why its base is shrinking so fast!

April 05, 2013 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I remember when Ken Cuccinelli used to come to the Fairfax School board to speak against the proposal for an inclusive non-discrimination policy. If I recall correctly, it was fairly vile stuff.

April 05, 2013 11:42 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "well, I hope Priya has learned something from this rhetorical smackdown".

LOL! The delusion runs deep with this one - lol! I've been handing you your ass on this thread! That's obvious to everyone and in fact probably even obvious to you but you've got nothing left but empty denials of reality.

Bad anonymous said "but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to endorse and support this".

As I said before and which still stands, you can't conceive of any way in which you'd be "forced to endorse and support this", it simply has no effect on your life whatsoever. And no one has absolute rights that totally trump everyone else's rights but that's what you're insanely arguing you should have.

Individual rights may come into conflict and when they do the rights of one individual have to be balanced with the rights of another. You're absurdly claiming the proper balance is that Edie Windsor pay $363,000 so you can feel infintestimally more secure that you won't have to acknowledge a marriage such as her's exists even though you can't conceive of any way you'd be forced to do that. As any rational honest person can see, only a liar and/or insane person like you would say that's balance. Any rational honest person would admit the proper balance is that Edie be allowed to marry and not have to pay $363,000 just to make you feel infintestimally more secure something you can't conceive of happening won't.

And even if it did, even if you were a wedding photographer and were "forced to endorse and support" a gay couples marriage for a few minutes by performing the same actions for that couple that you had done for 30 heterosexual couples previously under no rational person's standard could that ever be considered an undue burden or imposition especially given that the tradeoff for the gay couple would be to lose for a lifetime of the right to join an institution you admit is life altering, necessary to happiness and wellbeing and the rearing of children. There simply is no comparing the magnitude of the sacrifice you'd ask a gay couple to make to save an anti-bigot's (laughabl) "sacrifice".

Once again, even in that situation its obvous that the just and proper balancing of rights is that the gay couple not be required to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and a lifetime of 1400 rights and obligations just so the wedding photographer doesn't have to do the same two hour job she's been happily doing for years one more time. Only a perverted, evil person like you would falsely claim anything else is a proper and just balancing of rights.

Bad anonymous said "to say its a right is analgous to saying the right to free speech extends to the right to force people to listen to your speeches".

No, the proper analogy is to say the idea that a gay couple must sacrifice the life altering right to marriage so you can feel infintestimally more secure you won't have to refer to them as married (even though there's no way you can conceive of that happening) is analogous to saying your neighbour joe must sacrifice his right to speak altogether, in every venue, including his home, because you think you have a right to not accidentally overhear him speak if your paths should cross.

As much as you insanely demand you should have absolute rights over gay couples and joe, in both situations a proper and just balance is that they not be asked to make profound life altering sacrifices because you incorrectly think in your infantile mind their doing so would provide you with some infintestimal but actually imaginary benefit.

April 05, 2013 12:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "it will cost a great deal of money, from our taxes, to support giving breaks to guys that like to slide around naked together".

Gays and lesbians pay taxes just like heteroesexuls do to support marriage benefits. The bitter reality is that over a lifetime a gay couple will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than a comparable heteroesexual couple to support marriage. It is heterosexuals who are getting the free ride at the expense of gays and lesbians.

Edie Windsor payed $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay if her wife had been a man. that's the entire reason for the court challenge to section 3 of the ironically named "Defense" of Marriage Act. That part of the act is going to be struck down as unconstitutional, it is obviously a grave injustice.

Anti-gay bigots like you have no right to have gay couples subsidize heterosexual marriages. Justice and equality demand that gay and lesbian couples be given the same benefits of marriage they pay disproportionate taxes to support.

April 05, 2013 12:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous's argument is that fairness and justice means gays and lesbians should pay more taxes than heterosexuals and get fewer benefits. Obviously not.

Its easy to see from his responses he puts virtually no thought into his posts, they're just ill-conceived knee-jerk responses.

That's why bigots like him have lost their war on marriage. Rationality, logic and justice are on our side. All they can do is jump out of the bushes, shout fallacious bumper-sticker slogans, and slink back into hiding while we make cogent, logical, and thorough arguments to rip them to shreds.

April 05, 2013 1:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see bad anonymous has already had two of his comments removed for inapropriate behavior.

No self-control in that child.

April 05, 2013 2:16 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Reasons # 78 and 79.

From p22 of the book “Marriage On Trial” by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier (two Focus on the Family hacks):

#78: "Wives help men channel their sexual energy in socially acceptable and nonpredatory ways."

