Althouse: "Gay marriage currently is not legal, under U.S. law. I bet a lot of straight men wish that applied to them..."

May 28, 2009

"Gay marriage currently is not legal, under U.S. law. I bet a lot of straight men wish that applied to them..."

"... so they could go out there and have some torrid, unabashed monkey sex, as much as they could. You know, that sounds pretty good, right?"

Comedy show or serious conservative magazine?

169 comments:

Palladian said...: "Comedy show or serious conservative magazine?"

Why can't it be both?; 5/28/09, 1:01 PM
Elliott A said...: Sex is a recurring theme today; 5/28/09, 1:03 PM
Bissage said...: Who the heck are Frank, Joe, Vera and Sally?; 5/28/09, 1:07 PM
David said...: Conservatives want us to have sex with monkeys?

How do the monkeys feel about this?; 5/28/09, 1:08 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/09, 1:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Well I have said it repeatedly, be careful what you wish for. The state's view of marriage is a contract, not some sacred bond between two peoples who are hopelessly devoted to each other or some happy horeshit like that.

The only reason the State is involved in the marriage process is to oversee the property settlement when devotion gives way to apathy and finally the envitable I never loved you and I faked every orgasm!.

Right now if Frank finds out that Richard has been banging Julio in the pool house, Frank can pack his stuff and take his share of the goodies and go somewhere else. Once Frank is married to Richard, then you have the whole property settlement issue to work out and Frank may have to pay spousal support cause Richard was the homemaker while Frank brought home the bacon.

So to speak.; 5/28/09, 1:15 PM
TMink said...: So gay marriage is just another attorney bailout?

Trey; 5/28/09, 1:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: Strange article seems to be trying to say all Gay Men are alike. In real life, there are well adjusted Gay Lifetime partners, and there are over the top Rebellious Gays who are as promiscuous as alley cats, and for whom a Marriage would become a joke after 6 months. The anti Gay marriage folk fear losing their children to a lifestyle without hope for children/grandchildren 20 years later. They may have a point.; 5/28/09, 1:18 PM
Palladian said...: "How do the monkeys feel about this?"

There's people on the street getting diseases from monkeysYeah that's what I said, they're getting diseases from monkeys!
Why's this happening, please,
who's been touching these monkeys?
Leave these poor sick monkeys alone,
they're sick, they've got problems enough as it is...; 5/28/09, 1:19 PM
Joseph said...: Hoosier, There are lots of problems with divorce law because divorce is inherently problematic. But I consider divorce law one of the great benefits that come with the right to marry. It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect. It protects a party who relied to their detriment on the other. You can argue that the default rules in divorce should be different than they are, but the existence of any default rules makes divorce more orderly and fair than having no rules at all.; 5/28/09, 1:29 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier, There are lots of problems with divorce law because divorce is inherently problematic. But I consider divorce law one of the great benefits that come with the right to marry. It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect. It protects a party who relied to their detriment on the other. .

Joe, I don't disagree at all. My point is that proponents for gay marriage are not taking this into account and seem to be arguing for it almost solely on teh basis that they can't have it. It's more than shared health benefits and more favorable tax status.; 5/28/09, 1:34 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It provides a system of rules and presumptions to guide a couple through separation, which is presumably always unplanned and more complicated than people expect..

Actually Joe, that is the money quote right there and I think is something that the gay community needs to think about. I will not assume that gay couples won't face the prospect of divorce in any less numbers than hetero couples and I think they should understand that once the I do's are said.

Like I said, it's one thing to ask Richard to leave the condo cause he was banging Julio but once married, Richard will be leaving with Julio along with a property settlement and possibly spousal support. It ain't all butterflies and daffodils is all I'm saying.; 5/28/09, 1:40 PM
Wince said...: ...I've always laughed at that interchange because of how cheerfully Michael has become convinced of his own fallacious reasoning. But no one would say something so dumb in real life, right?

Unfortunately, JAC says absolutely nothing to convince me of his argument.; 5/28/09, 1:46 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Unfortunately, JAC says absolutely nothing to convince me of his argument.

OK, if you want it spelled out, here's why it's illogical. Let's concede the point that there are a whole lot of men out there (of all sexual orientations) who would rather have unrestrained, promiscuous sex than be tied down by being married. Does it follow that men are more fortunate if they're gay? Of course not, because straight men aren't forced to get married! Men who want promiscuous sex so much that they'd rather not be married are in the same position whether they're gay, straight, or bisexual: they just shouldn't get married. For those men, the legality of marriage is a wash. But there are still plenty of men, of all sexual orientations, who would rather be married. Among that group of men, the ones who want to legally marry a woman are in a more fortunate situation than the ones who want to legally marry a man, since the former but not the latter are allowed to do what they want.; 5/28/09, 2:00 PM
Bissage said...: “I can’t understand why more people aren't bisexual. It would double your chances for a date on Saturday night.”

