published Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

The Opposition

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

89
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Selah said...

Ok, Clay. Off base this time. This is no where close

July 26, 2011 at 12:38 a.m.
nucanuck said...

The grand distraction.

Politics has deteriorated into little more than hot button issues that divide us and distract us from the larger issues that actually affect our lives.

Gay marriage, abortion, don't ask don't tell, guns...all these issues inflame passions and polarize us, making consensus on issues of governance all the more difficult.

Clay's response numbers go up when he targets these issues which probably is a plus from a business perspective, but I believe Clay is talented enough to do better...to stimulate thought in ways that might help us build consensus that might make America better rather than divide us.

Not only do I implore Clay to raise the bar, but also my fellow posters could work to avoid meaningless invective and concentrate more on expressing the positive aspects of their particular points of view.

Let us aim to make this forum a positive thoughtful site that brings credit to this newspaper and the city of Chattanooga.

July 26, 2011 at 1:15 a.m.
hambone said...

Ok, nucanuck.

But is that George Wallace or L4F??

July 26, 2011 at 2:20 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Does L4F have a suit?

July 26, 2011 at 2:24 a.m.
fairmon said...

This is a state issue and is appropriately being handled as such. There is no justification or reason for federal involvement. If it has no affect on someone why would they object? It is an economic issue due to the discriminatory policies against single people. A positive is that Gay couples can't proliferate but can adopt and support a child.

Liberals and conservatives both accept, condone and support discrimination against singles. Why do tax rates, health care rates and a myriad of other policies benefit married people at the expense of singles. How does this line up with the philosophy that two can live cheaper than one? Some people crank out rug rats like a pez machine and are rewarded with tax deductions in addition to requiring singles to help pay other expenses such as education and various other benefits.

Singles should have civil rights protection like other minority groups. Both parties participate in the manipulation of people and businesses with a complex 4 ft. high tax code manual to favor some at the expense of others. Cash for clunkers and first time home buyer programs were not effective but favored a few over many. They both changed purchase timing but did not provide a long term economic stimulus.

H.R. 25 and S. 13 fair tax proposals correct the problem in addition to collecting taxes on black market and illegal income. The fair tax assure the wealthy pay consistent with their wealth while assisting those with low incomes with a rebate.

July 26, 2011 at 5:49 a.m.
fairmon said...

Current events are similar to Clinton's era when he and a republican congress reconciled differences and balanced the budget. Their efforts led to growth, low unemployment and years of a good economy. Clinton has provided Obama with some good advice which thus far he has ignored as have the republicans.

July 26, 2011 at 6:03 a.m.
potcat said...

THIS IS NOT A STATE ISSUE-IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE!!!!

July 26, 2011 at 6:28 a.m.
MTJohn said...

potcat got it right. And, not only is it a civil rights issue, it is an issue that impinges on the separation of church and state.

"Marriage" is defined by the couple and in the context of their faith tradition. As such, the state has no legitimate authority to define the term and the state violates the Constitution whenever it tries to do so. A "marriage license" is a legal document that has nothing to do with marriage and everything to validating the contractual relationship that is established whenever two people choose to formally enter into a civil union. Pastors violate the Constitution whenever they act as agents for the state in signing marriage licenses.

We should get the state out of the marriage business and talk only about that for which the state has authority, i.e. civil unions. Couples have no right to special privileges that attend the civil union contract. But, if we choose to grant special privileges to some couples on that basis, our Constitution requires that we grant those special privileges to all couples.

July 26, 2011 at 7:06 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

segragation? huh?

civil rights? i don't think so....gays and lesbians want rights above and beyond other citizens have. they may they want equality, but their actions speak otherwise.

quite transparent how the "gay rights" movement, and the liberal media, continually try and link the long and painful fight by blacks to end discrimination on the basis of skin color to the "gay rights" movement.

i don't think so.

it's insulting.

see.....what the "gay rights" movement wants, and many liberals, is for someone like me to see two bearded men smooching on a park bench and view it the same way as i would if it's a man and a woman..........sorry, ain't going to happen. just not the same. it's something else, and it always will be. if that's segragation, the perception of it, then so be it. you can't force abnormal to be veiwed as normal..

funny how bennett does everything he can do avoid obama's disasters....

like his 15 minutes of shame speech last night.....still blaming bush. what a terd.

July 26, 2011 at 7:11 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

obama is going down in flames and bennett doesn't know how to handle it.

obama is the problem.......the dumb ass has no people skills and no work history. this current debt situation illustrates that. his experience being mentored in a corrupt, democrat political machine in chicago, and his experience as a shakedown artist at acorn, are absolutely worthless in this situation. he's not cool, he's not intelligent and he's completely inarticulate without a teleprompter.......

cry baby.

July 26, 2011 at 7:32 a.m.
moonpie said...

Harp, good point on tax issues.

Dissagree about state v federal. That was the same argument made in Civil Rights era by those who wished to oppress. There was a reason Feds got involved.

On another note: Let's go ahead and give SeaMonkey the Non Sequitor of the day. Doubt anyone can top him.

July 26, 2011 at 7:43 a.m.
potcat said...

The Supreme Court has declared Corporations as people. How about declaring Gay Men and Women the same full Civil Rights as every one else. The state of Tennessee has not yet begun to see segregation as a moral wrong that has to be addressed rather than as a regrettable regional peculiarity.

Its 2011 and my vote in a national Presidental election is not counted, its a state election. If anyone thinks Tennesse or any Southern State will do the right thing and give Gay people the right to marry and end Segregation do not know the people i do.

like the 1960s civil rights era on race, it didn't have the popular majority of votes among the people to right a wrong and give Blacks the same equal rights as the Lily Whites. I live in a state that politicians warn about mongrelization of Gay PEOPLE and anti- miscegenation laws are still in force.

July 26, 2011 at 7:48 a.m.
woody said...

Okay..so I lost 'the pool' on "The Monk's" first post. He didn't mention Obama until the seventh(?) paragraph (in typical Monk typing).