#79: "Husbands help protect women from the exploitation of other males."
--
Because, as we all know, ALL women "put out" for their husbands as much as, and in every way he wants, all the time. And NO husbands are womanizers or adulterers who ever feel the need to hike the Appalachian Trail.

April 05, 2013 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bitter reality is that over a lifetime a gay couple will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than a comparable heteroesexual couple to support marriage. It is heterosexuals who are getting the free ride at the expense of gays and lesbians."

Nope, Priya, quite wrong.
not if they are both working.
then they get taxed on their combined income, which is much much more than both filing HOH, if they have dependents, or even both filing single. run some scenarios or go look at the tax tables. they are so progressive that if both people are working, you are much better off staying unattached.

April 05, 2013 8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it doesn't matter anyway

taxes vary among all kinds of people because all kinds of exemptions, deductions and speial rates have been created by the government as a way to manipulate behavior because we live in a free society and government can't just dictate outright but must influence behavior with a carrot rather than a stick

in that sense, taxes are not supposed to be "equal" or "fair" and not a matter of "rights"

in this particular case, marriage is preferenced because preferencing it tends to encourage a more stable society

whether adding homosexual relationships to that definition increases or decreases the effect is debatable but it is not in the realm of justice or constitutionality

April 06, 2013 7:48 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "The bitter reality is that over a lifetime a gay couple will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than a comparable heteroesexual couple to support marriage. It is heterosexuals who are getting the free ride at the expense of gays and lesbians."

Bad anonymous said "not if they are both working.
then they get taxed on their combined income, which is much much more than both filing HOH, if they have dependents, or even both filing single. run some scenarios or go look at the tax tables. they are so progressive that if both people are working, you are much better off staying unattached.".

Wrong. Tell that to Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the ironically named "Defense" of Marriage Act court case. She's paying $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have to pay if her wife were a man. The groteseque amount of additional taxes a married gay couple must pay above what a married heterosexual couple must pay is the entire basis for the law suit and she's going to win because this is grotesquely unjust and unconsitutional.

Same-sex spouses are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by tax specialists. Gay couples are also denied Social Security survivor benefits because they cannot marry like heterosexual couples.

No, no matter how you try to lie and deny it the fact is gay couples subsidize married heterosexual couples by paying far more in taxes than they'd have to if they were allowed to marry.

April 06, 2013 12:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "taxes vary among all kinds of people because all kinds of exemptions, deductions and speial rates have been created by the government as a way to manipulate behavior because we live in a free society and government can't just dictate outright but must influence behavior with a carrot rather than a stick in that sense, taxes are not supposed to be "equal" or "fair" and not a matter of "rights" in this particular case, marriage is preferenced because preferencing it tends to encourage a more stable society whether adding homosexual relationships to that definition increases or decreases the effect is debatable but it is not in the realm of justice or constitutionality".".

LOL, that is pretty hypocritical comming from the guy who was constantly ranting about how its unfair to ask rich people to pay a higher tax rate than poor people. At least that can be justified, but there is no justification for asking gay couples to pay higher rates than married heterosexual couples in order to get fewer benefits. Marriage will remain just as preferenced after gay couples are allowed to marry as it was before, once again, allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. As to your bizzare claim that allowing gays to marry to produce a more stable society is not in the realm of justice or constitutionality" of course the exact opposite is true. The fourteenth amendment of the U.S. constitution requires equal treatment under the law so it us unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. The U.S. supreme court is in many ways a political organization and will rule in June in such a way as to grant an incremental victory to the pro-marriage side stopping short of enacting full marriage equality across all the United States but that will inevitably change in years to come as public majority support for marriage equality continues to increase.

Just as the 1986 Bowers Vs Hardwick decision upholding the constitutionality of sodomy laws was overturned in 2003 Lawrence Vs Texas. and the 1959 decision upholding the constitutionality of anti-miscegnation laws was overturned in 1967's Loving Vs Virginia decision the limited decisions the U.S. supreme court delivers in June in favour of marriage equality will eventually be widened to provide full marriage equality across the entire United States - if the electorate doesn't beat them to it by repealing all the gay marriage bans and enacting marriage equality first. Certainly many states will do that in the coming years thus greatly increasing the probablity of a future court challenge that happens in a political environment that makes it impossible for the U.S. supreme court not to make a broad ruling in favour of full marriage equality. Full marriage equality across the United States is inevitable. Even the Republicans are acknowleging this with one after another rushing to denounce their previous opposition to justice in order to get on the right side of history prior to the supreme court rulings in June everyone knows will incrementally increase marriage equality.

April 06, 2013 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look priya. I have pretty much given up arguing with someone who doesn't work and lived on welfare for 20 years because "it was too depressing to work" or some such ridiculous comment you said.