-- Woody Allen; 5/28/09, 2:05 PM
Richard Fagin said...: What more favorable tax status? Uncle Sugar has been sticking it to two earner married couples for some time now. I'm all for the tax man sticking it equally to gay people.; 5/28/09, 2:33 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: The reason gay men are able to have sex so easily is because they are 2 men involved not because they are gay.

Straight men do not have those opportunities because women are involved. Women want more than just sex. They want emotion and crap like that.

Another powerful statement from me.; 5/28/09, 2:43 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: Poor straight men.; 5/28/09, 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: So what Titus is saying, fellow straight guys, is that if we want more sex, we should just open ourselves up to the possibility of having non-gay sex with other mean.

Hmm.

On further reflection, I suspect Titus may just be recruiting.; 5/28/09, 2:55 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: No no no. That is not what I am saying Rocketeer.

I am saying that when you have two men together it tends to be easier to have sex. If you see a beautiful women walk down the street you will likely look at her and that how far it goes.

If a gay guy does that to another gay guy there is a chance that they can do it within the next 15 minutes. Not always but there is a chance.

No recruiting here. There is enough gays in the world. We do not need more gays. Too many gay.; 5/28/09, 2:59 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I think JAC is making a bigger point that this article appeared in the Weekly Standard, that respected conservative magazine versus the quality of the writer’s argument. Big deal. Liberal magazines have had their share of bonehead articles too in addition to flat out made up ones ;-) I’ll admit I found it pretty much parody just for the simple fact that anyone thrice married really has no business speaking on the virtues of the institution.
Even as a conservative, I really don’t get the anti-gay marriage argument, particularly from the various churches. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think the state can force say, the Catholic Church to marry a gay couple and I think that point needs to be driven home. The JP marrying a gay couple will have no more effect than the JP marrying a hetero couple, at least in the eyes of the church because neither are recognized by the church. As for the institution itself, I’d say it’s been beat up pretty good in the heterosexual mode for the better part of 30 years. Once no-fault divorce became the rage, you saw couples splitting up before the ink was dry on the license. That’s done more to hurt the credibility of its ‘sancticy’ than allowing gays to walk down the aisle.; 5/28/09, 3:00 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Women want more than just sex. They want emotion and crap like that..

And money.; 5/28/09, 3:01 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: That's funny.

Do women really want money?

Gays don't care about that when doing it. They want big arms, chest, small waist, nice ass, cute, you know all the physical attributes.

Just like straight men like a nice pair of tits, ass, face, hair.

Men are physical. Let's get physical.

Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus. Gay Men Are From Uranus. And Dykes are from Lezbo.

You know what they say dykes bring on their first date? A U Haul Truck. Ba da bum.; 5/28/09, 3:08 PM
Bissage said...: The year was 1979. The advice was from a high-school janitor. The advice was this: “Stick with sheep. They’re good ass, they don’t take your money and they won’t break your heart.”

(God, I really wish I were making that up.)

(And no, he wasn’t joking.)

(He was a little creepy, actually.)

(Yeah, I guess you all kind of figured that out on your own without my having to say it.); 5/28/09, 3:12 PM
jeff said...: "stick" with sheep, bissage? Anything you need to get off your chest here?

I hope the sheep were of consenting age.; 5/28/09, 3:41 PM
Joseph said...: Hoosier: I hear you. I was in a six year relationship that involved sharing ownership of everything in a way that married couples do. When we split up I was glad we didn't have to deal with a formal divorce. But at the same time I can imagine that if there had been a disparity in power/money between us or malice had infected the break up, I can see how the marriage regime would have been really valuable to us (or at least one of us). Luckily we were able to avoid that (it also probably helped that we were dirt poor and didn't own much of value).

I don't think every gay person who supports same sex marriage personally wants to get married any more than every gay person who supports rescinding Don't Ask Don't Tell wants to personally sign up for military service. Its about access to those institutions if circumstances in our lives make them appropriate.; 5/28/09, 3:43 PM
Once written, twice... said...: No other issue more than this one is going to keep the Republican party in the minority for the next two decades. Polls show that almost all below the age of thirty five are supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Unlike the civil rights era where most whites did not have black relatives or friends, most people today, especially young people, have relatives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and friends that are gay. This makes discrimination against them that more personal. I do not know how many people who have told me "I use to vote only Republican but now I can't support a party that hates my gay son."

I suspect that the Republican party will continue to dig themselves deeper into this hole for the next six years or so before they will turn it around and start repairing the damage. Then we will have a lot of Republican office holders who will have to explain why in the past they were not really homophobes. Very much like Strom Thurmond after the civil rights movement was victorious.; 5/28/09, 4:00 PM
Jeremy said...: Who are these "leftist" gay loving "liberal" radicals and why are they trying to ruin all the fun for Republican bigots?