Ahaa..but then he(she/it) more than made up for it in his (hers/its) second post. By the way..how much was in the 'pool' this morning??

Lastly..I am a bit disapointed as to how someone so seemingly "full of it" could actually misspell the word "terd." Monk..Monk..Monk.

Jealousy will get you no where..Woody

July 26, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm not getting this one-segregation is not the problem (maybe I'm not looking as deep as I should?)

I agree with MTJohn. Marriages are civil contracts, and the feds base privileges on marriages. Therfore, same sex marriages recognized by states are still not recognized by the feds, and are therefore not given the same status. The problem seems to be the name. Marriage has become a religious union now, and churches should not be forced to recognize marriages they don't approve of. However, marriages NOT performed by churches are still marriages in the eyes of state and federal government, and marriages performed only in church are not recognized. Since we are not willing to call ALL marriages "civil unions" then we should be using the term "marriage" for all so that there is no distinction.

July 26, 2011 at 7:54 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

A very lame cartoon on a non-issue. You guys have fun worrying about the "oppression" of gays and lesbians.

Oh brother!

I can gaurentee you that if David Wu was a Republican that the dim witted Wart would have done two cartoons on him already.

July 26, 2011 at 8:21 a.m.
OllieH said...

SeaMonkey states, "gays and lesbians want rights above and beyond other citizens."

That is completely insane logic. Right now gays and lesbians DON'T have the same right as other Americans- mainly the right to get married to the person they love, and the right to federal protection from discrimination in the workplace. How could a movement that simply wants the same rights extended to everyone else be characterized as 'special' rights, or as SeaMonkey states it 'rights above and beyond other citizens'?

Federal employment laws currently include protection from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age and disability. Conspicuously absent from that list is sexual orientation. Not because it was just accidentally overlooked, but because every attempt to add gays and lesbians to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been thwarted by yahoos like those depicted in the cartoon above.

Those of you who think that the equal treatment of gays and lesbians is not a civil rights issue need to think again. And the argument that it's somehow out of bounds to compare the segregationists of the 1960's to the anti-gay rights folks of today, sounds like little more than an attempt to rationalize your own bigotry.

Clay got this exactly right. This issue is NO DIFFERENT from the unequal treatment in the Jim Crow South. It might not be as blatant as the signs over separate bathrooms or drinking fountains, but it's no less poisonous. The definition of segregation is "to isolate, separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group" and that's exactly what we have done by denying gays and lesbians the same rights and protections of other Americans.

Another thing that is spot on about this cartoon is that the opposition to complete equality for gays will fold just as surely as the segregationists of the 1960's. Segregation will never last forever, no matter who the intended target.

July 26, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.
potcat said...

The definition of SEGREGATION.. to isolate or separate from a larger group - separated or set apart. The Federal or Supreme Court will eventually make marriage (Civil Unions) a Right for Gay Americans. We are a evolving populace and nothing will change that. The South will always be late to the table or not at all. A Supreme Court ruling is in order, its a Civil Rights issue, not a State issue and America will be better for it.

July 26, 2011 at 8:57 a.m.
fairmon said...

The comparison of gays to the oppression and continuing to some extent today discrimination against minorities is not an apples/apples comparison. Gay is not a race, color, religion, gender or national origin. Race, color, gender or national origin are not choices people had and made.

I would like to see singles form a special interest lobby like AARP to stop that discrimation by governments at all levels.

July 26, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.
fairmon said...

The federal government could persuade all states to lift the ban on gay marriage by offering them a grant. Every state and local government are grant prostitutes that will compromise anything and anybody to get a federal grant.

July 26, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

THIS IS NOT A STATE ISSUE-IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE!!!!” Potcat, as well as MTJohn are right.

The Supreme Court has declared Corporations as people. How about declaring Gay Men and Women the same full Civil Rights as every one else." Whoa… Game point Potcat. That makes WAY to much sense. Therefore it confuses conservatives, which makes them afraid of it.

BigRidgePatriot said, “You guys have fun worrying about the "oppression" of gays and lesbians.” Eh, I don’t think anyone posting here is overly concerned or worried about G or L oppression. I’m not. They just know that it’s equal rights issue. It would be interesting to hear people’s opinion about the recent California decision that public school curriculums must now include historical references to the societal contributions of Gays, Lesbians and transgenders. The latter I still have a hard time wrapping my head around. To copy a phrase – “Oh brother!”

harp3339 states, The “fair tax proposals correct the problem” No it won’t. The fair tax is an extraordinarily regressive tax. Additionaly, “collecting taxes on black market and illegal income.” How on earth will that be accomplished. The exact opposite is true. The Fair Tax sounds simple and fair. It ain’t.

SeaMonkey says, “gays and lesbians want rights above and beyond other citizens have. they may they want equality, but their actions speak otherwise.” Yea, Like what?

July 26, 2011 at 9:17 a.m.
potcat said...

Harp, being a Gay "Human Being" are also not choices they have or made. Do you even know a Gay person?

How insulting to say a Grant would apease the Gay community, the ones who get the Grants are the so-called family values hypos. My Gay friends are the most productive, hardworking Taxpaying people i know, and are so much fun to hang with i can't imagine life without them. What would the Rich people do without the Gays? Creative,Smart and so not BORING..if you know a filthy Rich Republican ask them about "The Gay Help"

July 26, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
MTJohn said...

SeaMonkey said...civil rights? i don't think so....gays and lesbians want rights above and beyond other citizens have. they may they want equality, but their actions speak otherwise.

SeMonkey - please identify one civil right that gays and lesbians want that are beyond rights that other citizens have.

July 26, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
moonpie said...

Harp,

You're right, it's not apples to apples. This is not exactly the same.

If you believe being gay is a choice, like choosing a fashion, then you might come to the conclusions you do.

Proving homosexuality is a native state for some may never happen. Positive proof is difficult. Ambiguity is not a friend to narrow minds. I'm not saying this as a slam.