But I have thoroughly run the numbers on this one. My husband and I have considered getting divorced on paper because of the increased taxes are SO MUCH MORE.

you are correct, if only one spouse is working than clearly MFJ is better than single. But if BOTH spouses work you are better off not married. And if you have an estate yes you are better off married because you can leave that to your spouse.

But your phrase implied income taxes not estate taxes by saying "over a lifetime". And of course the federal cap is 5 million now. The lowest states caps are 1 million you can leave to a non-spouse without taxes. So isn't your gay couple also one of the filthy rich that would be better off paying more taxes ?

After all they don't need it anyway, you live on 32K a year, so can they...



Having NEVER worked, and spent your life on welfare, that isn't a concept you would be familiar with.

April 06, 2013 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

under Priya's messed-up mentality, any time someone gets a tax break, it's unconstitutional because, then, other people are paying higher taxes

so, by the logic of Priya, only being more successful should cause more tax

the Priya is apparently a big fan of Republican efforts to reform the tax code

if it makes Priya feel any better, I don't anybody should pay tax for dying

abolish the estate tax

if you worked and saved your whole life, and pay taxes on your earnings along the way, why shouldn't be able to leave the fruit of your labor to your children

of course, gays should pay a special tax to reimburse the country for the costs of the AIDS epidemic introduced into and sustained in our society by the random promiscuity of homosexuals

April 07, 2013 12:06 AM  
Anonymous randy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 07, 2013 12:21 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "look priya. I have pretty much given up arguing with someone who doesn't work and lived on welfare for 20 years".

And yet here you are trying to argue with me. And it was 10 years on welfare but of course gross distortions of reality are the basis for all your arguments, like claiming the average welfare recipient gets 32,000 a year when in reality its $7,200 for a family of three.

April 07, 2013 11:42 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "under Priya's messed-up mentality, any time someone gets a tax break, it's unconstitutional because, then, other people are paying higher taxes".

Straw man, I never said that. What's unconstitutional is denying for no valid reason gays and lesbians the marital status that allows tax deductions and allowing tax deductions for some because they are married but not for others who are married.

Under Bad anonymous's messed up mentality it would be constitutional for some states to ban marriage for blacks and for the federal government to allow a tax deduction to married white people while denying it to married black people.

Bad anonymous said "if it makes Priya feel any better, I don't anybody should pay tax for dying".

I couldn't care less what you think, its your trying to infect other people with your mental illness that I don't like.

Bad anonymous said "of course, gays should pay a special tax to reimburse the country for the costs of the AIDS epidemic introduced into and sustained in our society by the random promiscuity of homosexuals".

See, there again you demonstrate your desire to inflict injustice on gays. The vast majority of gays and lesbians never had and will never get AIDS but you think even they should pay for something they haven't done, but the heterosexuals who spread AIDS should get off scot free. And if one wants to take the position that people who've spread a disease should pay a special tax to pay for the societal cost then justice would require that apply to all people who've spread a disease and ONLY those who've spread the disease, be they straight or gay.

But in keeping with your animus towards the innocent you want to punish the gays who have not spread AIDS and not the heterosexuals who have.

Once again we your last post shows why your side has lost your war on marriage. Its easy to see from his responses he puts virtually no thought into his posts, they're just ill-conceived knee-jerk responses.

That's why bigots like him have lost their war on marriage. Rationality, logic and justice are on our side, we make cogent, logical, and thorough arguments.

Bad anonymous puts very little thought into his responses and instead just posts the first knee-jerk specious argument that pops into his head. Once I analyze it he comes out looking particularly dim with a contempt for fairness and justice and motivated solely by a desire to harm innocent gays.

April 07, 2013 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya.
you connected 32K a year with welfare.

I didn't.

I said you lived on 32K a year, because that is the number you were tossing around that you and your partner live on, which no-one - regardless of family size - should need more than. you were quite vehement that the money I earn I should not need.. and that paying for my kids college was not a good reason to want to EARN more money.

I pointed out that the only way that the gay couple in the news could have to pay that much in taxes was if they had assets over a million for state, and assets over 5 million for federal. And actually, that estate must be quite significant, because MD for instance taxes 16% over 1 million, so you get to 350K or so in taxes by having an estate over 3 million.

many states don't have any estate tax at all, like florida.

so why don't aren't your rejoicing that the gay couple had to pay that much in taxes ? surely they can't need that much in income or assets, and the state would better spend it supporting folks that never worked like you ? that don't have any assets and clearly need the money more ? from each according to his capability, to each according to his need ? Right ?