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.

“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”; 5/28/09, 4:18 PM
blake said...: As a counterpoint to Palladian's Choncords, Ricky Gervais explains AIDS.; 5/28/09, 4:25 PM
Once written, twice... said...: There is no doubt that there are current Republican operatives who now understand the long term consequences of the party latching on to anti-gay ballot initiatives and gay baiting in general, but I still predict that it will take several election cycles before the Republicans wises up.

I also know that there are a minority of prominent Republicans, Ted Olson sounds like he is one of them, who have decided that they want to be on the right side of history and be counted as a supporter of human rights and not as just another bigot.; 5/28/09, 4:29 PM
Palladian said...: "Very much like Strom Thurmond after the civil rights movement was victorious."

Or like former Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd.; 5/28/09, 4:30 PM
Unknown said...: omg! ann you made it into playboy (kind of...)
http://is.gd/IrU8; 5/28/09, 4:31 PM
Jeremy said...: Hoosier Daddy in response to: "Women want more than just sex. They want emotion and crap like that.."

Says..."And money."

Versus men?

Are in some kind of time warp?

What are you using to buy your groceries and pay your bills?; 5/28/09, 4:31 PM
Salamandyr said...: I also know that there are a minority of prominent Republicans, Ted Olson sounds like he is one of them, who have decided that they want to be on the right side of history and be counted as a supporter of human rights and not as just another bigot.

What an incredibly authoritarian use of language!; 5/28/09, 4:32 PM
Palladian said...: How did Prop 8 pass in California, Robert?

You might need to expel all those nasty black, hispanic and other religious miscreants from your own party before you achieve your utopia on Earth.

And why are you tolerant of bigotry against polygamists? Are you determined to be on the wrong side of history on that issue?; 5/28/09, 4:34 PM
Jeremy said...: Judith - "Palladian may have an expertise in art, but his grasp of the female anatomy is less than convincing. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously commented with regard to obscenity, “I know it when I see it.” Sorry Althouse, this ain’t it."

He doesn't really know anything about art either.

Eating, yes.

Art, no.; 5/28/09, 4:34 PM
Jeremy said...: Palladian "And why are you tolerant of bigotry against polygamists? Are you determined to be on the wrong side of history on that issue?"

People against polygamy are "bigots??"

There's a new one.; 5/28/09, 4:35 PM
Jeremy said...: Prop 8 versus..."Equal Protection Clause"; 5/28/09, 4:37 PM
Joseph said...: "Very much like Strom Thurmond after the civil rights movement was victorious."

Or like former Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd.I hope there are more like Byrd than Thurmond. Byrd actually apologized for his past and changed his views. Thurmond never really came around. That's actually one of my fears in these culture war debates--that politicians will feel tied to positions taken now in ten years when the public has changed its mind.; 5/28/09, 4:41 PM
Once written, twice... said...: You can always count on apologists like Palladian to bring up diversions like "Robert Byrd" and "polygamists."
Here is your answer, Byrd was one of the few racist southern Senators who did not switch over to the Republican party during the 1970s and 1980s. He is not a beloved democrat to say the least. Also, racists like Thurmond and Byrd used the "polygamists" argument to argue against inter racial marriage forty years ago. Do you really want to be apart of that club Palladian?; 5/28/09, 4:43 PM
KCFleming said...: Hetero marriage is on the way out anyway, among blacks first and now whites.

Except in the religious, e.g. Mormons and Muslims. The latter and in some sects the former practice polygamy.

Eurabia already exists as a direct result of immigration and the demographic decline in e.g. Holland.

Nations die this way. So here. Not because of gay marriage, though, as it's merely a symptom rather than a cause.

So yes, men are quite happy not to ever marry. Blcak men seem to survive without it, although not terribly wrong, given the violent crime rate.

I wonder if these things are correlated at all?
Naaaaah.; 5/28/09, 4:46 PM
KCFleming said...: "Byrd was one of the few racist southern Senators who did not switch over to the Republican party during the 1970s and 1980s."
Bullshit.
Democrats filibustered the Civil rights legislation, Republicans supported it.
Too bad for the history of Democrats, but there it is.

"...racists like Thurmond and Byrd used the "polygamists" argument to argue against inter racial marriage forty years ago."
Logical fallacy.
If you think opening up gay marriage will not immediately result in a push to recognize polygamy, you're not terribly insightful.; 5/28/09, 4:48 PM
Palladian said...: "People against polygamy are "bigots??"

Why is gay marriage a right yet polygamy off the table? My ancestors were polygamists before being oppressed by the federal government. Why do you want to suppress an ancient and natural human tradition?