People of swift action frequently need to see things in terms of black/white, right/wrong.

But all of this is beside the point.... Why deny marriage between two consenting adults. We allow gay people to marry members of the opposite sex. The live a lie. We allow swingers to marry. Child abusers, murderers, rapists and seamonkeys can marry...

Why not two committed homosexuals?

July 26, 2011 at 9:56 a.m.
yaffay said...

Love the irony of the cartoon, Clay. Those of you who believe being gay is a choice need to review the research on genetics and homosexuality. Researchers have documented physioligical differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, I know science doesn't seem to influence ignorance and prejudice.

July 26, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

oh, yes, potcat....gays are saints..the most valuable people we have in america, other than those illegal aliens, who built this country.....yes, all we need are homosexuals and illegal aliens to make this country work....idiot.

yeah, mtjohn and ollie...sing it........they're really oppressed.

as long as you call it a civil rights issue you'll get no sympathy.

but, i'm not going to play clay's distraction game.....

that's right woody.....obama.....that onion headed goon who is now out of his mind with rage because boehner and congress are wiping the floor with his scrawny ass........

it's all obama all the time........it's all about him.

and what do we get from him last night? same old crap about bush and more of him pointing his nicotine stained fingers at us.

obama laments that he can't do whatever he wants on his own in front of that racist organization, la raza........

impeach the man and put him out of his misery........yank him off of the stage with a long cane.

i read bernie sanders, the socialist senator from vermont, may challenge obama.......go for it!

i also just read that democrat jerry brown, that moron and pot-head governor of california, will sign something giving illegal aliens financial aid.

i think we're witnessing the imploding of the democrat party..or should i call it the democrap party.

so much out there.........get on the ball, bennett........

July 26, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Hilarious Clay. I enjoy that same sex marriage opponents who rail against "activist" judges who rule in favor of same sex marriage immediately go to the courts when a duly elected legislature votes to allow same sex marriage. So we can't trust the judges unless the legislature does something we don't like, then we need an activist judge. It is silly.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/07/could-the-anti-marriage-equality-people-please-make-up-their-minds/

This all comes down to discrimination, and contrary to what some people think, morals or tradition are not valid legal reasons for discrimination.

Leave these gay folks alone, what they do does not affect you. If two men or women want to get married, let them. It is no one's business but their own. Same sex marriage opponents should do something more positive and useful with their time. Think what we could achieve if all the money and time that gets wasted on this issue was used for something important like fighting homelessness or after school tutoring for kids.

Mind your own business folks.

July 26, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

oh, yeah, woody.....that misspelling will mean the end of me...oh, boy...what to do, what to do.

i'll guess i'll have to never post on here again out of humilation.

July 26, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
kinch7 said...

Of course, Bennett's point is those who are against gay folks getting married are on the same side of history as those who were against citizens of all color having lunch together in the same restaurant. It's good to see a Southern boy like myself standing up for equal protection under the law.

I was in Dairy Queen the other day. On their walls were photographs of the first DQ in Illinois. The photos were from 1946. Commingling in front of the restaurant were black and white folks. I wager a photograph from a restaurant in a Southern state would have shown a different picture.

What side of history do I want to be on? I have always regretted I had been too young to march with Dr. King or if I had not I have wondered if I would have followed George Wallace like my parents and neighbors did. After living and reading history, I know what side I stand for and that is the side that states a person is not judged by the color of their skin or what they do with their genitals in private.

Did you know not so long ago, cunnilingus or armed robbery in Georgia got you twenty years in the slammer? How would you like it if our politicians believed all oral sex was unnatural and your rights to marry were taken away because you liked to pleasure your wife in that way?

Don't say they are not the same thing because when your rights are taken away, they certainly are the same.

July 26, 2011 at 10:56 a.m.
woody said...

SeaMonkey said...

oh, yeah, woody.....that misspelling will mean the end of me...oh, boy...what to do, what to do.

i'll guess i'll have to never post on here again out of humilation


I don't suppose I could get that in writing..could I?? Probably not..Face it..even feeling "humiliated" you couldn't spell it.

However..and everyone take note here..I am merely poking fun at your spelling this morning..Heaven knows that wouldn't even scratch the surface of what's essentially wrong you..but I digress..Woody


July 26, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.
MTJohn said...

SeaMonkey - I noticed that, rather than providing an example to demonstrate your claim that gays are demanding rights that are not available to other citizens, you chose to call a long list of people names.

L4F - yes, the federal government has programs intended to reduce obesity. But, there are no federal policies to deny rights to individual citizens because they happen to be obese.

July 26, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, a mispelled [sic] word just distroys [sic] its meaning, doesn't it? People just cain't [sic] unnerstan [sic] words an [sic] whut [sic] they mean lessen [sic] they ur [sic] spelled correctly, rat [sic]? That's "rat" as in Southern-talk's "rat naow".

Get off the horse's ass misspelling kick and do a little comprehension work. Did you understand SeaMonkey or not? If not, tell him which part you failed to comprehend instead of criticizing him.

Good Grief!

July 26, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.

Where are the cartoons opposing the increasing 1.4 trillion debt? The third endless war? The continued rising unemployment? The loss of $1.3 billion tax payer bailout of Chrylser? The increasing exemptions to Obamacare? The Justice Department Gunwalker Scandal?

Where Clay?

July 26, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
mtngrl said...

I didn't understand seamonkey's post at all, and it has nothing to do with misspellings. I like others here would like to know what he means when he stated "gays and lesbians want rights above and beyond other citizens have" which he has failed to answer in any way...

He has also made the following comment which makes no sense:

"what the "gay rights" movement wants, and many liberals, is for someone like me to see two bearded men smooching on a park bench and view it the same way as i would if it's a man and a woman..........sorry, ain't going to happen. just not the same. it's something else, and it always will be. if that's segragation, the perception of it, then so be it. you can't force abnormal to be veiwed as normal.."