April 07, 2013 12:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It might have been 35,000 you claimed. Anyway, you claimed the average welfare recipient got more than the median income of an American which was around 32-35000 year. That was a lie, the average welfare recipient gets $7200 per year for a family of three.

And I'm all for wealthy gays paying more taxes, but I'm most certainly not for wealthy gays paying more in taxes than similarly wealthy heterosexuals.

You apparently think I should be rejoicing that a gay couple pays more in taxes than a comparable heterosexual coupld - that's pretty stupid Theresa.

When they start making wealthy heterosexual married couples pay inheritence tax like wealthy gay couples do then I'll rejoice.

You're willfully blind to the obvious injustice here. That you think you're scoring points with this speaks very poorly of you.

April 07, 2013 2:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa, which do you hate more, a working LGBT person, or a heterosexual person on welfare?

April 07, 2013 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya.

I am for a limited welfare system where you have a cap of perhaps a year and then the government hands you a job in order to get a check.

that you have to do, and if you don't do it, no check. given that you were on welfare for ten years how would have you reacted to a system like that ?

because you see, I think it is pretty unfair for them to continue to take money from people who are working to give to people who choose not work. Or to pay people not work in general.

I am for mandatory birth control for folks that keep having kids that that they can't support.

and my primary objection to homosexual marriage is that they use it to justify teaching kids homosexual behavior in the schools. though I don't in general object to sex ed.

In most respects, I am pretty libertarian.

Tell me, why do you think that the govt should take money from people like me, that choose to work, to give to people that you that choose NOT to work, for year after year after year after year. Because I believe that is pretty darn unfair. You are capable of blogging and typing for hours on end (5x more than even anon). Why are you incapable of holding down a job ? don't you feel some obligation to pay the hard working tax payers of Canada back for supporting you year after year ?

April 07, 2013 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh and I have to go trim hedges, and rake and mow the yard. Is that a chore you also object to because it is too stressful ?

what jobs do you feel capable of doing ?

and actually, I wouldn't begrudge you whatever you would like to do, as long as you are not constantly whining that those of us do work hard pay MORE in taxes so you can sit on your tosh and blog all day long.

that I believe is pretty darn hypocritical.

April 07, 2013 4:01 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

If God didn’t want to gay people to have children, he wouldn’t have had his own son the same way gay people would, i.e. through artificial means via a surrogate mother. I mean given that he’s omnipotent and all, he could have chosen to have a “traditional” family in the “traditional” way. In stead he chose to have his child with another guy (Joseph) and a virgin mother.

Pretty telling.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 07, 2013 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Ra. Sch. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 07, 2013 6:54 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, there is really only one rule on this blog: don't piss me off.

I have given you some clues about what is likely to piss me off, but it also depends on my mood, among other things.

JimK

April 07, 2013 7:14 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“51. An “entitlement” to the use of artificial reproductive technology means that anyone with money gets to do anything they want. This cannot be correct, from any moral or religious perspective. Yet same sex marriage advocacy is driving the law in this direction.”

I find this “entitlement” notion pretty ridiculous, since in this country, about a million fetuses are aborted by heterosexual couples each year because they simply don’t want them for one reason or another. Yet they are still allowed to get married and divorced as many times as they like. Somehow heterosexuals that have aborted one or more fetuses are more “entitled” to marriage than gay couples who can’t conceive by themselves and would be happy to have one of the cast-offs of the promiscuous heterosexuals.

Sounds to me like someone’s got their priorities all screwed up.

Fortunately, more and more people (including Republican politicians) are evolving on the concept of gay marriage.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 07, 2013 8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read other anon's post before you removed it Jim.
there really wasn't anything objectionable in it, other than he was supporting my position that if you aren't willing to work, it is kind of hypocritical for you to try and tell other folks how much more the govt should tax working folks.

and again, I think if you aren't paying taxes you shouldn't be able to vote on the tax code, you should give up your right to vote if you have paid zero federal income tax in the past five years.

that goes for CEO's too.

that would take college kids still on their parents nickel off the voting roles... which would be okay.

until you are supporting yourself, you don't get to say how much other folks should pay in taxes.

that of course would mean that Priya could never vote !


April 07, 2013 8:20 PM  
Anonymous RS (rip-snortin') said...

oh, Jim was just in a bad mood

as he said, no rules

as was discussed here by an anon a couple of weeks ago, it's indicative of the whole gay advocacy mentality

you don't like your gender?

no rule that says you have to stay that way, cut yourself up

you don't want to get off the couch?

no rule that says you must, the government will send you a check to keep you supplied with cheetos while ou watch reality TV marathons

no rules, no facts, no logic

just the way one happens to be feelin' without warnin'

April 07, 2013 8:59 PM  
Anonymous randy one said...

