Is Gay Marriage Actually Different than Polygamy?


The obvious question about transforming marriage to mean two men, is why draw the line at two? If we’re going to deconstruct the definition of marriage from a union between a biological couple to a union between anyone, why stop at two?

Ted Olson’s Supreme Court argument in this regard is supremely unconvincing.

“Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said. “And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.

“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.

Patriarchy issues? Really.

Is Ted Olson seriously claiming that polygamy can be banned by states because of the patriarchy? Child custody is downright silly. If child custody cases can be worked out between two men or two women in a system that generally favors women, they can be worked out between a polygamous family, since unlike the gay setup, there is an actual biological father and biological mother, making custody relatively easier to decide on.

Abuses is even sillier. If we’re going with the premise that anything consenting adults do is legal, why is homosexuality a civil rights issue while polygamy is a crime?

Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status. This is obviously a myth. Both are conduct. No one has to marry. They choose to marry. Even for those who wrongly claim that homosexuality is genetic, that extends to sexual acts, not to marriage.

If the premise of the so-called marriage equality push is that non-traditional forms of marriage are a civil rights issue, then why make the distinction?

Arguing that homosexual marriage is a fundamental rights but polygamous marriage isn’t has nothing to do with biology. They are both forms of conduct.

If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families.

The real issue here is that it is being asserted that one form of non-traditional family is legitimate and the other isn’t based on some mixture of social values and personal taste. And the entire gay rights movement is nothing if not a rejection of social values and taste.

Olson is forced to make ridiculously convoluted arguments to defend the contradiction. And those same arguments apply to homosexuality. Fears of abuse? Custody issues? Social disapproval? All of those are on the table.

Either we adhere to a rational fixed notion of marriage or we reject the notion altogether. There is no rational reason for some random middle ground based on the money and influence of a small group trying to legalize its own sexual fetish for its own purposes.

We can either have defined marriage or completely undefined marriage. What gay rights activists cannot do is demand an expansion that only covers their special case.

  • beez

    What is it with Olsen? I mean, Ted Olson? Mister Conservative? Has he lost his mind or his faith? Or both? Or is Olsen just in this for the money? Frankly I can't even get my mind around this. Has he offered any explanation for this betrayal?

    • Mary Sue

      Ted Olsen is a lawyer. He was hired by the party that was challenging Proposition 8. He must represent their interests without prejudice. So of course he's going to do his best to make the best argument in his clients' favor, and hope and pray to God the justices can see through the bullcrap.

      • EarlyBird

        Stupid, Olsen is not hard up for work. He's working on behalf of Prop 8 because he deeply believes in marriage equality.

        • Mary Sue

          you don't know that.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Stupid…"

          You have no right to talk down or disrespect anyone here you raving lunatic.

    • EarlyBird

      He's true to facts and decency. Maybe that's what's happened to Mister Conservative, Olsen. There was a time when actually leaning towards liberty and common sense was the mark of a conservative, Beez.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "He's true to facts and decency. Maybe that's what's happened to Mister Conservative, Olsen. There was a time when actually leaning towards liberty and common sense was the mark of a conservative, Beez."

        Mere rhetoric from the mindless Kool-Aid drinking bird brain.

  • judahlevi

    I agree that if one man and one woman is not sacred, then the number two is not sacred either. If marriage is redefined based on the "right" of two people of the same gender to be married because they love one another, then the same right exists for three people who love each other. If marriage, as they define it, is a natural right, then any number of individuals may exercise their rights by becoming married.

    Since the government has shown they cannot responsibly handle an institution such as marriage and will always succumb to political pressure, then they should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil Unions for any gender and any number by the government. Marriage reserved for the religious institutions which may choose how to sanction them.

    • SlipperySlopeFallacy

      I would submit that if two people of mixed race can marry, than what is to stop a person from marrying his dog? It is a sad fact that people who opposed mixed marriages 50 years ago said EXACTLY that polygamy and bestiality would follow. A very dark chapter of history is repeating itself, and the identical flaws in your argument are clear to everyone. Miscegenation laws ended when segregation lost favor, SSM is gaining support because homosexuality taboos are ending. If polygamy ever is recognized, it will be because polygamy taboos end. As other posters have pointed out, there are many distinct reasons why polygamy hasn't gained any support (even though it actually was very common in the past).

      • Daniel Greenfield

        So once people marrying dogs taboos end, we can look forward to that as well.

      • judahlevi

        Your comparison of a true civil rights issue with a false one is apples to oranges. There is no civil right for two men or two women to get married. Frankly, your historical reference is a dilution to a real civil rights issue which is almost as off base as PETA comparing the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust. There is no comparison between the two.

        If you extrapolate the logic in changing the definition of marriage, you will legitimize polygamy. That's fine if that is what you want to do – but let's not play favorites for homosexuals and leave out polygamists. How fair is that?

        Besides, as asked before, why would you be opposed to three people getting married if they really loved each other? If it IS a civil right, why is the number two sacred? Why not three or more? Only a bigot would oppose polygamy if marriage is truly a civil right for all. Either you are for 'civil rights' for everyone or you are discriminating against someone.

        • SlipperySlopeFallacy

          As I said, been used before by segregationists, they didn't thik that mixed marriage was a civil rights issue. You are free to believe that gay rights isn't a civil rights issue, but are losing that argument badly. 99% of people who raise this talking point about polygamy et al. do so purely out of animosity to homosexuality, without a shred of support for polygamy. There is simply no growing support for polygamy, which is why your slippery slope fallacy fails. Your side has been making the same argument for over a decade, and losing. If that is all you have left, then you might as well just give up.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So instead of proving that homosexuality is different than polygamy, you're trying to compare it to a ban on some forms of heterosexual marriage and attacking motive.

            It's a weak argument at best.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            Sorry, gay marriage and traditional marriage are both (wait for it…) Monogamy!! Polygamy is (wait for it…) not Monogamy!! Yes, they are different. By your extremely slippery logic, when polygamy was legal/acceptable, then gay marriage should have been acceptable!! But it wasn't because (wait for it …) They are different.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Monogamy!! Polygamy is (wait for it…) not Monogamy!!"

            That's an amazing argument. Through the magic of monogamy we've settled the issue.

            "By your extremely slippery logic, when polygamy was legal/acceptable, then gay marriage should have been acceptable!! "

            No. Polygamy is acceptable because people can raise children with role models from each of the two sexes. That's why monogamous heterosexual couples are ideal.

            There is a difference between gay unions and heterosexual unions and THAT is the most salient distinction. You conveniently ignore saliency and fixate on quantity but not the quantity that matters. You've got to have 1 or more male adults and 1 or more female adults.

            Look at the bright side, the polygamists can still have gay sex if they want. Why are you so upset then? More happiness comes from polygamy than from "gay monogamy."

            Actually gay monogamy means one person baiting his master. A gay couple is just multiplying that. Why limit anyone?

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            "No. Polygamy is acceptable because people can raise children with role models from each of the two sexes. That's why monogamous heterosexual couples are ideal. "

            For crying out loud! You are so intent on arguing for a causal slippery slope between SSM and polygamy that you are actually arguing in favor of polygamy!! There is no doubt that you would suddenly find multiple reasons against polygamy if that was the actual debate. Why carry on this discussion, if you are so intent on arguing against yourself. (BTW, Polygamy is almost never about gay couples, it is invariably parallel simultaneously heterosexual couplings)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "For crying out loud! You are so intent on arguing for a causal slippery slope between SSM and polygamy that you are actually arguing in favor of polygamy!!"