No one actually cares what your view of normal is. No law or civil right can have any affect on your ignorant opinions. Just like current marriage laws cannot make anyone look at you and your spouse and not think "EWWW, gross!!".

July 26, 2011 at 11:40 a.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu, you made a lot of sense with your post re: let the seculars marry them. I would add, "Provided they do as used to be done for all marriages and require STD specific blood tests all around."

Only problem is...adoption. Allow adoption of girls only for man-man, boys only for woman-woman. Even then it is an iffy kind of thing. Spending one's pre-/post-puberty years targeted by the SoCal queers [unsuccessfully, I might add] makes one quite leery of their ways...but it does improve one's running speed and endurance.

July 26, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.
potcat said...

Sea Donk, lets get one thing straight, they are no Saints, Gay or Straight, Gay Men and Women are Valuable menbers of society. Gays are Generals in our Military and work in every segment of our work force and pay taxes and contribute to American culture. Definition of Idiot..one who is foolish or stupid; formerly,a classifcation for mental retardation, now considered offensive in that context.. I'm a lot of things,but i strive to be a better human every day. I am not a idiot, niether are you, you just are not a open minded person who can be kind to a person thats not like yourself and you can't recognize it, thats a huge personal flaw. Your mental and spirtual limitations are rotten to the core.

July 26, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.
moonpie said...

nucanuck, Good points. However, I don't think a civil rights issue is never beneath discussion.

SeaMonkey, I'm curious, too, to know which rights gays are seeking above the rights that you and I have. I don't care about your spelling either. Or punctuation. Rolando makes a good point. You are easy to understand... just difficult to comprehend sometimes. Mainly because your world view is so different than mine.

L4F, You correctly point out that all people are hypocrites. Not exactly a news flash, and not a great way to defend a bad position, in my estimation.

Also, did you know that the highest rate of smoking is in socialist or other oppressive countries? Go figure. China, Russia. Go figure. How can this be? The "liberal war" on smoking was waged on companies which lied about and deceived people for years about the health risks of tobacco. The companies fought the truth. Of course there are going to be people who oppose the lies and try to uncover the truth. (You think those are liberals? I guess they should be complemented.) In truth, I don't think it's just liberals. Lots of non-politician conservatives favor smoking bans and restrictions.

I encourage you to seek truth with the same vigor you claim to seek freedom. Freedom without truth is frequently a danger to itself and others.

July 26, 2011 at 12:15 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, mtngrl, if you need it drawn for you, here it is for the umpteenth time on this forum. Forgive me if I seem pedantic but this is old stuff:

All citizens of the United States, bar none, are constitutionally guaranteed certain divine or "natural" rights, if you prefer.

Under current law, marriage is not one of those rights; no man or woman has a right to marry. That ensures everyone is equal under the law.

Therefore, any demand homosexuals/lesbians make for their "right" to marry is a demand for a special right, above those of everyone else, because they already have the same rights everyone else has.

Besides, if it was a constitutionally recognizable natural or divine right, only a man and a woman could marry [consenting, of course] since that is how the Divinity defined it early on...which would complicate things because that means one man-six women or one woman-six men families.

Constitutional rights cannot be limited except by due process for cause.

July 26, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
rolando said...

You make good points as always, moonpie.

Re: smoking, truth, and falsehood. These always raised questions with me since I smoked heavily when the entire No Smoking issue began decades ago.

Many studies were done but a few weren't done...yet the stats/info were there, the correlations just weren't done.

For instance, the incidence rate for non-smokers in Los Angeles was higher than for heavy smokers in Denver [a pretty much smog-free city at that time]. Didn't fit the results wanted so was pretty much buried. I don't even know if the data are available today..they weren't that easy to find even then.

Second, no explanation given for the dedication of scarce arable land to the raising of tobacco in an otherwise subsistence-farming-only society. Africa, for instance, where people starve for lack of food while they grow small plots of tobacco for their own use.

So why does that happen? People dedicate time/money for tobacco over food/clothing/etc. Why? What is it about [or in] tobacco?

July 26, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...Under current law, marriage is not one of those rights; no man or woman has a right to marry. That ensures everyone is equal under the law.

If it is not a right, what is the Constitutional basis for allowing the privilege of marriage for some, while denying the same privilege for others?

July 26, 2011 at 12:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Only problem is...adoption. Allow adoption of girls only for man-man, boys only for woman-woman. Even then it is an iffy kind of thing

I disagree. If you designate who can adopt, then the rules must apply to everyone the same way. There are creepy straight people who should never adopt children because the kids would be at risk for abuse. Most gays are like most straights: they will provide a healthy environment for children.

July 26, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
limric said...

lkeithlu,

I consider myself a pretty liberal open minded guy, but same sex adoption raises red flags and rings my klaxon. It's the emotional perception that may be unwarranted, but still it overrides the intellect.

It is not a subject I like discussing with friends because I can't use logic or critical thinking for excuses or reasons I don't like it.

I'd be willing to bet there are more people than not that feel the same way. It may not be defensible. It is what it is. How they relate it is where the acrimony sets in.

PS You cannot use the race argument. They are wholly different. So there :-)

July 26, 2011 at 1:56 p.m.
tderng said...

Funny how clay only shows white people as against gay marriage.Muslims are against it,most African-Americans that I know abhor gays.Wonder why he only depicts white people as being against gay marriage?Perhaps he is afraid to show how other Americans feel about it.Could it be that he is afraid of being called a racist if he includes minorities?

July 26, 2011 at 2:03 p.m.
limric said...

BigRidgePatriot,

Not to change the subject or anything but.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-guns-mexico-idUSTRE76P33T20110726

SHEEAAATT!!

July 26, 2011 at 2:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I understand, limric, but someone's emotional discomfort is not enough reason to deny basic rights to someone else. There is no secular reason for not treating gays the same as everyone else. That includes holding them accountable to laws pertaining to the protection of minors. But to deny them adoption just because someone's Ewww factor? That's entirely unAmerican and unConstitutional.