"That's why bigots like him have lost their war on marriage"

this is the current line of the media about gay marriage

it's part of a PR campaign designed to pressure the Supreme Court

let's look at the facts

we're weeks away from a Court ruling but few consider it likely that gay "marriage" will be ruled a constitutional right

puting it back in the hands of voters

while polls show more support for gay marriage, they also did in 2008 in California before the actual election was held

just last summer, gay marriage tried to get Chik-fil-a boycotted out of business and the public rallied behind the restaurant

less than a year ago, the President was saying marriage was between a man and a woman

and while he says he has evolved, he hasn't even mutated

just shifted what position he believes will provide him the greatest political gain

such calculations by him have been wrong before

most significantly of all, however, is that gay "marriage" is unconstitutional under the state constitutions of two-thirds of the Unite States

and that is unlikely to change any time soon



April 08, 2013 5:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, I hope Priya has learned something from this rhetorical smackdown

April 08, 2013 8:30 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Reasons # 80 - 87

From the same book quoted earlier, Marriage on Trial, pages 60 - 63

#81: "Does the father pay for his daughter’s lesbian wedding?"
#82: "Does the father walk her down the aisle?"
#83: "Do you attend the wedding shower?"
#84: "What about the baby showers that could follow?"
#85: "What kind of discussion develops when some coworkers want to share in buying a wedding present for their colleague and some don’t?"
#86: "Will in-laws really be able to celebrate the coming together of two families via the "marriage" of two guys or gals…"

How insensitive of the wedding couple to not put the "ick"/"I hate gays" factor in front of their own! As the book says:

"This will not bring us closer together but rather drive us further apart."

And my all time favorite:

#87: "It would alienate … "married" gays from gays who don’t want marriage…"

Priceless.

April 08, 2013 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick

you have to be honest here

gays have based their lives on breaking down a traditional taboo

why then are they so concerned with another tradition: marriage?

oh, you can talk about all the financial benefits, but even as "civil unions" rose, they still kept pushing for the title of "marriage"

but, really, few gays ever really wanted to be married

its just a stepping stone to normalization so homosexuality will be advanced in public schools, through sex ed classes which portray this deviancy as just another part of a big beautiful rainbow

you know, the part where public exhibitionism, sado-masochism, random promiscuity and incurably fatal sexual diseases are the norm

April 08, 2013 11:12 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "I am for a limited welfare system where you have a cap of perhaps a year and then the government hands you a job in order to get a check.that you have to do, and if you don't do it, no check. given that you were on welfare for ten years how would have you reacted to a system like that ?".

Suicide. So, given that you want to minimize the number of people on welfare, would you support doctor assisted suicide under your system to ease the pain of those who cannot work?

Theresa said "Tell me, why do you think that the govt should take money from people like me, that choose to work, to give to people that you that choose NOT to work, for year after year after year after year.".

Like many things perfection is possible. Most people on welfare are unable to work or unable to find a job, precious few people find the life of extreme austerity preferable to working. So, yes I think its a good idea for government to take money from wealthy people like you to save unfortunate people extreme hardship or death.

You rant about money and taxes but that's not really what this is about for you. The united States spends more on defense than the next 16 highest spending nations combined. The United States would easily cut its defense spending by 80% and still be the highest spending nation. Defense spending is several times what spending is on welfare but you're not complaining about that. So, although you say its about the money, really its about your resentment for people on welfare who you delusionally think are living a life of ease out of choice.

Theresa said "You are capable of blogging and typing for hours on end (5x more than even anon). Why are you incapable of holding down a job ?".

Health issues prevent me from holding a regular schedule. I have social anxiety disorder and insurmountable depression in a regular work environment. Once again, if you think the government shouldn't support people like me would you support Dr. assissted suicide for us, or is it that what it really comes down to its not a matter of money, you just want to punish us because you don't like us and you have an absurd fantasy about life on welfare being easy and fun?

Theresa said "don't you feel some obligation to pay the hard working tax payers of Canada back for supporting you year after year?".

Sometimes, but I didn't choose to be born. My idiotic parents didn't believe in birth control or abortion so they had more children then they could properly raise and that saddled me with insurmountable mental health issues. I was severely abused as a child by my older sisters and I often told my parents they should have aborted the last several children which would have included me.'. So, I deeply resent that my parents forced a terrible life on me and deeply resent the society that forced the religion on them that encouraged them to make those poor choices. So, to a degree, I think society owes me back.

For the first 45 years of my life death would have been preferable, but suicide is a pretty difficult thing. Now, I've never been happier but I can't survive having to support myself.