            Um, yes. I'm saying a polygamous environment is better than a homosexual environment without any question. Why is that startling? Read what I wrote again and then stop acting like such a hypocrite by claiming WE are all about emotional arguments. The emotions we care about are those of the minors, not the perverts.

            "There is no doubt that you would suddenly find multiple reasons against polygamy if that was the actual debate."

            And all of them would apply to the arguments against homosexuals! That is the point of the article!! Get it now? Your brain is not able to work in a linear fashion I see.

            "Why carry on this discussion, if you are so intent on arguing against yourself. "

            I'm not. You're simply lost. I guess you don't even know what a slippery slope is in metaphor.

            "(BTW, Polygamy is almost never about gay couples, it is invariably parallel simultaneously heterosexual couplings)"

            That's the only reason polygamy might have a better argument than homosexual marriage. You're so convinced that you're correct that you can't even understand the logic beyond your own feelings.

            Best case: Mommy and Daddy
            Next best case: Adoptive male and female monogamous couples as proxies.
            Next best would be polygamous parenting
            Next would be single parents.

            After that a rational non-leftist should evaluate any prospective adoption scenario with the best interests of the child as the only driving factor.

            There might be rare cases where homosexuals could raise children as long as they don't try to thrust their normalization ideas on the kids. Keep it in the bedroom and make it "dad and uncle" or "mommy and auntie" and knock off all of this incredibly decadent narcissistic "I can be and feel what I want" BS.

            "Dad and dad" my rear end. But then again, that's all that counts to them really.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            BTW, there is a difference between making a salient point, and fixating on it solely to the exclusion of all other arguments.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "BTW, there is a difference between making a salient point, and fixating on it solely to the exclusion of all other arguments."

            Yes there is but you've got to learn to discern saliency before you can figure out the rational analysis. You can't even follow the counter arguments so we can't be sure you understand your own.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I would submit that if two people of mixed race can marry, than what is to stop a person from marrying his dog?"

        They lost the argument when we disproved their bogus racial theories.

        You've got to deal with chromosomes now so the ball is in your court. Lying works for a while as you can see, but we'll still fight back.

        • SlipperySlopeFallacy

          you are simply stating that homosexuality is a choice, and I am saying it isn't, then we bat that argument back and forth over and over, and I win (look at any poll to see growing acceptance of gay rights). Then you argue for restricting monogamous recognition to heterosexual couples, I argue that monogamy should be extended to gay couples, then you say that monogamy is the same as polygamy (and I win).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "you are simply stating that homosexuality is a choice, and I am saying it isn't, "

            Yes, I understand.

            "…and I am saying it isn't, then we bat that argument back and forth over and over, and I win (look at any poll to see growing acceptance of gay rights)."

            If we apply pure democracy or course you will.

            "Then you argue for restricting monogamous recognition to heterosexual couples…"

            In anything that can affect a child. Because that is the only reason the state has an interest in relationships. That's where you lose logically. Humans do better when raised by their parents or by reasonably realistic proxies when parents are not suitable or available.

            "I argue that monogamy should be extended to gay couples"

            Whatever But the agenda is all about "pure equality" and unrealistic expectations. The actual battle is over the rights and welfare of children. If you win that one, society loses. You ought to be proud.

            "then you say that monogamy is the same as polygamy (and I win)."

            It's not about monogamy. It's about monogamous parents. You're so narcissistic you think the state has an interest in sexual perversions or leisure. It's about children, which means it's about the future of our civilization.

            You can't win because if you win the argument based purely on popular delusion, then we all lose.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            SSM protects the rights of the children of gay couples. By any logical extension of your argument, you need to support banning the raising of children by same sex couples (block adoption rights, ban artifical insemination, place such children in foster care…). Justice Kennedy was clearly concerned about the equal rights of "40,000 children" of gay couples. It is not about leisure, it is about committed monogamous relationships and the protections of gay coupes and families. Ignoring the real-life rights of gay families is why your argument is losing. (BTW, while polygamy was raced in arguing against mixed race marriage, the strongest and most emphatic arguments were all about hoow the children of mixed race parents would suffer. Sound familiar?)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "SSM protects the rights of the children of gay couples."

            In theory it might protect some rights that are already protected under different laws. Every hear of a trust? And what's wrong with having a distinct type of union if all you care about is rights? You can't logically argue that groups of people who can't possibly procreate due to gender limitations should have the identical rights of natural parents. But that is the radical gay agenda. That is the risk we can't afford to take. And there is no good reason to take it.

            It's gone too far. If people need their "rights" protected we already have laws. If we need more laws to protect children, argue for that. You're doing the opposite whether or not you admit it.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            "And what's wrong with having a distinct type of union if all you care about is rights? "

            Because that is all about "unequal" rights. Doyou actually think that people accept the sincerity of that idea? Your side has adamantly opposed civil unions every single step of the way for as long as possible. Wherever public opinion has been on gay rights, the anti-gay rights side has been in favor of the maximal level of discrimination that can be levied against homosexuals. There is an obvious (and odious) logic to that approach, but it has ended. Just like there was a stable logic to wholesale discrimination against homosexuals (including full criminalization), there is a compelling logic to equal rights. There has never been a stable logical "in between".

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Because that is all about "unequal" rights."

            What rights do heterosexuals have that gays don't have? They have a "right" to adopt children..or is that a privilege based on the judgment of the case worker or judge?

            Please explain these rights that can only be resolved by pretending that gays can create life and calling it equal in every sense with homosexuality and you'd better say it with a smile as though there is nothing to distinguish homosexual couples from biologically normal hetero couples.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Doyou actually think that people accept the sincerity of that idea?"

            Gee, how do you feel about it?

            "Your side has adamantly opposed civil unions every single step of the way for as long as possible. Wherever public opinion has been on gay rights, the anti-gay rights side has been in favor of the maximal level of discrimination that can be levied against homosexuals."

            My side is represented by my words. Maybe the trouble is you're living in the past and when it comes to leftists, that means you're living a lie.

            Poor poor you. Poor poor homosexual victims ipso facto the moment anyone finds out. We must change this world so homosexuals feel completely normal.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is an obvious (and odious) logic to that approach, but it has ended. "

            Because children are treated like cattle by narcissistic leftists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Just like there was a stable logic to wholesale discrimination against homosexuals (including full criminalization), there is a compelling logic to equal rights. There has never been a stable logical "in between"."

            In your mind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "By any logical extension of your argument, you need to support banning the raising of children by same sex couples"

            There is no way that homosexual couples should have any "rights" to adopt. No way. If there are circumstances that lead to that end due to the true best interests of the children, that is acceptable in theory. But SSM is a way to ensure ego satisfaction for people who use children's interests as false arguments.

            It should always be about the best interests of the children. Look at how Affirmative Action works. Blacks are victims by virtue of statistics. With SSM the agenda will then move on to "social justice" metrics showing how gays face discrimination yada yada because they are not given "equal rights" to adopt.

            This is my primary point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Justice Kennedy was clearly concerned about the equal rights of "40,000 children" of gay couples. It is not about leisure, it is about committed monogamous relationships and the protections of gay coupes and families."

            Who cares if gays are monogamous? Who cares if anyone is monogamous? Why does it matter? I want sex according to my preferences. I just want it and nothing else matters.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            "Who cares if gays are monogamous?"