In the history of the justice system in the US, the overwhelming majority of cases of crimes against children are committed by straight men. If you wanted to base laws on mere statistics, straight men would be discriminated against, for their record of child abuse, spouse abuse, etc. Am I advocating doing so? Of course not. Most straight men I know would not hurt anyone. But the same is true for most gays I know.

July 26, 2011 at 2:14 p.m.
moonpie said...

tderng, Good point. 30% of Black voters and nearly 50% of Hispanics opposed Proposition 8.

limric, Honest, well-articulated and humane response. I also learned a new word: klaxon. (But I agree with lkeithlu on this.)

lkeithlu, Have you ever considered a name change? Yours is really hard on me. Sorry to be so solipsistic.

July 26, 2011 at 2:37 p.m.

It's funny how progressives scream "democracy" at the tops of their lungs when trying to push their agenda and then rely upon activist judges to overrule that democratic process when it doesn't go their way. How did that democracy work for you in california? Not so good? Progressives have given up on convincing the majority that they have the right of it because they know they never will, so they are busy trying to create their own majority. (queue illegal aliens) They are now trying to bring in as many illegals as possible and pandering to them so that their illegal votes will offset the losses they always take in the polls. Surprised? I doubt it.

If progressives keep pushing the good, conservative people of the USA, who are the majority, the "revolution" they think they want will hit them like a ton of bricks. Read the book Starship Troopers (the movie sucked) for insight on how the future will turn out when all of this limp wristed pandering is done. I'm not talking about the alien invasion part. I am talking about the organization of the human society as depicted in that text. A true nightmare for progressives everywhere.

Progressives, your organization's days are numbered if you keep pushing true Americans. You are Americans in nationality only. There isn't a shred of true Americanism in your bodies or minds and you show that every day. You and I both know the Tea Party is a representation of the majority. No amount of media denial is going to change that. If you can't love this country, get out. France would love to have you. Quit trying to change this wonderful country into a socialist craphole. The majority will rise up and you will be sent back to your holes screaming to plot and plan for another attempt to destroy freedom and justice. Good luck with that. The problem with being in the minority is always the same. The majority always rises up when it realizes it has the true power.

July 26, 2011 at 3:05 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

lkeith, I think all redneck men that wear those "wife beater" t-shirts (or tank tops for those not knowing what I am talking about)should be discriminated against. =) J/K of course.

July 26, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.

Nooga, Prove me wrong.

P.S. Why so angry?

July 26, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.
rolando said...

No matter how logical you get in your arguments, lkeithlu, the US is still a moral nation, although that is quickly fading. In our society so far, homosexuality is immoral or at best, amoral. That is simply how it is...but that too is quickly fading. It is no longer "What's in the bedroom is no ones business" but "We will do what we want, when we want, where we want and to Hell with your moral convictions."

We have gone from "If it feels good, do it" of the 60s to "If you want it, steal it" of today.

My comment was not something pulled out of thin air, but from literally thousands of background case reviews. Homosexuals and, to a lesser degree, for the most part live shorter, less happy lives [even in SanFran], are more stressed, more emotional, more apt to lose control, and much more promiscuous although that is changing too.

That is to say nothing of having a much higher incidence of pedophilia per percent of population than heteros. They also commit 100% of the pederasty in our society by definition [not including the few bisexual pedophiles].

All reasons to be careful of who gets what children [including hetero- couples. Why beg for trouble.

July 26, 2011 at 3:55 p.m.
rolando said...

Actually, limric, race does come into the adoption picture.

A couple years ago, the racist policies of an governmental adoption agency in Nashville [I think] were exposed. It seems the people who set adoption policy were denying otherwise fully qualified couples from adopting a child. Because the parents to be were of a different race than the children. The couples were white; the children were black. Only blacks were allowed to adopt black children -- or white children, of course.

For all I know, it is still going on.

July 26, 2011 at 4 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

My comment was not something pulled out of thin air, but from literally thousands of background case reviews. Homosexuals and, to a lesser degree, for the most part live shorter, less happy lives [even in SanFran], are more stressed, more emotional, more apt to lose control, and much more promiscuous although that is changing too

When you are persecuted, forced to live in the closet or live a lie, made to choose between your real self and your family and community,(all for nothing-being gay is absolutely harmless to the rest of society) your stress level tends to be high.

That is to say nothing of having a much higher incidence of pedophilia per percent of population than heteros. They also commit 100% of the pederasty in our society by definition [not including the few bisexual pedophiles].

Love to know where you got this. Bet it was from a source with fundamentalist religious bias. It is so very incorrect.

July 26, 2011 at 4:11 p.m.
fairmon said...

Why is a state license required to be considered married for other than financial reasons? Remove all the government discrimination against singles and there is no incentive or reason for straight or gay to want to acquire a state marriage license. In fact it would take a complete idiot to enter into a typical state marriage contract. The same level of commitment and support of each other can exist without a state marriage license. There could be a standard legal contract with registration for records purposes only as an option. I would bet most would not be so "in love" if not for the perks and benefits afforded married with greater cost shifted to singles.

July 26, 2011 at 5:01 p.m.
woody said...

rolando said...

Yeah, a mispelled [sic] word just distroys [sic] its meaning, doesn't it? People just cain't [sic] unnerstan [sic] words an [sic] whut [sic] they mean lessen [sic] they ur [sic] spelled correctly, rat [sic]? That's "rat" as in Southern-talk's "rat naow".

Get off the horse's ass misspelling kick and do a little comprehension work. Did you understand SeaMonkey or not? If not, tell him which part you failed to comprehend instead of criticizing him.

Good Grief!


You know Ro..I can remember a time when we (as in you and I and others here) used to have meaningful, if not somewhat diverse, conversations around here, and yet, since the emergence of this maniacal, vile spewing spunk of a "Monk" it appears as though you spend much of your time either taking his part or complaining that the rest of us pick on him too much.