Given that the alternative is death, would you still support denying welfare to people like me? Given that its likely a program that sees the government giving people a job to collect welfare benefits would be substantially more expensive than just giving them the benefits would you still be in favour of that requirement given that it would raise your taxes even further?

And now that I've gratiously answered all your questions how about in fairness you reciprocate and answer mine: Which do you hate more, a straight person on welfare, or an LGBT person working?

April 08, 2013 1:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "I wouldn't begrudge you whatever you would like to do, as long as you are not constantly whining that those of us do work hard pay MORE in taxes so you can sit on your tosh and blog all day long.".

Listen, B. you don't pay more in taxes to support me, no one does. My husband supports me and its none of your f'n business if he chooses to do so - no one is paying any taxes to support me so stop lying and claiming they do.

April 08, 2013 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have social anxiety disorder and insurmountable depression in a regular work environment."

in other words, you didn't feel like working

someone needs to alert Americans that there's a place where laziness is considered a malady that is reimbursable by the government

some may want to move there

April 08, 2013 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "and again, I think if you aren't paying taxes you shouldn't be able to vote on the tax code, you should give up your right to vote if you have paid zero federal income tax in the past five years.".

I see, so only half of Americans (the rich half) should be allowed to vote. Gotcha ; )
Yes, societies in which the wealthy have controlled everything have always worked out so well.

Bad anonymous said "the government will send you a check to keep you supplied with cheetos while ou watch reality TV marathons".

For the 10 years I was on welfare I had one fuzzy TV station that only came in occaisonally. Once again the fantasies of people like bad anonymous about what its like to be on welfare have nothing to do with the reality.

Bad anonymous said "we're weeks away from a Court ruling but few consider it likely that gay "marriage" will be ruled a constitutional right puting it back in the hands of voters".

While few are expecting a sweeping ruling in favour of marriage equality, almost everyone expects an incremental move forward towards marriage equality. After this with a big increase in the majority support for marriage equality some states are going to start reversing their gay marriage bans, the problems created by a patchwork of marriage laws will exacerbate and that combined with ever increasing public support will make it all the more likely the supreme court will step in again at a later date and implement full marriage equality. But ultimately it doesn't matter how the supreme court rules. Polls show up to 58% of Americans support marriage equality - its inevitable

April 08, 2013 1:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "while polls show more support for gay marriage, they also did in 2008 in California before the actual election was held".

The polls were much closer then. The actual vote in favour of marriage equality tended to be a few percent less than what the polls showed. That allowed the bigots to win when the poll showed 52% in favour but that isn't going to save the bigots now that the California polls show 59% in favour and only 34% opposed. Whereas up until the past couple of years the good guys lost almost all of the anti-marriage amendments they've won the last four in a row. Now that marriage has been in place in several jurisdictions for many years the public can see all the fear mongering that encouraged them to vote against marriage in the past hasn't come true and fewer and fewer people are conned by it as time goes on. Majority support for marriage is ever increasing and support is increasing in EVERY age group. There are battles the good guys are going to lose yet, but the outcome of the war is not in any doubt - our win is inevitable.

Bad anonymous said "gays have based their lives on breaking down a traditional taboo why then are they so concerned with another tradition: marriage?".

LOL, what could be more idiotic than the thought that because you oppose one tradition you are automatically opposed to all traditions? Once again, Bad anonymous puts very little thought into his responses and instead just posts the first knee-jerk specious argument that pops into his head. It emphasizes how dim he is and his contempt for fairness and justice. That's why you're going to lose your war on marriage. Rationality, logic, and justice are all on our side - you've got nothing but blind hatred.

Breaking news: Bad Anonymous says "Its just a flesh wound"!

LOL, doing an impressive imitation of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail bad anonymous ends with "well, I hope Priya has learned something from this rhetorical smackdown"

April 08, 2013 1:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

King Arthur is travelling through a forest when he enters a clearing and observes a fight taking place between a Black Knight and a Green Knight by a bridge over a small stream. As he watches, the Black Knight defeats the Green, throwing his sword straight through the eye slot of the Green Knight's helm

Arthur then congratulates the Black Knight and offers him a place at Arthur's court on the Round Table, but the Black Knight only stands still, holding his sword, and makes no response until Arthur moves to cross the bridge. The Black Knight then refuses to stand aside. Arthur fights the Black Knight and, after a short battle, the Knight's left arm is severed.