            Millions of people believe that monogamy is better than promiscuity, for a large number of reasons. Ask Rob Portman, or all of the Republicans who support SSM for the exact reason that it IS a conservative ideal. You are raising a sarcastic straw man argument. There are people just as conservative as you, you believe that monogamy is such a strong ideal that gay couples shouldn't be precluded from it. You are speaking like a hard-core segregationist who just can't imagine mixed marriage.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Millions of people believe that monogamy is better than promiscuity, for a large number of reasons."

            A large number of purely subjective reasons. And we're not talking about personal choice but whether the state needs to regulate and promote a new kind of "marriage" based on special kinds of "equality."

            "Ask Rob Portman, or all of the Republicans who support SSM for the exact reason that it IS a conservative ideal."

            Sure. Conserve hypocrisy. OK. Whatever.

            "You are raising a sarcastic straw man argument."

            Not.

            "There are people just as conservative as you, you believe that monogamy is such a strong ideal that gay couples shouldn't be precluded from it. "

            Totally false. How am I excluding anyone from being monogamous? You're absurd. You don't even make sense. If you'd read your own claims with an open mind you'd see your arguments are circular and dependent on positions you took entirely for emotional reasons. You were indoctrinated before you ever had a chance to think about anything we're discussing.

            News flash, I once thought gay marriage was harmless until I waded through the nonsense and considered the real consequences. I'm not a politician so it does me know harm to come to these convictions.

            "You are speaking like a hard-core segregationist who just can't imagine mixed marriage."

            So housing rights are now bundled with marriage certificates and this is my sly way to get rid of the gays in the hetero neighborhood. You argue like an insane person.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Ignoring the real-life rights of gay families is why your argument is losing."

            I'm not ignoring them. I don't want to make it worse by encouraging and "normalizing" more mistakes. You're logic is identical to the arguments about illegal aliens. Well they're here and they have rights. Let's just normalize them and things will be OK.

            We don't want to "stigmatize" them by calling them "illegal" either. They're simply citizens in waiting. We have no borders. Borders are just like the Berlin Wall. If the Berlin Wall was "bad" we must not use any walls and certainly no offensive border security. Come to think of it those fascist police are destroying the country with all of their law enforcement. Our crime rates would drop overnight without all of those police writing reports and that stuff.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            "I'm not ignoring them. I don't want to make it worse by encouraging and "normalizing" more mistakes. You're logic is identical to the arguments about illegal aliens. Well they're here and they have rights. Let's just normalize them and things will be OK. "

            Interesting, if you want to carry this parallel further, do you support criminalizing homosexuality? BTW, that sill never happen again. Bereft of any plausible discriminatory alternative, you are left with simply blocking the road to a logical end point (equal rights). However, imbedded in your talking points is an animus toward gays, and a wishful goal to return to a discriminatory past that is rapidly disappearing (none too soon).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Interesting, if you want to carry this parallel further, do you support criminalizing homosexuality?"

            Obviously you can't read with comprehension. I've already said that I have no stake in what 2 or more consenting adults do with their sex lives and many other liberties.

            "BTW, that sill never happen again."

            Then what are you worried about?

            "Bereft of any plausible discriminatory alternative, you are left with simply blocking the road to a logical end point (equal rights). "

            It's getting more obvious that you can't read with comprehension.

            "However, imbedded in your talking points is an animus toward gays, and a wishful goal to return to a discriminatory past that is rapidly disappearing (none too soon)."

            I have an animus towards prima donna cry babies with nothing legitimate to cry about, yet the tears still keep flowing and the lines of victims keeps getting longer and longer. I resent the present day gay political movement. I have no worries about what gays do until they act like victims when they're not. I have no problems with leftists until they start causing trouble with their insane delusions.

            Leftists are a far bigger problem than the political gays and I'd marry any gay man who could get rid of the leftists from this country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Ignoring the real-life rights of gay families is why your argument is losing. "

            We shall deal with all of the lies.

            "(BTW, while polygamy was raced in arguing against mixed race marriage, the strongest and most emphatic arguments were all about hoow the children of mixed race parents would suffer. Sound familiar?)"

            Facts matter. You're going to tell me that I'm wrong about gays being able to procreate naturally and raise children? And you'll sacrifice how many children trying to prove it?

            Racism is wrong. Do you agree or not? Imagining that children do better with a mother and father and without BS propaganda about how important it is to follow your "orientation" in spite of all the costs to others is a different argument than suggesting some humans are distinctly different races from others.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            Gays can and do raise children, and that is the incontrovertible fact that matters.

            While the specifics differ somewhat, the parallels between segregation and opposing gay rights are fairly obvious. It is easy in hindsight to say that segregation was wrong. Unbelievably miscegenation laws were supported by over 90% of Americans in the 60's. Now younger people support gay rights by an overwhelming percentage, while senior citizens still cling to unsubstantiated views on gay people (and tend to think that they don't know anybody who is gay). I happen to live in an area where gay rights is generally supported. The end result? I have gay friends who are married, some have children, and their loving committed relationship is no different than mine. Real life is trumping your ideology against gays. Talk to the American Association of Pediatrics about whether marriage equality is best for children.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Gays can and do raise children, and that is the incontrovertible fact that matters."

            So can 12-year-olds, but we have standards determined by what's in the best interests of the children.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "While the specifics differ somewhat, the parallels between segregation and opposing gay rights are fairly obvious."

            Obvious to you but not even salient. You're totally delusional. You've heard this argument work in front of other deluded leftists.

            "It is easy in hindsight to say that segregation was wrong."

            Every non-indoctrinated person knew segregation was wrong.

            "I happen to live in an area where gay rights is generally supported. The end result?"

            You've been indoctrinated. By the way, don't bother trying to become a trial lawyer.

            "Real life is trumping your ideology against gays. "

            There are many evil ideas out there based on ideology. Narcissism is called other things. If you've already convinced enough of the mob to take over with your revolution then you don't need to convince anyone else, now do you?

            "Talk to the American Association of Pediatrics about whether marriage equality is best for children:

            I know exactly what they'll say and it won't be the compelling endorsement you want to imagine. It's better for the kids that are already stuck in that hell, and worse for the future kids who could have otherwise had a better situation.

            You just can't accept that. Even if you believe that gays have a right to marry you just can't admit to any pitfalls. The world will be a better place in every way as soon as gays can marry.

            You're completely deluded and can't even think for yourself. This conversation proved that to anyone who read it with comprehension.

          • EarlyBird

            The state has an interest in couples not just because of children, but for reasons for taxes, transfer of wealth and benefits, rights for a spouse to be involved in end of life care issues, immigration rights, etc.

            There is no law banning couples with no desire or ability to raise children from getting married.

            In regard to the first set of issues (property rights, etc.) there is a whole host of complications with polygamy, bestiality, and the like. There are none in regard to sex. It makes no difference if the couple is male/female or of the same sex.

            You lose again, Object, because you refuse to look at facts that bump up against your own fears and biases, of which there are many.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The state has an interest in couples not just because of children, but for reasons for taxes, transfer of wealth and benefits, rights for a spouse to be involved in end of life care issues, immigration rights, etc. "

            The state has an interest in its citizens and their activities. Gay marriage doesn't solve any problems. It just creates new ones.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is no law banning couples with no desire or ability to raise children from getting married."