Now, if you would really like to have a meaningful conversation on today's subject or any other, for that matter..then feel free to do so unless watching "The Monk's" back is more important..which in my humble opinion..is a wasted effort.

Your choice..but your 'considered opinion' has been missed of late..Woody

July 26, 2011 at 5:02 p.m.
potcat said...

Rolando, you no doubt get your misinformation from some obscure bigoted forum that has nothing to do with reality and is not only pulled out of thin air,but is a damn lie pulled out of your up tight a$$

The U.S. is still a MORAL nation, Really, I am assuming you are Christian, why does God make a person with a Vagina and a Penis?

Rolando said.. homosexuals comment 100% of the pederasty and have a much higher rate of Pedophilia, sorry, but that statistic belongs to straight males, any one that reads books by Doctors that study sex offenders in prison or better yet watch the Documentary about Pedophiles and Serial killers of Women and Children, it is straight white men and a ocassional other ethic group.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with perversion, that ole lie just don't fly any more.

Purplesheep, Conservatives (in name only) are not the Majority, what damn planet are you living on, and how old are you PEA Brains. The Majority will win the right for Gay rights and you two will be in the closet hiding your ignorant bigoted hateful souls.

Oh,i was going to say something about the Church, but i really don't have to, do i, full of Pedophiles.... not Gays,but white male Pedophiles, they like young ones.

Moral Nation, we lost that when we killed 100,000 Iraqs, over a LIE, i can go on and on and on, Moral, i don't think so!!!

Starship Troopers...Jesus,that was a good one, LOON!!!

July 26, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
Clara said...

As I remember from my 86 year old vantage point, you can't ring a Klaxon...It's a horn installed on cars in the early 1900s if not earlier. I don't know when it went away.

I find the posts on today's cartoon have mostly vented what I'd like to say, so I will only add...I don't give a d..n durn, except for the pedophiles and abusers of wives, husbands, and children!

And, by the way, I was reared very conservatively, and even the sight of male or female of any race, color or creed makes me curious. That doesn't include kissing "hello" or "goodby"

I remember eating in a restaurant and seeing two teenagers going far beyond a kiss and engaging in manipulative behaviour. WAAAAAY out of line!!!!!

July 26, 2011 at 6:08 p.m.
MTJohn said...

rolando said...No matter how logical you get in your arguments, lkeithlu, the US is still a moral nation, although that is quickly fading.

There never has been anything moral about the avarice that drives our notion of free-markets.

July 26, 2011 at 7:22 p.m.
tderng said...

so MTJohn...success=immoral?

July 26, 2011 at 7:26 p.m.
limric said...

lkeithlu,

Your logic as always is impeccable – almost. I of course agree that there is no secular (?) reason for not treating gays the same as everyone else. And yes, this includes holding them (them?) accountable to all laws. The Ewww factor being entirely un - American and unconstitutional? Umm this may be, but the Ewww factor is in fact human nature, and part of the animal instinctual passion of the primitive Brain. It is not logical (Spock said) but it is undeniable.

The comparative case of men’s record of child abuse, spouse abuse, etc. visa vi- “Most straight men I know would not hurt anyone. But the same is true for most gays I know.” While this may be true is not statistically valid. You are attempting to use recent statistics in a historical context.

If the truth be known, “In the history of the justice system of planet Earth, the overwhelming majority of cases of crimes committed by straight men”… is because of you chicks. SO – all crimes are essentially YOUR FAULT !

And statistics can prove this out...can't they?

July 26, 2011 at 8:30 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando said... Spending one's pre-/post-puberty years targeted by the SoCal queers [unsuccessfully, I might add] makes one quite leery of their ways...but it does improve one's running speed and endurance.

So those crazy zombie homos literally chased you through the streets trying to have sex with you, huh? You were "targeted", were you? Thank God (who made the queers) they were unsuccessful, and you're a back door virgin! Or maybe I misunderstood. Perhaps they were vaulting through the air aiming their genitals at your cakehole. As hard as they tried, those promiscuous purveyors of pedophilia never scored their life goal of landing that "attractive in a gay way" young rolando.

July 26, 2011 at 8:32 p.m.
dude_abides said...

L f**king OL

July 26, 2011 at 8:35 p.m.

"Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive … The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

"Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

"Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

"Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life ..."

(“Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts” by Robert P. George (Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2009)

July 26, 2011 at 9:27 p.m.

“If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

“A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.”

“Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts” by Robert P. George (Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2009)

July 26, 2011 at 9:28 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Looks like Democrat Governor Orval Faubus (caption is correct too)

July 26, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Still waiting for evidence that allowing gay marriage threatens straight marriage (which right now suffers from a 50% failure rate) and a secular reason for denying gays the opportunity to marry.

July 26, 2011 at 9:54 p.m.

lkeithlu said...

"Still waiting for evidence that allowing gay marriage threatens straight marriage (which right now suffers from a 50% failure rate) and a secular reason for denying gays the opportunity to marry."

It doesn't threaten the existence of it but the full value and benefits of it. The 50% failure rate (in America) isn't intrinsic to traditional marriage. It has developed over a period of several decades as a result of the sexual revolution, of which gay marriage is also an heir. Once marriage (or dating) becomes conditioned on sustained feelings of personal satisfaction, the exit door swings frequently. No-fault divorce also figures prominently in the decline of committed relationships and the nuclear family. Children suffer most.

July 26, 2011 at 10:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry. Not buying your explanation. Allowing gays to marry does NOTHING to diminish marriage. Maybe they can show the rest of us how it's done? People get married too young, or for the wrong reasons all the time. The divorce rate is higher because people have an out-in past generations they endured, living a loveless, joyless, existence because they could not get out.

I have been married almost 30 years. It's hard work, but we made it last. I don't feel at all threatened by anyone else's marriage or divorce for that matter. I also don't feel that gay marriage cheapens mine.