Bigots.; 5/28/09, 4:51 PM
Sofa King said...: Hetero marriage is on the way out anyway, among blacks first and now whites.

Yup. Most young men know, marriage is totally gay.; 5/28/09, 4:52 PM
Palladian said...: "He doesn't really know anything about art either.

Eating, yes.

Art, no."

What do you know about psychology, Gene Olson? Apparently not enough to apply it to yourself, you twisted old fuck.

Don't send your kids to Santa Monica College because they might end up in a class with this psychopath.; 5/28/09, 4:54 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Pogo wrote
"If you think opening up gay marriage will not immediately result in a push to recognize polygamy, you're not terribly insightful."

No, just incredible dumb like you Pogo. People who see slippery slopes everywhere are twits.

Gay marriage and polygamy are no closer related than polygamy and marriage between people of different races.; 5/28/09, 4:54 PM
Palladian said...: "Gay marriage and polygamy are no closer related than polygamy and marriage between people of different races."

Why not? Because you're a bigot. Your kind will die off soon enough and then I'll be able to marry as many men as I want.; 5/28/09, 4:57 PM
Palladian said...: What's a good argument against polygamy or polyandry?; 5/28/09, 4:58 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Pogo, I am surprise that you did not just jump to "allowing gay marriage will open the door to people being allowed to marry their hamsters!"; 5/28/09, 4:59 PM
TMink said...: L.E. Lee, have you paid attention to what your President and Vice President have said about gay marriage?

Trey; 5/28/09, 5:00 PM
Sofa King said...: Yes, what's a good logical argument for bigamy to be a crime?; 5/28/09, 5:00 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: I want to marry my rare clumbers.

I guess that makes be a beastiality polygamists.

Where are my rights?; 5/28/09, 5:06 PM
Palladian said...: "I want to marry my rare clumbers.

I guess that makes be a beastiality polygamists.

Where are my rights?"

But the question is, do they want to marry you?

You might not like the answer!; 5/28/09, 5:07 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: They love me bitch.

It is the one thing I am Certain about in Life.; 5/28/09, 5:10 PM
Joseph said...: Polygamy seems like one of those topics that makes people take extreme positions (its right around the corner! its completely unrelated!). I think its an interesting comparison but the answer is a lot less clear. I think the right to privacy that Lawrence v. Texas was based on could clearly be used to invalidate the criminalization of consensual polygamous relationships (which still exists in some states). I don't personally see any good policy rationale for the state to punish people who set up house in an unconventional way like that.

But I just don't see the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to polygamous marriage in the same way. First, you need a decent size group of people who care enough to clammor for such a right. I don't hear about many people seriously exploring that kind of lifestyle, let alone arguing for a legal regime to accommodate it. Second, so much of marriage law is about the reciprocal binary relationship. When you allow gays to marry, you just remove the gender restriction and everything applies just the same. If you were to set up a polygamous marriage regime, you'd have to create all kinds of different default rules based on who has priority and rights when one leaves/dies, etc. It would be an entirely different system that's not really like marriage.; 5/28/09, 5:13 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Trey wrote
"L.E. Lee, have you paid attention to what your President and Vice President have said about gay marriage?"

Obviously, President Obama is held in high regard by organizations and individuals that are fighting for equality for gays and lesbians. It is surely wise that they are not following the example of conservatives but instead acknowledge that battles for equality occur not in the moment but over time. It is not unprincipled to be prudent when engaging in battle in the political realm. After all, when Martin Luther King was pressed in the 1950s and early 1960s, he was forced to say he was not for marriage between the races even though we now know he thought otherwise. He had his "eyes on the prize" as they said back then. I have no doubt that in the not so long run President Obama will publicly state his support for gay marriage.; 5/28/09, 5:14 PM
Wince said...: Thanks JAC for clarifying, I see what you are saying about the "I wish that applied to me..." quote. True, who is made better off by fewer choices?

Yet, my gut instinct is still to oppose same-sex marriage in favor of civil unions, in a manner similar to Schulman, but not exactly. I have to write this on the fly, so cut me some slack on the composition.

I think Titus is on the money. Relationships that involve two men will be different, by in large, than relationships that involve one or two women.

Yet, once male-male relationships are included under the institution of marriage, I would anticipate that over time the rights and responsibilities of marriage are likely to follow a different historical trajectory, due to case law and political pressures, than if same-sex, particularly male-male relationships, were not included.

The risk is not that men would want to exclude themselves from marriage, but they will exert an influence to change the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I'm not even saying that all those changes necessarily would be undesirable, especially from the "male" point of view, including my own.

But I'm not sure that it's in society's short- or long-term interest to rush into lumping these groups together under a one size fits all institution.