            Should there be? Who will decide who has desire or ability? Most marriage have that possibility and it does no harm for kids to be introduced to childless couples for example. If you want that as your "standard of fairness" you are again unfamiliar with the fact that the world is imperfect. We're not trying to make it perfect. We're just trying to find the best possible real options.

            Not that you'd recognize the distinctions between reality and delusion, because you know you don't know up from down.

            "In regard to the first set of issues (property rights, etc.) there is a whole host of complications with polygamy, bestiality, and the like. There are none in regard to sex. It
            makes no difference if the couple is male/female or of the same sex."

            Property rights belong first to individuals. Individuals may share those rights already. You're a retread repeating talking points of other deluded leftists. You don't even understand your own arguments.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Who cares if gays are monogamous? Maybe their orientation is to have sex with new partners ever day or ever hour? Is that against the law? Why should the law "discriminate" against multiple-partner orientation?

            Who cares? It's not about monogamy per se. It's about the best interests of the children. That means not just any monogamy like between horse and man, but monogamous pairs that can at least play legitimate parenting roles in a balanced healthy way. And the state should not "control" it but encourage it without harming others.

            That's exactly what traditional marriage does but that's not good enough for delusional lunatics. They have to hammer out the perfect civilization according to their delusions.

          • SlipperySlopeFallacy

            "Who cares if gays are monogamous? "

            Gay couples and their families, people who know gay couples, people who favor equality for gay couples, people who favor committed monogamy as better than promiscuity (this includes a whole lot of conservatives). It IS about monogamy, which is much better for society than promiscuity (for lots of reasons). Anyway, I'm not going to dignify the "delusion lunatic" comment (look at the definition of ad hominem attack)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Gay couples and their families, people who know gay couples, people who favor equality for gay couples, people who favor committed monogamy as better than promiscuity…"

            That's great for them. That's personal. Now tell me why the state cares?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…It IS about monogamy, which is much better for society than promiscuity (for lots of reasons). "

            It's about monogamous heterosexuals so that children of a given couple don't worry about having step-brothers and step-sisters living in different homes and why mommy and daddy are fighting all the time after these half-siblings come along.

            "Anyway, I'm not going to dignify the "delusion lunatic" comment (look at the definition of ad hominem attack)"

            Well any comment you disagree with can be characterized as ad hominem then. Your ideas are delusional. I don't' know you personally. Stick with things you can show to be true, not things you wish to be true. Then your ideas won't be attacked as delusional. And lastly, my comment was not about you specifically but if the shoe fits, you know what they say.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It IS about monogamy, which is much better for society than promiscuity (for lots of reasons)."

            Who is stopping anyone from being monogamous? Riddle me that Batman.

            "Anyway, I'm not going to dignify the "delusion lunatic" comment (look at the definition of ad hominem attack)"

            Your feelings were hurt. I just thought you might like to know your arguments are not rational. What they are is delusional. Still hurting? Try making rational statements and limiting your arguments in that way.

            It's always an appeal to the emotions. In leftist lunatic land that means you win because your feelings are hurt and now you're the victim. Never mind overcoming the logic of my statements.

            Why do gays need help from the state to be monogamous? Nobody does.

            Maybe we can say that for state mediated adoptions one must pass "best interest of the child" and as long as gays admit they are not generally as suitable for the task they can still apply and THEN if they win any adoption hearings they can get married too. What that will do is prevent bogus discrimination statistics based on the assumption that gays are just as suitable as parents. I'm not even saying they're always unsuitable or that heteros are always more suitable. I'm saying I know how the game works and I see affirmative action today as a very destructive principal and gay marriage simply expands the possible ways to abuse these false concepts of social justice through overly simplified statistics.

            Is that acceptable to you? Because that would solve every problem you claim to want to solve.

            This ought to be interesting to hear.

        • EarlyBird

          In other words, Object, you're just another frightened, ignorant hater. Don't worry, you're type is quickly dying off.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In other words, Object, you're just another frightened, ignorant hater. Don't worry, you're type is quickly dying off."

            Anyone that fails to go along with the leftist Utopian revolution is a certified hateful racist nazi right wing blood sucking b stard.

            I think I've heard that before. Why would I care what delusional people think?

  • Edward Cline

    The title for this column should be, "Is Gay Marriage Different FROM Polygamy?" Daniel, "different than" makes absolutely no sense. But, the gay marriage advocates won't settle for just that. Next will be pedaphiles who want a legal status conferred on man-boy relationships (as "spouses") and woman-girl relationships a legal status, or woman-boy, or man-girl relationships. Once you obliterate the concept of a biological marriage, deuces are wild. Next in line would be bestial relationships, say, a woman and her Great Dane (a "spouse") or a man and his spousal sheep. This is Frankfurt School deconstruction taken to the limit, and in today's culture, it's all possible.

    • Dukakis

      That is completely asinine. The cases you mention(children,animals) are different because they cannot consent. The columnist at least has a valid point in that all parties can consent to polygamy.

      But your case is more of the ignorant conservative bs that is destroying your party. The fact that you are so ignorant that you can't even understand the fundamental difference between consenting adults and children shows how stupid you really are.

      • mkat68

        The point here is that once marriage is completely undefined, anything goes. When anything is marriage, nothing is marriage, and the institution itself is destroyed.

      • Bob

        Yes a child cannot provide consent, nor an animal. But I will wager that we will see the day arrive where argumentation develops that zoophilia is also as a natural phenomena as is homosexuality, and that the consent of the animal will be implied or not required as only the consent of the human adult is required based on the same arguments homosexuals are using: we love each other, it makes us happy. What you will definitely see is marriages between consenting adults where one is a father or mother, and the other is an adult son or daughter or grandchild. And no arguments of the downside of incest will hold for bearing children has at this point nothing to do with the matter, it is simply about what consenting adults want to do.
        The bottom line is that marriage is a legal social favoring of a man woman union because it matches the natural phenomenon of human procreation and to encourage procreation and stable natural man woman families for raising children who will do the same. It is nothing less than society putting on a pedestal it's engine of survival. Gay marriage is really about nothing more than whinny homosexuals who want to get things no one else can get unless they enter into the traditional form of marriage. Society has a real discernible stake in traditional marriage, but it has no stake in homosexuals getting married. For example, I am a 40 year old single male. My mother who is single has been living with me for over 10 years. I cannot have her on my medical insurance, we cannot file taxes jointly, and she will not get survivor benefits if I should die. But I am not complaining about all that. Because once again I can understand why those things are allowed for man-women married people. Because I and society have a stake in those kind of unions, but not homosexuals being married.

  • Keith

    Please. More than two people in a legal relationship raises serious issues of the power between parties. If one man marries multiple women, who gets the inheritance? The wife who worked the hardest to clean the house? The one who worked outside the house? The one who bore the most offspring? Or will it be divvied up equally, even though it's impossible that everyone contributed equally to the marriage? Another thorny issue would be who gets custody of any offspring if a divorce occurs? Will it always be the biological parent(s)? Because it isn't now, so why would it be if this slippery polygamy comes to pass? And then, if one person chooses to leave the polygamous marriage, would that person have to leave all of it, or could he/she leave just one person who really didn't satisfy? So, the answer is: yes, same-sex marriage is actually very different from polygamy.

    Although many people like to throw up "what if"s, the Supreme Court has already decided the polygamy issue, for many of the reasons stated above, along with many others. Before becoming too upset, it would be a good exercise to learn what's possible, and likely, when it comes to possible scenarios.