I notice that you offered no secular argument against gay marriage.

July 26, 2011 at 10:29 p.m.
fairmon said...

apparently no one has justification for the discriminatory financial favoing of marriage. Why do the tax tables have so many categories with marriage having a lower rate. Why do health care providers, including medicare, have rates favoring marriage? Why was social security lieralized to favor marriage? singles solidarity will be another special interest group seeking fairness. They may have a strong civil rights issue to champion.

July 26, 2011 at 11:38 p.m.

Congratulations on your own marriage, lkeithlu. It is indeed a lot of work, and I have great respect for people who persevere. Of course, no one claims that gay marriage threatens every single marriage, but the net effects are unmistakable.

One part of the secular argument against gay marriage is that, as Dr. George discusses in the article above, gay marriages are unable to be consummated by acts that are generative in kind. This is an essential part of the traditional, secular, legal definition of marriage in our culture. It is not only that, but it is at least that. Other adult acts of sexual intimacy are of little or no value to younger or future generations or to society as a whole.

I would be interested to see evidence that 50% of marriages, before no-fault divorce laws, could be characterized as “living a loveless, joyless, existence because they could not get out” or that the new laws solved the problem. No doubt, some marriages did (and do) operate in that framework, but 50% seems a bit high. The experience is certainly not confined to traditional marriages. It is often the plight of divorcees, as well as life-long singles. “Open relationships” fare no better. Based on the couples I know who live in open relationships, they fare a lot worse, in terms of expressing personal satisfaction, love, and joy. (It is noteworthy that far more gays – married or not married – claim to be involved in such relationships.)

Studies do show that people in long-term or life-long marriages express a higher level of satisfaction with their lives than others. I don’t think that this is a new phenomenon or that it is caused by having greater freedom to leave at will. Long-term, sacrificial marital commitments strengthen (and are strengthened by) our character. They are rarely (if ever) based on constant feelings of bliss, but the joy and love produced by those commitments is far more valuable than is pegging everything on a demand for continual romance, as is now the norm.

I doubt if this post alone could convince you. This isn’t the full argument, and it isn’t stated as well as I would like, but it is late. I will be back. Thanks for the challenge.

July 26, 2011 at 11:41 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng said...

so MTJohn...success=immoral?

I said that avarice drives free markets and avarice is immoral. Success of failure is irrelevant to the question of morality.

July 27, 2011 at 6:22 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Avarice drives tax hikes "and avarice is immoral."

If gay were genetic, so would antigay be. (If gay were genetic, it would make itself extinct.) Since I changed from single to monogamous, and make choices (some hard) in my lifestyle, so can others make changes and hard choices. It's one thing to send the police against gay behavior (the police mostly have better things to do)' it's another thing to send the police after people who draw a line against gay behavior right next to them.

Civil unions for some purposes (property) are OK, but since gay behavior is immoral according to Biblical, historical, traditional, and consensual (general) Christianity, as a contract for sex it's a breakable contract.

July 27, 2011 at 6:35 a.m.
limric said...

lkeithlu,

If the following statements were aimed at me --- July 26, 2011 at 9:54 p.m.” Still waiting for evidence that allowing gay marriage threatens straight marriage (which right now suffers from a 50% failure rate) and a secular reason for denying gays the opportunity to marry. July 26, 2011 at 10:29 p.m. : Sorry. Not buying your explanation. I notice that you offered no secular argument against gay marriage.”

--- you’ll notice (read my posts) that I never mentioned or intimated anything relating gay marriage as a threat to straight marriage. At all!

The crux of my opinion was gay adoption, the “eww factor” being human nature as reason for adoptive questioning. While this of course lacks validity for denial, it is what it is and shouldn’t be discounted.

I was not proffering pro or con. I was merely offering possible explanations and illumination of humans as we are.

Speaking of marriage, you have me beat by three years.

July 27, 2011 at 8:23 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Congrats, limric!

I guess what I am trying to impart is the observation that gays lag in longevity and stress avoidance, and lead in risky behavior is due to the long history of being forced to live in secret. It is also aggravated by a society that condemns them unnecessarily for something that comes naturally to them. If gays are allowed to live in recognized monogamous relationships like the rest of us, we will see that most are no different than straights. There are straight people living high stress, high risk lifestyles with drugs, multiple partners or infidelity, drug abuse, etc. There will also be gays that do the same thing. That's life.

This is really a non-issue; in the end it will be shown that gays deserve equal protection under law, and will be (eventually) allowed to marry just like the rest of us and receive full benefits. As for the minority that engage in outlandish behavior (parades, etc) most folks will find it no more shocking than the "girls gone wild" behavior seen during spring break at the beach. Inappropriate? Yes. Want your kids shielded from it? Yes. Illegal? Possibly, under some local ordinances.

There are no real arguments, based on the best up-to-date science and facts, to deny gays marriage and adoption. Scrutinize adoptive families if you will, but scrutinize them all. Straight couples aren't all good potential adoptive parents either.

July 27, 2011 at 9:26 a.m.

Gay marriage is a slippery slope. What was it that mormons were so hated for? Plural marriage? Why? If 1 man 1 woman is breached, why not plural marriage? It will happen. The exact same arguments used by homosexuals in their court cases can be used for plural marriage.

Nooga, Prop8. That was a majority vote. Don't you think that if the "majority" you are talking about actually existed, gay marriage would already be an accepted norm? Look beyond all that anger, spend a little less time making up pet names for people and use that mass of fat in between your ears. BTW, have you read the book? Is the book you wrote better?

PotCat, what does the "pot" part of your name represent? If it is herbal, that explains your thought process. Man....

July 27, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Gay marriage is a slippery slope. What was it that mormons were so hated for? Plural marriage? Why? If 1 man 1 woman is breached, why not plural marriage? It will happen. The exact same arguments used by homosexuals in their court cases can be used for plural marriage.