I see civil unions as a way to extend rights and responsibilites without radically changing the dynamic within the institution of marriage after millennia, to avoid injecting all the expected and unexpected new political pressures, at least until we get some idea of where the same-sex constituencies would want to take it over mere decades.; 5/28/09, 5:14 PM
KCFleming said...: You find the 'slippery slope' argument ridiculous. Ten years ago, even gays opposed gay marriage.

Yet here we are.
And no argument against polygamy has opened except that'no one wants it'.

yet.
The Muslim faith is surely eying this outcome, as are certain Mormon sects. Expect lawsuits, just like gay marriage.; 5/28/09, 5:23 PM
KCFleming said...: L. E. Lee said...
"Martin Luther King ...was forced to say he was not for marriage between the races even though we now know he thought otherwise."

It is admirable that the left is counting on Obama to be a serial liar about his positions on various topics, including gay marriage.

Maybe 'admirable' isn't the word.; 5/28/09, 5:25 PM
Palladian said...: "I have no doubt that in the not so long run President Obama will publicly state his support for gay marriage."

So he's a knowing, politically-motivated lying coward, is that what you're saying? You elected a liar, knowing he was a liar who wanted power more than he cared about his supposed principles. Disgusting.

Look, as a gay man, I am really fucking tired of my life being used as a political football by your repulsively hypocritical party, indeed by any political party. You think you have us bought and paid-for like two dollar whores, and that we're too fucking dumb to realize what's going on.; 5/28/09, 5:27 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Oh, Pogo! You are just angling to marry your hamster.

(My impression of Pogo)
"My God! My God! This gay marriage thing is going to open up marriage between earthlings and space aliens!"

Just as relevant as your argument Pogo. First, we are not debating polygamy. Just as we were not debating it back in the 1950s and 1960s. Got it? Second, there is a quantitative difference between the two. Can you count Pogo?; 5/28/09, 5:30 PM
Joseph said...: Palladian--I agree with you but the Dems aren't the only party that plays politics with gay rights, including Bush and his full-of-shit campaign to amend the U.S. constitution, which he clearly never intended to seriously pursue.; 5/28/09, 5:30 PM
Palladian said...: "Palladian--I agree with you but the Dems aren't the only party that plays politics with gay rights, including Bush and his full-of-shit campaign to amend the U.S. constitution, which he clearly never intended to seriously pursue."

In total agreement. The Republicans have been just as guilty of it. That's why I said any political party. It always strikes me as worse coming from Democrats because they're the ones that pretend to care about gay rights.; 5/28/09, 5:33 PM
bearbee said...: ...people being allowed to marry their hamsters.

The mental image has me in stitches...the human groom in his tux standing beside his hamster bride in white with veil.....; 5/28/09, 5:35 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Pogo,
I am sure you think Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were serial liars because they had to factor in shifting popular opinion and some time chose to be prudent in political battle. While you surely disagree, I think the country is better off because they did so.; 5/28/09, 5:35 PM
Palladian said...: "First, we are not debating polygamy. Just as we were not debating it back in the 1950s and 1960s. Got it?"

No, don't got it. We weren't debating gay marriage back in the 50s and 60s either.

I'm not being facetious. It's an interesting exercise in logic. If you accept the premise of same-sex marriage, then what's the justification to continue to restrict marriage to two parties? It seems that if you make a major structural change to an ancient institution, then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of that change.

I've made my position clear before. I don't think the government has any right at all to regulate any kind of marriage, straight, gay or otherwise. Marriage should be a completely private institution without government interference in either direction.; 5/28/09, 5:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Palladian - "Why is gay marriage a right yet polygamy off the table?"

Well, start with the fact that gays are born gay and polygamists are not.

Why would no know this?; 5/28/09, 5:38 PM
Palladian said...: "I am sure you think Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were serial liars because they had to factor in shifting popular opinion and some time chose to be prudent in political battle."

I want you to point to a reputable citation of a direct statement by either Dr King or President Lincoln where they clearly stated their opposition to interracial marriage.; 5/28/09, 5:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Sorry - I meant: Why would you not know this.; 5/28/09, 5:39 PM
Palladian said...: "Well, start with the fact that gays are born gay and polygamists are not."

Really? Do you have scientific evidence that supports your assertions? Citations please.; 5/28/09, 5:39 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Yey Palladian, the Dems have really politically benefited in the past by leading on this issue.

"Look, as a gay man,"

I doubt it.; 5/28/09, 5:40 PM
Jeremy said...: What is it about gays being able to marry that scares or effects those against it?

We have five states that allow gay marriage and I hear nothing from anybody I know that makes me think those marriages are somehow effecting our lives.; 5/28/09, 5:41 PM
Palladian said...: Marriage is not an in-born trait either. It's a culturally-created human institution. There is no biological imperative for anyone, straight or otherwise, to marry. So appealing to genetics is not a sufficient answer.; 5/28/09, 5:41 PM
Jeremy said...: Palladian said..."Really? Do you have scientific evidence that supports your assertions? Citations please."