    As for pederasty or bestiality: neither children nor animals can enter into a legal agreement (which marriage happens to be), so there is no chance that either could happen.

    Another inconvenient fact is that our legal system doesn't allow fear of possible consequences which cannot be proven to prevent civil rights. So all of those arguments are nothing in the eyes of the law.

    It comes down to the fact that this issue must be argued only in relation to itself. And the only argument left is that gay people are yucky. Which also is not an acceptable reason to withhold civil rights from a group. So if you want to be taken seriously by the legal profession, you need to dig deeper and find a rational reason that our Constitution allows. Otherwise, you're preaching to the choir with a fine pitch…but the courts will be deaf.

    • judahlevi

      Keith, please. Oh yes, the almighty "law" is the arbiter of morality in our country. Anyone who believes this does not understand morality – it has nothing to do with law.

      If you haven't noticed – laws change. The US Supreme Court at one time legally sanctioned individuals as personal property. It has also more recently allowed discrimination against individuals because of their skin color for university admissions. Both decisions were immoral – both decisions sanctioned discrimination. One is still law.

      Your faith in the "courts' sounds very much like a naïve law student who is awestruck by his law professors. Laws can be anything a group in power wants them to be – just look at the history of Nazi Germany. As for the "right" of two men or two women to marry, there is no such civil right unless the definition of marriage is changed. If you change it, you might as well change the number as well. Every question you asked about polygamy can be answered and precedents set. Besides, how could you be so cruel and inhuman to deny the right of three people who love each other to marry?

      • Keith

        No, judahlevi. Law is not the arbiter of morality. Neither is morality the arbiter of law. This is where you're confused. The Constitution protects our individual right to hold whatever moral standard we want; but it expressly forbids us — or our government — from foisting our morals on others unless there is an overriding governmental concern. Note that it does not allow for an overriding individual concern.

        I think I remember the last time I was awestruck by something other than nature. But let's be clear. It's not the definition of marriage that will change by allowing same sex couples to participate. It will still be the fundamental socio-economic unit that supports and drives our society. What will change is the recognition that this particular sort of unit receives from the society that it helps support already. The civil right is not that gay couples get to break into the inner sanctum: it is that they're already there, and are given none of the protections that everyone else gets. That's unequal treatment under the law, and it isn't allowed under the Constitution.

        While it's true that laws can change, I think you're stretching suspension of disbelief to put forth that differences in the power structure between two people on the one hand and more than two people on the other can ever be ignored or reconciled. To say that this is simply another thing that can be easily thrown to the side is simply sour grapes because you have no argument against the actual point in question. As I say, it's great for the choir, but not so much for the courts.

        As for how I could be so cruel and inhuman. Well, that's yet another question that doesn't need to be considered for the matter of marriage equality. Your lack of reasoning about the actual topic at hand, though…that does need to be considered.

        • judahlevi

          Saying that marriage is between one man and one woman is not "foisting" any morals on anyone. That is a pathetic and irrational statement. And if you believe that it is morally correct to change the definition of marriage, then exactly who is "foisting" their morality on others?

          This argument often breaks down into phantom concepts which never existed.

          Marriage Equality – there is no such thing. Marriage is marriage.

          Civil Right of Two Men or Two Women to Call Their Relationship Marriage – there is no such civil right.

          Gay Marriage – there is no such thing.

          None of these abstract concepts exist except in the minds of supporters of two men or two women changing the definition of marriage to include same genders. If the supporters of this change in definition can convince the majority of Americans that these non-existent rights and terminology needs to be made valid by changing the definition of marriage, then that may happen. This does not change the fact that none of these so-called rights have ever existed before.

          • EarlyBird

            So, Judah, you entire anti-gay argument – which is exactly what it is – boils down to a tautology. Brilliant!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "No, judahlevi. Law is not the arbiter of morality. Neither is morality the arbiter of law. This is where you're confused. The Constitution protects our individual right to hold whatever moral standard we want; but it expressly forbids us — or our government — from foisting our morals on others unless there is an overriding governmental concern. Note that it does not allow for an overriding individual concern."

          Rights of individual children are certainly more important than the rights of people to seek sexual pleasure and make up phony justifications for it. Calling it "marriage" is to bootstrap their way in to "total equality in reproductive and adoptive rights."

          They don't care about anyone but themselves and that is why they ultimately are wrong about constitutional support.

          • EarlyBird

            Like most adolescent minded anti-gay individuals – which is what you objective are, "anti-gay" – you are fixated on the act of gay sex, rather than the quality and type of the relationship. News flash, dope: gay relationships are no more or less about sex than those of heterosexuals.

            You actually think gays are concerned about marriage rights so they can justify their sexual pleasure? Do you actually think they're waiting for marriage rights to have sex? Are you an idiot as well as a bigot?

            You see this movement as an angry, politics driven one, because that's the way you see most everything in life. Once again, you dig your heels in against anything that bumps up against your comfort zone, which is most anything that is not white, conservative, Judeo-Chrsitian, meat 'n' potatoes and simple to understand.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "It's not the definition of marriage that will change by allowing same sex couples to participate. It will still be the fundamental socio-economic unit that supports and drives our society. "

          And new slaves will be added to our society via "reproduction rights" of people who can't actually reproduce so we much find that through "marriage" they are "just as qualified" to adopt.

          You're sick if you think that makes sense.

          • EarlyBird

            You're simply terrified and freaked out by gay people. That's all it boils down to. You refuse to deal with objective facts, once again.

            Got news for you, nerd, but you've probably got plenty of gay neighbors and co-workers. Hope that doesn't keep you up at night.

            It took me having close friendships with gay couples to understand this was not an angry, political act of vandalism against tradition, which I thought it was maybe 10 years ago. I found that they are as dedicated to each other as couples as my wife and I are, and the only thing standing in their way is just plain societal fear. Back 50 years ago I would not have been able to marry my black wife, due to bigots terrified of everything new and different.

            Your concern about children is a fig leaf for bigotry. Go live in your own private trailer park and put up your own flag. We'll leave you alone if you just don't come out.

  • Common sense

    Regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, the number 2 is standard. Anything beyond 2 invites jealousy and makes the relationship difficult and more weak.

    The "special case" of people being gay does not relate to the fact that two human beings relate to each other in a more stable way than three or more human beings. You don't have to be gay to be able to use your imagination and understand that.

    The number 2 stands.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Oh so we're deciding this based on magic numbers now?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, the number 2 is standard."

      So is heterosexual marriage.

      "Anything beyond 2 invites jealousy and makes the relationship difficult and more weak. "

      Only because of biased hateful people in society. The biased people need to change.

      "The "special case" of people being gay does not relate to the fact that two human beings relate to each other in a more stable way than three or more human beings. You don't have to be gay to be able to use your imagination and understand that. "

      Uh, what makes "gays" so special again? They told you so? And why does the government care how "stable" partners are if the children are not relevant? Now you care about the best interests of the children?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The number 2 stands."

      LOL. But 7 is far more sacred and 5 has better luck. Everyone know that. It's "common sense."

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The number 2 stands."

      So polygamy should be OK in numbers divisible by 2. Strange mystical logic but whatever.

      Common sense is an oxymoron.

  • Rob

    No! Homosexuality is genetic. Gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex. Multiple partners is a choice not an orientation.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "No! Homosexuality is genetic."

      There is NO evidence for that. And it's not even the point. Multiple female partners is "genetic" for more men than homosexuality is if we use your standards for evidence.