Even at this the Knight refuses to stand aside, insisting "'Tis but a scratch", later insisting that he has "had worse", and fights on while holding his sword with his remaining arm. Next his right arm is cut off, but the knight still does not concede. As the Knight is literally disarmed, Arthur assumes the fight is over and kneels to offer a prayer to God. The Black Knight interrupts Arthur's prayer of thanks by kicking him in the side of the head and accusing him of cowardice. When Arthur points out the Black Knight's injuries, the Knight insists "It's just a flesh wound!" In response to the continued kicks and insults, Arthur chops off the Black Knight's right leg. At this point, the Knight still will not admit to defeat, instead he replies by saying, "Right, I’ll do you for that", and attempts to ram his body into Arthur's, by hopping on his left leg. Arthur is incredulous at the Black Knight's persistence, and angrily asks the Black Knight if he is going to "bleed on me" to win. The Black Knight replies by saying, "I'm invincible!" to which Arthur replies "You're a loony!" With an air of resignation, Arthur finally cuts off the left leg as well and sheathes his sword. With the Black Knight now reduced to a mere stump of a man, he says, "All right, we'll call it a draw."

April 08, 2013 1:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Black Knight

April 08, 2013 1:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 08, 2013 1:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And Theresa, don't forget that its because of my marriage relationship with my husband that YOU OPPOSE that I'm not on welfare any longer.

I'm not arguing with you repetitive lying morons on this thread any longer.

April 08, 2013 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you know that the new APA DSM lists the desire of a male to engage in sexual relations with male who has had gender reassignment surgery to be a mental issue?

April 08, 2013 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what difference does that make to you?

April 08, 2013 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just thought if laziness is a reimbursable disability in Canada, perhaps mental disturbances are too

April 08, 2013 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm not arguing with you repetitive lying morons on this thread any longer"

looks like Priya has learned something from the rhetorical smackdowns

April 08, 2013 3:44 PM  
Anonymous NM Gov, denies program for gay veteran's families said...

I wonder if Gov. Martinez imagines herself to have smacked down those gay soldiers' families.

Haters like Martinez are blind to the harm they cause others.

"Republican governor and gay marriage opponent Susana Martinez has vetoed a Senate bill to help the families of gay service members obtain professional licenses in New Mexico. After issuing the pocket veto, Martinez signed an identical version of the measure that would only streamline the process for straight spouses.

In a statement on House Bill 180, Martinez said:


"When military families and recent veterans move to New Mexico, we have to make it easier for them to support themselves and get to work. This legislation will end the burdensome process of requiring these already-licensed nurses, teachers, counselors, and other professionals to start over from the beginning when they are transferred to our state. I’m pleased that we are now removing this red tape and making it easier for our troops, veterans, and military spouses to get to work right away."

But that red tape will still delay same-sex spouses of active duty and veteran service members looking for work in the state, creating a two-tiered system for gay and straight spouses and igniting harsh criticism from gay rights and military family advocates.

“In the post-‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ era, openly gay service members are proudly serving and dying for our country. And their partners back home bear the same burdens as their straight neighbors,” Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a non-profit advocacy work advocating for LGBT equality and progressive issues in the state, said in a statement.

“The rest of the country has moved forward and understands the sacrifice our proud gay service members make. There is no excuse in today’s age for signing a bill that intentionally thumbs one’s nose at our gay soldiers unless you believe that their service and sacrifice is somehow less important.”

April 08, 2013 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a two-tiered system for gay and straight spouses"

there is no such thing as a gay spouse

the Federal government defines marriage as a union of both genders

if you give benefits to gay sexual partners, why not just give it to every veterans?

again we see the deleterious effect gay "marriage" is having on the benefits that seek to encourage strong families

April 08, 2013 5:48 PM  
Anonymous snickerdoodle- tee hee! said...

makes sense

why would lunatic fringe gay advocates want to keep coming here and suffering rhetorical smackdowns?

April 08, 2013 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You decide whether or not to be happy Priya - no one makes that decision but you.

If you feel sorry for yourself, constantly, you are never going to succeed. Period. It is definitely easy to get down on yourself, and it is harder to start each day with a positive attitude. But no one is responsible for your state of mind but you. You can't blame your parents for your mental state, you might be able to be unhappy that they didn't contribute more to your education.. but you can fix that. You can work your way through school.

But if you start with the attitude that you do, you are never going to succeed. Your situation is no longer your parents fault when you are 50 !

You are living proof that the Canadian socialism doesn't work. my actions are ALWAYS my responsibility. Period. If I get furious because I have had a lousy lousy day and tell Priya to crawl back in a hole and die, than I did that, not someone else. That was wrong, I apologize, and no one did that but me. And that fact that I had had a really lousy day is no excuse. If I am feeling overwhelmed trying to keep the house picked up or I try to put up too much for Christmas and then end up with boxes of stuff in the living room until March, I am the one that decided to over decorate and that is my issue. It isn't my teenagers fault.