You think they "choose" to be gay?

I realize you're not the brightest bulb on the block, but even you can't possibly believe such nonsense.

I take that back; you are that dumb.; 5/28/09, 5:46 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Palladian wrote

"I want you to point to a reputable citation of a direct statement by either Dr King or President Lincoln where they clearly stated their opposition to interracial marriage."

Read some of the Lincoln-Douglas debates you twat. I am done educating your phony ass.; 5/28/09, 5:48 PM
Palladian said...: "Yey Palladian, the Dems have really politically benefited in the past by leading on this issue."

Leading on this issue? Leading on this issue?! Fuck you. We saw President Clinton's "leadership" on the issue of gay rights. We've seen their continual "leadership" on this issue every time each of them asserts their opposition to gay marriage. If that's what constitutes "leadership" then you can shove it up your ass.

"Look, as a gay man,"

"I doubt it."

You doubt it?! What the fuck do you doubt? How do I prove it to you? I'm not about to get out my tiny forceps to find your tiny penis so I can suck it, honey.

First you use the issue of my rights and freedoms to get your pathetic party elected, then your "leaders" do everything they can to prevaricate and ignore the issue once they are elected, then you come along and say "oh they're just lying to everyone. Any day now they're going to spring out of the closet and give you your rights!".

Well fuck you, honey. My rights aren't your pathetic party's to give and take, nor are they for you or anyone else to use at your political convenience. We're onto you, scumbag.; 5/28/09, 5:48 PM
Palladian said...: "Read some of the Lincoln-Douglas debates you twat. I am done educating your phony ass."

So you're just lying and talking shit, like your dear leader. As I said, we're onto you motherfucker.; 5/28/09, 5:49 PM
KCFleming said...: Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were pragmatic, but also human. Lincoln was of many minds about blacks; his position evolved over time. That's not lying or playing politics.

I dunno about MLK; I want citations proving what you say is true first.

But you clearly admit that Obama is a serial liar to the public about what he actually believes just to get elected. MLK never did that, not running for office. And I have never seen evidence that Lincoln lied about his positions.

Saying "read it" is not proof.; 5/28/09, 5:50 PM
KCFleming said...: And still no arguments against polygamy except
a) it's more than 2
b) it's not a popular idea

Rather weak.; 5/28/09, 5:54 PM
The Dude said...: Gene Olson wrote "brightest bulb on the block".

When one reads such writing one can only think "Gene Olson".

May God have mercy on his soul.; 5/28/09, 5:54 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Palladian,

You crack me up.

You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy. That is completely irrational of me to find that odd. Now, I am sure that there was a slave 150 years ago who thought that a white man owning a black man was the same as him owning a goat.

Palladian, I am calling you out. You are a phony.; 5/28/09, 5:58 PM
Jeremy said...: L. E. Lee - You must be new to this insanity.

Short of bringing Lincoln, Douglas and King back to life so they themselves can clear things up, you'll NEVER get any of the regulars here to give you a single point or admit to any conceivable error on their part.

Whenever you post a comment that refutes their opinion they either disappear or move on to another topic.

Oh, and if you keep disagreeing, you'll move into "troll" territory and that will be their line of defense.; 5/28/09, 5:59 PM
Jeremy said...: L. E. Lee said..."Palladian, You crack me up. You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy. That is completely irrational of me to find that odd."

And keep in mind...he also thinks it is a matter of "choice"...in both.; 5/28/09, 6:00 PM
Jeremy said...: NKVD - Wrong Dude...Dude.; 5/28/09, 6:01 PM
Palladian said...: "You are right. It is completely irrational for me to wonder about a person who claims to be gay but also equates gay marriage with polygamy."

I'm not "equating" them, Einstein, I'm saying that the government should not be in the business of marriage at all, and shouldn't be able to discriminate against gays, straights, cousins, polygamists or whoever.

"Palladian, I am calling you out. You are a phony."

LOL. Keep calling out, honey! Caw! Caw! Maybe you'll find someone unfortunate enough to want to suck your little cock one day.; 5/28/09, 6:04 PM
Palladian said...: "And keep in mind...he also thinks it is a matter of "choice"...in both."

No Gene Olson, I didn't say that. I asked you to point me to significant scientific evidence that polygamy or at least the urge for multiple partners was not genetically determined. You see, asking for proof to back up a dubious scientific assertion isn't the same as agreeing with or disagreeing with anything.; 5/28/09, 6:06 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Pogo wrote
"I dunno about MLK; I want citations proving what you say is true first."

This topic is covered in detail in David Garrow's great book "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference." I believe it came out in the 1980s.