      "Gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex."

      Whose problem is that? It sounds like a personal problem outside the scope of what the government should be involved in.

      "Multiple partners is a choice not an orientation."

      That's hilarious because virtually all men are naturally oriented to want multiple partners and they make choices to invest in one out of wisdom not "orientation."

      You are so full of BS and all of you who bend over so far to make silly statements can't admit that if there is no standard then there is no standard. If there is a standard, it ought to be best interest of the children and that's about it. Or go with tradition for all I care. But don't make up this phony BS to incrementally attack the establishment in what seems like a credible way.

      Or you might even believe what you say. Wow.

      • EarlyBird

        Okay, I'll try to get through that thick, bigoted skull of yours.

        - Polygamy, incest, bestiality and the like are outlawed because of the impossible complications which arise around property ownership, taxes, transfer of property, wills, end-of-life care decisions, and a whole host of legal complexities. It doesn't work legally and it hurts society.

        - Gay marriage does not complicate these matters one iota, or hurt society. In fact, like hetero marriage, two loving adults committing to each other for life (aside from any of the other above combinations) help society, as hetero marriage has proven for millennia.

        - Children are not an issue unless you're willing to exclude couples unwilling or unable to have children, which you do not.

        So go away, bigot.

        • Mary Sue

          Children need a parent of each gender. Homosexuals who raise children (married or not) selfishly deny children this basic necessity.

          • EarlyBird

            "Children need a parent of each gender. Homosexuals who raise children (married or not) selfishly deny children this basic necessity."

            I agree, Mary Sue. But single parents also deny their children a parent of each gender. So that makes this issue, as it pertains to extending marriage rights to gays, moot.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "- Polygamy, incest, bestiality and the like are outlawed because of the impossible complications which arise around property ownership, taxes, transfer of property, wills, end-of-life care decisions, and a whole host of legal complexities. It doesn't work legally and it hurts society."

          Homosexual marriage should be outlawed because of complications which arise around property ownership, taxes, transfer of property, wills, end-of-life care decisions, and a whole host of legal complexities. It doesn't work legally and it hurts society.

          • EarlyBird

            Because you say so. Got it.

    • tinatrent

      According to the academics, multiple partners is an orientation. Research is being carried on right now at scores of elite universities to legitimate the expression of a mind-boggling array of sexual behaviors as sexual orientations and eventually legal identities.

      Look at the explosion of terminologies in the hate crime industry. This goes in one direction.

      And these are the people who are consulted as the experts by the courts.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "According to the academics, multiple partners is an orientation."

        Right. Any desire can be labeled such. That's how thieves became kleptomaniacs, through the magic of "orientation."

        "And these are the people who are consulted as the experts by the courts."

        Frightening for future generations.

    • jakespoon

      If homosexuality were genetic,there would be no homosexuals. Homosexuals would have to choose to procreate with opposite sex in order to pass the gene along to the next generation. Homosexuality IS a choice,and they deserve no more protection or special rights then any other group. The "gay" gene has not been found because it does not exist. It is not life sustaining.

      • EarlyBird

        Homosexuality has been observed in many, many different species. From most every gay person, they all say that from their very earliest sexual feelings, they knew it was for the same sex, not the opposite. They are not the "norm," but they are not abberant, either.

        • Mary Sue

          oh please, a 4 year old has NO idea what romantic attraction is. Or they shouldn't. If they do, they've either been molested, or they have something wrong with them.

          • EarlyBird

            Even you had sexual attraction as a 4 year old, Mary Sue.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Homosexuality has been observed in many, many different species."

          Lots of destructive behaviors are observed in the animal world. You have no point as usual.

          • EarlyBird

            You make these claims "destructive behavior," "harms society," "harms marriage," and never go beyond mere statements. Because you genuinely don't think past your own platitudes and comfortable certainties or challenge yourself.

            You'd have a very hard time arguing against marriage equality in even a high school debate class, Objy. You've got to do better than that.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status."

    Where did he get that idiotic statement?

    • Mary Sue

      he's a lawyer. They have to make BS up to try to win cases.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "he's a lawyer. They have to make BS up to try to win cases."

        Exactly. He WANTS it to be a LEGAL status which is of course purely theoretical and by agreement. It would be precisely the same way for polygamy if we sell that to the public too.

        Homosexuality should NOT be a protected status because that infringes upon the rights of all others who do not get equal protections on the basis of their….drum roll please…preferences.

        Just more class warfare.

      • jakespoon

        I believe that may be a required course to be a lawyer.

    • EarlyBird

      I'll try to help you understand what Olsen means, Object:

      Gay people are born homosexual. Every gay person seems to state that from the very earliest memories of their sexuality, they were attracted to the same sex, rather than the opposite sex. Their homosexuality is as ingrained in them as your heterosexuality is ingrained in you. Further, homosexual relationships are no more or less about sex acts as are heterosexual ones. Gay people are still gay if they celibate, just like you would still be straight if you were forced at gun point to have gay sex.

      Whereas polygamy is a choice, not an ingrained part of ones biology.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Gay people are born homosexual."

        Fail.

        • EarlyBird

          You should get to know a gay couple or two, and I even have faith that even you would come to understand that they are not sexual deviants, as you seem to insist.

          • Mary Sue

            except that they are. By the very definition of sexual deviancy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "except that they are. By the very definition of sexual deviancy."

            Oh, THAT kind of deviancy. But you know "deviant" is a hate word and we can't use that.

          • EarlyBird

            There is a difference between those things which fit outside the norm, and sexual deviancy. But for arguments sake, let's just agree that gays are "deviant." So what? How would those "deviants," committing to each other for life and not bothering you, be a bad thing to you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is a difference between those things which fit outside the norm, and sexual deviancy. But for arguments sake, let's just agree that gays are "deviant." So what? How would those "deviants," committing to each other for life and not bothering you, be a bad thing to you?"

            They want to wipe away distinctions, including the fact that it deviates from any possible natural child creation. You're not even supposed to mention that. The trend is to file hate speech claims for teaching any child (or mentioning in any context) that gays can't naturally birth children.

            That's how it is deviant. It's not a trivial statement in the context of this discussion.

            "The future must not belong to those who 'slander' the 'prophet' of Islam or any other protected classes." They just might riot you know. Change the laws before they riot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You should get to know a gay couple or two, and I even have faith that even you would come to understand that they are not sexual deviants, as you seem to insist."

            It's very likely I know a lot more than you do and for a lot longer time. It's not personal at all.

      • Mary Sue

        Gay people are not born gay.

        • EarlyBird

          Who says so, Mary Sue? Do you know gay people and have you discussed this with them?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Who says so, Mary Sue? Do you know gay people and have you discussed this with them?"

            Let's ask you. Were you born this way or did your life experiences make you this absurd? Were you a retread from your earliest memories?

            Oh that was so useful.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Gay people are born homosexual. "

        That is such BS. Most if not all sexual deviancy is caused by social interactions and life experiences. We're not even sure whether conventional sex requires the same kind of cultivation but it might. It's something worth exploring but your silly declaration marks you as indoctrinated…again.

        "Whereas polygamy is a choice, not an ingrained part of ones biology."

        That is just an insane statement. There is far more evidence that it's more "natural" to have multiple heterosexual partners than to have any gay partners. You're just talking out your rear orifice…again.

        "…an ingrained part of ones biology."

        We really need emoticons here and I need those eye-rolling versions badly.