I agree. Plural marriage should be allowed. Not my cup of tea, but hey-different strokes. Just not with children.(ie child brides) I find plural marriage demeaning to women, but in my mind so is "girls gone wild".

July 27, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.

lkeithlu said...

"There are no real arguments, based on the best up-to-date science and facts, to deny gays marriage and adoption."

Of course there are. They are published in a number of scholarly law reviews and public policy journals. Just because you refuse to read them doesn't mean they don't exist. For example,

“What is Marriage?” authors Sherif Girgis (Princeton University), Robert George (Princeton University), Ryan T. Anderson (University of Notre Dame) Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010

Your criteria for “real arguments” is apparently arguments that agree with your own preconceptions and preferences. For all your professed allegiance to fact-based evidence, yet you haven't offered anything other than predictions, truisms, and personal opinions.

July 27, 2011 at 10:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

“What is Marriage?” authors Sherif Girgis (Princeton University), Robert George (Princeton University), Ryan T. Anderson (University of Notre Dame) Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010

Have you read the whole paper? (gotta have a subscription to the journal) or just apologetics' take on it? The abstract mentions only philosophical arguments.

Edited: found a pdf copy-back soon...

July 28, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

This appears at first glance to be a metaphysical argument that used some misconceptions. Referenced sources are mostly either philosophy or religious (Catholic). Will read throughout the day and return. Has only been cited once since publication.

July 28, 2011 at 12:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

hmmmm....they challenge the notion that sexual orientation is innate. Most sources cited that are not religious appear to be from popular press (washington post, etc) and blogs. The only primary sources used are philosophy and a couple of items from the Witherspoon Institute. I haven't found any science yet...

July 28, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.

Good scientists are aware of what science can do and what it can't do. You are not likely to find much science to support either side (unless you count junk science like Kinsey's "research" and studies that build off of it), since marriage is primarily a cultural institution (recognized by law). The legal definition of marriage was not the result of scientific experimentation or proofs. It grew out of cultural traditions, moral reasoning, and religious values. You shouldn't be surprised to find historical, religious, and philosophical arguments in papers on legal issues. I understand by now that you have severe allergies related to those topics, but you should realize that this will limit your ability to understand how they shape cultural institutions like marriage, as well as legal theory and decisions related to them.

I am still waiting for evidence that no-fault divorce laws or high divorce rates have resulted in stronger marital or non-marital relationships.

July 28, 2011 at 3:55 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"I am still waiting for evidence that no-fault divorce laws or high divorce rates have resulted in stronger marital or non-marital relationships"

From who?

I am still waiting for a non-religious argument based on evidence to suggest that (civil) gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. That marriage is a cultural institution is no surprise. So are arranged marriages, subservience of women to men, women as primary care givers, marriage confined to people within races, religions, or cultures. That does not mean that things don't change as we understand human society better.

For every argument that there are gays that cannot be effective parents, there is evidence of straights that are lousy parents. For every argument that gays will not be faithful, there is evidence that large percentages of straight men and increasingly women that cheat on their spouses. For every argument that children raised in two-(opposite sex) parent households do best, we see healthy children raised by single parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, older siblings and likewise two parent households that are unhealthy, even dangerous.

I am not buying this argument, because when you dig down to the origin, you find either fundamentalist religion, latent or repressed homosexuality, or simply people that don't like it. Non of these are reasons to deny a segment of the population full rights. And suggesting that approving of gay relationships leads to sex with animals or children is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

July 28, 2011 at 6:03 p.m.

Another non sequitur and you qualify for frequent flusual ier miles. You’ve erected the usual straw men. You’ve memorized the talking points quite well. And, as icing on the cake, you slap the label of religious fundamentalism or repressed homosexuality on those who oppose the imposition of your moral values on society, law, and politics.

Your claim that skyrocketing divorce rates are largely the result of laws liberating spouses from loveless, joyless marital existence, with the implication that the net effect has been positive, is unsupportable. Arguments that heterosexuals are not perfect and that homosexuals are not evil, while true, doesn’t really address any of the legal and philosophical arguments against gay marriage. You can’t seem to muster an argument about the nature of marriage and its effects on society. I'm uncertain how much you've thought about it beyond the talking points and their requisite straw men.

The traditional western understanding of marriage as being between one woman and one man has produced numerous, irreplaceable goods for participants, for their children, and for society. And yes, those goods are dissipating as the institution continues to be recast so that absolutely no one feels left out or redefined in such a way that its procreative function is diminished. Of course, it is possible for single parents to raise healthy children, but by and large, children from traditional two-parent homes fare better in their future relationships and responsibilities as adults. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

Your ad hominem arguments are unconvincing. I’ll leave you to your debates with Clay’s quintessential straw man, Sea Monkey.

July 28, 2011 at 9:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and have no evidence to support your claims.

The traditional western understanding of marriage as being between one woman and one man has produced numerous, irreplaceable goods for participants, for their children, and for society. And yes, those goods are dissipating as the institution continues to be recast so that absolutely no one feels left out or redefined in such a way that its procreative function is diminished

The nuclear family and the pressures upon it are not new or recent, and have been there before gay marriage was even discussed. Preventing gay marriage does not address the problems because the problems are not caused by gays. That is purely a distraction put out there by those with an agenda to deny gays full rights for religious reasons. If marriage indeed has positive value for a society beyond procreation, then expand it to those that are currently left out. If marriage is primarily for procreation, then you haven't addressed the existence of couples that cannot have children or choose not to.

It doesn't matter whether you are convinced or not. Gay marriage is inevitable because gays will receive equal protection under law. You'll just have to live with it. But you and others that try to imply that gay marriage can be blamed for the problems in families today, you'll find that you have no evidence to back it.

This country was never as depicted on 1950's television. The problems of abuse, infidelity, child neglect, alcoholism, poverty have been there all along. Only when we bring them out in the open and look for the real causes will they be addressed. Thinking that denying gays the right to marry somehow preserves an institution already in trouble is useless.

July 28, 2011 at 9:58 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.