Garrow goes into great depth about how King struggled with answering these type of questions knowing that there were traps to keep political progress from being made. Those who are always against progress and equality always put the difficult question first; "So, Dr. King do you think a negro should be allowed to marry a white girl?" During the 1950s the focus was on ending segregation.

I find it obvious that many of those who are always braying about how these issues of equality should be decided through our democratic institutions instead of in the courts are often the first to criticize those who get into the political arena and take on all of the baggage that goes with doing so. It is all to obvious what you are truly against.; 5/28/09, 6:17 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Palladian : I want you to point to a reputable citation of a direct statement by either Dr King or President Lincoln where they clearly stated their opposition to interracial marriage.

Lincoln : I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have
been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political
equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been,
in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to
hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in
addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white
and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living
together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as
they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the
position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in
favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say
upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to
have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

That's Lincoln talking at the fourth debate he had with Douglas at Charleston on 18 September 1858.; 5/28/09, 6:17 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Palladian wrote
" I'm saying that the government should not be in the business of marriage at all, and shouldn't be able to discriminate against gays, straights, cousins, polygamists or whoever."

Please get your group together and then come talk to me. I will be back here on earth.; 5/28/09, 6:24 PM
Palladian said...: "I will be back here on earth."

I try to stay away from Earth. It's a nasty place full of ugly little trolls like yourself.; 5/28/09, 6:31 PM
Once written, twice... said...: P.S. I hate it when straight people like Palladian come out of the closet.; 5/28/09, 6:32 PM
Once written, twice... said...: AHHHHHH!!!!
I'm the troll!

Like I said Palladian, you crack me up.; 5/28/09, 6:34 PM
Palladian said...: Don't forget, everyone. LE Lee is a champion of your rights, the heterosexual liberator of the queers, the saintly and brave defender of freedom and human rights. That is, until you disagree with him and his entire agenda (whatever it might be). If that happens you'll be insulted, vilified, cursed, and even have your sexuality denied and cast as a lie. We're to be good little faggots, to be taken out of our closet when required and put back in at the convenience of the Party. We'll vote as told and bark when compelled and be silent when so ordered.; 5/28/09, 6:40 PM
Lindsey said...: Polygamy destabilizes society because a few men monopolize most of the women. This leaves large numbers of single men. Countries with lots of single men with no responsibilities tend to have high crime rates and get into wars. They have to find something to do with all the single men.

It's also clearly awful for women's rights.

Polygamy is probably the most natural and longest-lasting form of human relationships. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.; 5/28/09, 6:44 PM
Palladian said...: "That's Lincoln talking at the fourth debate he had with Douglas at Charleston on 18 September 1858."

Thanks, Jason. But is there any indication that President Lincoln was lying for political purposes and actually supported interracial marriage? Did he ever come to support interracial marriage?; 5/28/09, 6:44 PM
Palladian said...: "Polygamy is probably the most natural and longest-lasting form of human relationships. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."

What about polyandry?; 5/28/09, 6:45 PM
Palladian said...: And thank you Lindsey for at least attempting a discussion and providing something other than a personal insult.; 5/28/09, 6:46 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Palladian : It's a nasty place full of ugly little trolls like yourself.

L. E. Lee is not being a troll. He's saying stuff that's true and I am learning from him.

Also, I think when Palladian goes around constantly telling people to "suck his dick" that he loses the right to call anyone a troll.; 5/28/09, 6:46 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Give-it-up-Palladian.
Going into the "I am now being persecuted" shtick is just making me laugh even harder.
(Plus, you don't know my sexual orientation. Unlike you, I am not into identity politics. Well, in your case "false identity politics."); 5/28/09, 6:47 PM
Ralph L said...: who want to legally marry a man
But it's just a piece of paper!
Our Love will last forever, like two hairy, stinky monkeys.; 5/28/09, 6:48 PM
Palladian said...: "L. E. Lee is not being a troll. He's saying stuff that's true and I am learning from him."

You're learning from him? Are you learning that I'm actually a heterosexual pretending to be gay, is that what you're learning?

"Also, I think when Palladian goes around constantly telling people to "suck his dick" that he loses the right to call anyone a troll."

Um, I was imitating a favorite tactic of "Jeremy". Of course you'd never notice that. You're only interested in irritating me.; 5/28/09, 6:49 PM
Palladian said...: "Going into the "I am now being persecuted" shtick is just making me laugh even harder.
(Plus, you don't know my sexual orientation. Unlike you, I am not into identity politics. Well, in your case "false identity politics.")"

This is the level of respect that the LE Lees of the world afford gay people who disagree with them. Take note, friends.; 5/28/09, 6:50 PM
blake said...: Polygamy destabilizes society because a few men monopolize most of the women. This leaves large numbers of single men. Countries with lots of single men with no responsibilities tend to have high crime rates and get into wars. They have to find something to do with all the single men.So, logically, gay men marrying isn't an issue so much as gay women, which would have the same effect as polygamy.