  • Marlene

    "If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families."
    By this very simple, basic and logical point, we are done for. We are at the top of the slippery slope.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      ""If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families."
      By this very simple, basic and logical point, we are done for. We are at the top of the slippery slope."

      Exactly. Now we need to explain this to the lunatics.

  • Jancis M. Andrews

    Whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, the union is still between only two adults, each with equal rights and equal responsibilities, with an equal sharing of assets. Polygamy, on the other hand, involves one man collecting several women, each of whom is rival to the others, and who have to compete for his attention to her and her children. Such women are nothing more than concubines in the man's harem. The women also have to line up to take their turn in his bedroom, much like cows lining up to be serviced by the bull, while the man himself enjoys a sex fest with multiple partners. The inequalities are glaringly obvious. Polygamy comes to us from the ancient dark ages when women had no rights whatsoever and were considered to be nothing more than property and chattels. Why on earth would any woman want to be in such a dependent and degrading situation — unless they had been brought up since birth to think this man-favoring arrangement is what God ordains, as has happened to women in Muslim and FLDS communities. However, Muslim women themselves are sick of this arrangement, which they claim contravenes their rights to equality with the male. "Women Living Under Muslim Law" are now petitioning their governments to end the practice, and who would know better than they? Time to end this ancient, misogynistic practice that treats women as second-class citizens. The year is 2013 AD, not 2013 BC.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That's a value judgement.

      In your value judgement polygamy is bad. In the value judgement of most Americans, homosexuality is bad.

      Are we legislating marriage based on inclusion or based on how people regard a relationship?

      • Danny

        The growth in public support for legal recognition of same sex marriage that almost everyone acknowledges is quickly negating your statement about the value judgement of most Americans. Unless by most Americans, you mean those Americans you yourself come in contact with. That I can believe.

        So if we're to legislate marriage based on "how people regard a relationship" which, based on the above post, you would approve of, then your side has already lost. Sorry.

        • judahlevi

          Polls do not validate or invalidate an individual's position on changing the definition of marriage. There are courageous people who will stand on principle even if they are the only one standing. No matter what any public opinion poll or court may decide, for those of us who have a higher authority than public opinion or changing laws, a true marriage will always be between one man and one woman.

          Public opinion in Nazi Germany changed laws to take private property and rights away from the Jews. Public opinion in Egypt today would take property and rights away from Coptic Christians. Public opinion is never the sole arbiter of what is right or what is moral.

          • Danny

            You are absolutely right and that is why I consider marriage between any 2 consenting adults, with its concomitant personal and societal benefits, to be a moral good regardless of public opinion or any "higher authority" that approves of slavery and polygamy and so is suspect as a moral guide. It is simply a matter of common decency.

          • Danny

            Fortunately public opinion has come around to the moral position.

          • judahlevi

            No, it is not a matter of "common decency", it is a matter of your opinion. People who disagree are not indecent. Again, you cannot impose your morality on others anymore than you want them to impose their morality on you. And, no, your position is not the only moral one.

            Jumping to conclusions is also not helpful. My "higher authority" has never endorsed slavery or polygamy but go ahead and read too much into that as well.

          • Danny

            Here's the deal then. I won't impose same sex marriage on you if you agree not to impose prohibitions against marriage on gays. That way, we're all happy as pigs in mud.

          • judahlevi

            I am not "imposing" anything. There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. That is the law of my state and I am happy to keep things the way they are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Here's the deal then. I won't impose same sex marriage on you if you agree not to impose prohibitions against marriage on gays. "

            SSM is PURELY about imposing on society. If it wasn't all they'd have to do is have private ceremonies and leave us out of it.

          • Danny

            They are leaving you out of it, genius. They simply want the same benefits of marriage that you have. Other than that, you can mind your own business and they'll mind theirs. You can benefit from your marriage and they can benefit from theirs.

            Or does that make your head explode?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " They simply want the same benefits of marriage that you have. "

            They already have the same rights and that's not enough for them according to you.

          • EarlyBird

            Actually, at best they are limited to civil unions, which are actually a threat to the institution of marriage, because it allows a "marriage lite" option to everyone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Actually, at best they are limited to civil unions, which are actually a threat to the institution of marriage, because it allows a "marriage lite" option to everyone."

            Again, they already have the same rights that I do.

          • EarlyBird

            No they don't, not until they have full marriage rights. If they had the same rights as you, there would be no campaign to obtain those rights. Get it?

          • Mary Sue

            bull. A homosexual individual has the SAME right to marry a person of the opposite gender as everybody else.

            And they do it too; look at all the gay people that marry straight!

          • EarlyBird

            "And they do it too; look at all the gay people that marry straight!"

            Yeah! Just keep the gays in the closet, becuse they scare Mary Sue, like most everything that is not in her tiny little comfort zone!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yeah! Just keep the gays in the closet, becuse they scare Mary Sue, like most everything that is not in her tiny little comfort zone!"

            Having a right is not the same as being compelled. You don't even know what it means to have rights from a sovereign.

            They already have equal rights. They want superior rights based on their particular fetishes. This has been established very easily for anyone who read the article and comments without a leftist mind-numbing bias.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No they don't, not until they have full marriage rights."

            They have the exact same marriage rights that I do. You're just too dense to understand this simple point.

            "If they had the same rights as you, there would be no campaign to obtain those rights. Get it?"

            The campaign is to extend special rights to them that I don't have, but I admit that I don't want them.

          • EarlyBird

            YOU don't have the right to marry a woman?!

            Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your stupidity doesn't embarrass me at all.

          • Mary Sue

            A gay man has the same "right" to marry a woman as any straight man.

          • EarlyBird

            Aren't you clever lil' bigot, Mary Sue.

            Back to your knitting, dear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Aren't you clever lil' bigot,"

            Good one, for a bird.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " why I consider marriage between any 2 consenting adults, with its concomitant personal and societal benefits, to be a moral good regardless of public opinion or any "higher authority" "

            Excuse me but you didn't explain your case. All you said was that you don't agree with "common sense" as an argument against. But what is your argument for it? What's morally good about celebrating decadent sex and insisting that everyone treats you like a protected victim class…based on behavior? We already have laws making them equal. They want to be equal in their minds which leads to their superiority as a protected class.

            It's very similar to the fascism of the jihadis albeit with less blood. Don't hurt any of their feelings or their will be trouble. Existing laws don't protect their feelings enough today in 2013.

          • Danny

            My case is simple. They're not celebrating decadent sex. They're celebrating a life-long commitment to one another, as I'm sure you and your spouse are. And they don't want to be treated as victims. The only ones who want to treat them as victims are those who continue to insist that homosexuality is a mental illness in spite of the fact that there is nothing about being gay that interferes with an individual's functioning well in society. And they don't give a crap about someone like you hurting their feelings. They simply want to be able to partake of the same societal benefits as the rest of us. I know it's difficult for you to understand, but they actually want to be treated like everyone else under the law, neither superior nor inferior. Get it now?

            Also I didn't say anything about "common sense". I referred to "common decency" as one basis for my view.

          • EarlyBird

            Well said, Danny. I remember when I was an adolescent boy, "gay" was a stand-in for everything weird, odd, and not good. "Eew, that's gay," is something we said about everything from effeminate boys to bad tasting food. I remember thinking that gay people were simply all about sex, rather than relationships.