Everyone has bad days. But when you start out refusing to take responsibility for your situation you are doomed to fail.

I am going to go back to Josie. Both her parents died in Africa of AIDS. She had to fight off getting married to an older uncle. She had to support her siblings on her own. Her situation was far more dire than yours Priya, but she survived.

You are responsible for your own decisions and their consequences, no one else.

April 08, 2013 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and yes, 50% of the US does not pay any taxes. and food stamps are at 75 billion, and all social welfare assistance programs including Medicaid and child health insurance, add up to almost a trillion in social spending, whereas total into the treasury is 2.7 T (US of course).

That is unsustainable.

Look Priya, I work all the time and I also get frustrated. I go from being very grateful to have what I have to being exhausted and I have days that I just feel like the world is falling on my head - hard. Everyone does. But you get up, you shake yourself off and you keep going. I do it for my kids.... you don't seem to think that is a good reason too, but that is what keeps me going. I don't mind doing manual labor, actually sometimes I think I would prefer it - you get to be outside all the time ....

you should try gardening, it would make you feel better.

and for goodness sake, there are all sorts of work at home jobs you can get with a computer, an internet connection, and the ability to type - which you clearly have.

working might make you feel better about yourself.

but giving up and expecting those of us that work all the time to work even harder to provide for you because "you just aren't capable of working".

I am sorry, I just don't buy it.

because it isn't the govt giving you money - it's the taxpayers. It is people like me that have ALWAYS worked that you now expect to work harder to provide for people like you. And I am not okay with it. Why should I, that already gives 40 cents on every dollar, and I have worked a full time job since I was 21 on top of raising a family, have to work until I am 70 to save enough for retirement and pay for my kids college to provide for people that have never worked a day in their lives.

Yes it is hard. Life is hard. Get used to it.

April 08, 2013 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the funny thing is that Priya is always telling us what a sheer paradise Canada is

and now we hear that Priya wishes Priya was never born and Priya can't find any way to contribute to society

but, halleujah, Priya is no longer on the public dole because Canada paid to have Priya's gender changed so Priya could "marry" a guy and just live off him

yeah, Canadian socialism sounds like a paradise that just keeps getting better

maybe someday it will be as much fun as North Korea

April 09, 2013 7:31 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"Patrick … you have to be honest here … gays have based their lives on breaking down a traditional taboo"

More accurately, the social "tradition" of defining same-gender attraction as "taboo."

"why then are they so concerned with another tradition: marriage?"

You mean like the "tradition" of arranged marriages and underage marriages and racially homogeneous marriages?

For as long as there have been committed gay relationships there has been gay marriage, it just hasn’t been socially recognized and respected as such.

What you really mean is your personal et al., definition of marriage as being between a male and a female. The misnomer, "traditional marriage," is disingenuous enough, but what lies beyond that is the insidious implication that only male/female union is possible.

Marriage = union = love, ergo, marriage is a euphemism for love, thus the need to put marriage in quotes. It’s a surreptitious way of saying that you consider the love between two people of the same gender to be inferior to your own to the point that comparing it to bestiality makes sense to you.

Which answers your next point as to your perception that we’re simply pushing for a "title" as opposed to equal protection under the law.

"but, really, few gays ever really wanted to be married"

There’s 18,000 gay couples who were married in CA in the few months it was legal who would beg to differ.

"its just a stepping stone to normalization so homosexuality will be advanced in public schools, through sex ed classes which portray this deviancy as just another part of a big beautiful rainbow … you know, the part where public exhibitionism, sado-masochism, random promiscuity and incurably fatal sexual diseases are the norm"

Not just sex-ed classes or just in public schools, but everywhere, to help minimize the devastating effects of your obsessive, vindictive and malicious attempts to smear LGBT Americans -- of all ages -- as sexually promiscuous disease spreading perverts in order to convince us and the rest of society that we deserve all the rights and respect reserved for fecal matter.

I understand and can accept that you don’t believe our love for each other is equal to your own. What I object to is the virtually ubiquitous cowardice shown by your incessant use of euphemisms to hide that fact, and your demonic LUST to malign our very humanity with scurrilous invectives in the name of "Christianity" and "morality," and yet you have the temerity to suggest that I’m the one who’s not being honest?

Take off your masks of humanity and show yourselves for the shame feasting monsters that you are.

April 09, 2013 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If some one desires to be updated with latest technologies afterward he must be pay a visit this
web site and be up to date every day.

Feel free to visit my web blog - Natural Topical Treatments For Herpes Simplex 2

March 20, 2014 6:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home