            Well, with experience and a desire to be decent to others, I've grown up. Some people, like the Object, refuse to. Especially when it means accepting realities that bump up against their biases and fears, which he has a lot of.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well said, Danny. I remember when I was an adolescent boy, "gay" was a stand-in for everything weird, odd, and not good. "Eew, that's gay," is something we said about everything from effeminate boys to bad tasting food. I remember thinking that gay people were simply all about sex, rather than relationships."

            Then I guess we need "gay marriage" because that's just too rude.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well, with experience and a desire to be decent to others, I've grown up."

            Considering all we know about you, it's likely you're just as grown as any other perpetual child hippy.

            "Some people, like the Object, refuse to. Especially when it means accepting realities that bump up against their biases and fears, which he has a lot of."

            You're projecting…again.

          • EarlyBird

            Actually, I grew up very conservatively, with very conservative, strict parents (and thank God for that). But they were also very decent human beings who made an effort to treat people decently first.

            You ought to give that a try. You are reflexively against gays as perverts because you don't know anybody who's gay, and would probably run screaming if you encountered one. You're a homophobe, as well as a pretty much every-thing-that-is-different-phobe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You ought to give that a try. You are reflexively against gays as perverts because you don't know anybody who's gay, and would probably run screaming if you encountered one. You're a homophobe, as well as a pretty much every-thing-that-is-different-phobe."

            More certifiable proof that you have no clue about anything. Next you'll swear you can identify me by my font style. It sounds like you've succumbed to straight guilt along with your white guilt. Free the oppressed!

            What oppressed are you worried about? People who want to adopt children and use new laws as a hammer to attack anyone that hurts their feelings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My case is simple. They're not celebrating decadent sex. They're celebrating a life-long commitment to one another, as I'm sure you and your spouse are. And they don't want to be treated as victims."

            Subjectivity aside, I'm sure that most of them don't want to be treated as victims. But they've been indoctrinated to feel victimized. They want us to rectify their perceived disadvantages.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Also I didn't say anything about "common sense". I referred to "common decency" as one basis for my view."

            Uh..Danny, what is the source for your "common decency?" It's an implicit call to "common sense." A "common sense of decency" unless as I say, you can show me what other sources we have to choose from.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Also I didn't say anything about "common sense". I referred to "common decency" as one basis for my view."

            Uh..Danny, what is the source for your "common decency?" It's an implicit call to "common sense." A "common sense of decency" unless as I say, you can show me what other sources we have to choose from.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…there is nothing about being gay that interferes with an individual's functioning well in society."

            Great. Let's move on.

            "And they don't give a crap about someone like you hurting their feelings."

            Sure. Like when a church refuses to marry a gay couple. That's not about feelings, that's about the functional aspects of…what? They must be married in a church that disagrees with what they're doing. That's not about feelings though. It's about….or when they must adopt a child and have the same status as hetero couples. No, that's quite pragmatic trying to push oneself in line ignoring all of the evidence about best interests of the child. This is not about feelings eh? They're all pragmatic which is why we need new laws about…making sure they don't feel you reject them because they choose to live with their sexuality on display.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "They simply want to be able to partake of the same societal benefits as the rest of us."

            No, they don't. They already have that choice. They want to reinvent society according to their will. I want to have sex with many partners and I want everyone to accept it because it's my orientation. I can prove that almost all men are oriented to have sex with multiple partners. This urge is EXACTLY equal to homosexual sex as long as I avoid procreation. And even then, there's nothing stopping me from procreating so for the sake of those children we must legalize polygamy. For the children you see?

            Or we might simply say that it's in the best interests of the children to be raised by one mom and one dad.

            "I know it's difficult for you to understand, but they actually want to be treated like everyone else under the law, neither superior nor inferior. Get it now?"

            Sure. I'm the confused one. I understand every statement you make even better than you understand your own words. No wonder you can't figure out the logic of any critics of "gay marriage." It just "must be" bigotry.

            It's common sense alright.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My case is simple. They're not celebrating decadent sex. They're celebrating a life-long commitment to one another.."

            Based on non-functional sexual behavior and desire. Are they producing green energy when they have sex? Maybe the state does have an interest in these "marriages." Please explain to me why we need to promote this.

            If it is "green energy" I won't be surprised. I hope they don't exhale.

          • EarlyBird

            So, any sex that isn't intended to pro-create is "non-functional." More brilliance.

            Objy, when you have to grasp at straws so desperately, you probably have the wrong argument. You're allowed to fear and loathe gay people as perverts, or have any number of bad ideas in your head. But you don't get to demand different laws for the same type of union and call yourself someone interested in liberty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So, any sex that isn't intended to pro-create is "non-functional." More brilliance."

            Any sex that has no chance to lead to procreation is not functional with regard to any interest the state or the public has. We have no reason to worry about incentives for it.

            "But you don't get to demand different laws for the same type of union and call yourself someone interested in liberty."

            I'm not limiting anyone's liberty and NONE of my ideas threaten liberty either, unless by liberty you really mean anarchy.

          • EarlyBird

            Gay marriage will have zero impact on the ability or likelihood of gay people to have sex. Marriage equality is not about having sex. You seem a bit hung up on that, if you don't mind me pointing that out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Marriage equality is not about having sex."

            Yes it is. You told me that they were born with sexual preferences that compel us to accommodate them. Are you changing your mind? This is no surprise because you've never been coherent.

            "You seem a bit hung up on that, if you don't mind me pointing that out."

            Yeah. I'm hung up on straightening out stupidity. Your "help" isn't helping anyone.

      • EarlyBird

        Wrong again, Danny. So sorry, but poll after poll shows that most Americans do NOT consider homosexuality bad.

        Try again.

  • EarlyBird

    Oh, I love the irony.

    On the very same page as another hysterical, fear-mongering screed against committed gay couples by Danny Greenfield, Front Page Magazine has an advertising link for "DominicanCupid.com," Dominican dating and singles, complete with skanky, sultry looking women all barely 18 years old.

    Surely these girls are looking for serious, committed marriages with the mostly middle aged, married, Jewish or fundamentalist Christian men this site caters to. Blech.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "On the very same page as another hysterical, fear-mongering screed against committed gay couples by Danny Greenfield, Front Page Magazine has an advertising link for "DominicanCupid.com," Dominican dating and singles, complete with skanky, sultry looking women all barely 18 years old."

      You only think you have a point because you think the state needs to control morality and to do it according to "common sense."

      Some conservative you are. Being more fiscally conservative than other leftist Kool Aid drinkers does NOT make you a conservative. You're hard left, and radical only when you want to attack people on the web that you hate.

      • EarlyBird

        Since you pretend not to get my point, I'll make it more clear:

        This site is terrified about the idea of two adults of the same sex committing to each other for life via marriage, lest it "destroy the institution of marriage."

        We can see that this site also caters to a demographic of mostly conservative, religious Jews Christian, middle-aged males, probably most of whom are married. So what is it doing advertising for a dating site that features very young, clearly sleazy single women? Hmmm?

        • Mary Sue

          It won't "destroy the institution of marriage". what it WILL do is make the word "marriage" meaningless.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "We can see that this site also caters to a demographic of mostly conservative, religious Jews Christian, middle-aged males, probably most of whom are married. So what is it doing advertising for a dating site that features very young, clearly sleazy single women? Hmmm?"

          Another bird brain straw man argument.

          This site caters to people who recognize that you're a complete bird brain. And you obviously have no clue how web sites "choose" ads. Not that you have a clue about anything at all.