It's also clearly awful for women's rights.Correlation is not causation, as they're fond of saying 'round these parts.

Polygamy is probably the most natural and longest-lasting form of human relationships. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.Well, no. Multiple wives, maybe. Multiple Mothers-In-Law?; 5/28/09, 6:51 PM
Palladian said...: "(Plus, you don't know my sexual orientation. Unlike you, I am not into identity politics."

Unlike you, I'm not a coward who conceals things. So are you a faggot or a breeder, L.E.?; 5/28/09, 6:52 PM
Lindsey said...: Ha. I don't know enough about it. Just know that it's very rare. Probably not natural in the way polygamy is as women don't have the strength advantage men have. Men can force their wills on others in a way most women cannot. Based on what wikipedia says, it seems it has occurred at isolated times among isolated people. It seems much more rare.

A genetic basis for women and men wanting to have sex with multiple partners is pretty obvious I'm sure. It will be easier to discover than a genetic basis for homosexuality since our genes want to help us survive to reproduce.; 5/28/09, 6:53 PM
Lindsey said...: "So, logically, gay men marrying isn't an issue so much as gay women, which would have the same effect as polygamy."

Depends on the proportions. I think more women make it to adulthood and are actually born. So maybe can stand to lose a few lol.; 5/28/09, 6:55 PM
Once written, twice... said...: I am sorry Palladian but I am now bored with you. I could not type anoth...; 5/28/09, 7:03 PM
KCFleming said...: Thus far Lincoln hasn't been shown to lie.

Neither has MLK yet, although it's been implied. I want the quote that showss he deliberately lied.

Weak stuff, Lee.

I can fully undersstand MLK; he might have been killed for saying it. He was killed for saying everything else.

But what's Obama's excuse for lying about gay marriage?
Because telling the truth meant he wouldn't get elected?

Hardly on the same moral plane as MLK, much less Abe Lincoln. Rather, it smacks of cowardice.; 5/28/09, 7:08 PM
Palladian said...: "I am sorry Palladian but I am now bored with you. I could not type anoth..."

Baseless assertions, bloviation, then when challenged, personal attacks, lies, evasion followed by, naturally, slinking away.

Some leadership! Keep helping the Democrats, honey. The more people like you they have watching their backs, the better! Tee hee.; 5/28/09, 7:09 PM
Palladian said...: "Rather, it smacks of cowardice."

LE Lee really relates to cowards.

It's about political power, Pogo. Dr King cared deeply about American blacks because he was one. Obama can be the Savior of the Gays at his convenience. When he gets around to it. You know. Maybe after 2012 or something. Meanwhile, keep votin' for us, faggots! I don't support gay marriage (WINK WINK)!; 5/28/09, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: L.E. Lee: A number of people here, including Althouse herself, know Palladian personally. Your accusation that he is straight will cause great merriment.; 5/28/09, 7:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: The supreme court's constitutional reasoning in overturning Georgia's Bowers case is the only connection between Gay Lifestyle and Polygamy, otherwise they are entirely different subjects. Polygamy is hated for its cruelty to the teenage boy family members who are thrown out so that their Dads and Grandads can get all of the young stuff. The Court's reasoning removes ALL sexual legal crimes from being legislated in any state that affects consenting adults having any type of sex.; 5/28/09, 7:18 PM
KCFleming said...: Brave L.E. Lee ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave L.E. Lee turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.; 5/28/09, 7:31 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Pogo, "Palladian" isn't a real person. He's a character. He's said before that he doesn't necessarily believe anything he says here.

Even if the person who writes "Palladian" is gay, it makes sense to question if the character being written comes across believably as a gay man.

I don't see what L. E. Lee loses by leaving. Why deal with a character when the author decides to write him as a troll? That's what the person writing "Palladian" is doing. In this very thread he's said he's taking trolls as his model to copy and replicate.

Perhaps someday his artistic abilities will improve and he will be able to replicate wit or charm. We can only wait and see, and like all good critics continue to give feedback until the desired goal is achieved.; 5/28/09, 8:18 PM
Palladian said...: Fuck off, Jason. Seriously.; 5/28/09, 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: @Jason: L.E. Lee may be a serious commenter or not. (Personally, I suspect it is just another sock puppet, but that's neither here nor there and I am digressing...) As to your point, L.E. is free to not respond to Palladian's taunts. I thought L.E. was doing a decent job of giving out as good as what was being served up but that's just my opinion.; 5/28/09, 8:50 PM
KCFleming said...: Jason, what?

LE Lee quickly exhibited trollish argumentation, including calling people names and stuff. Palladian's swordplay is most fun at these moments.

It seemed to me that Lee had no intention of having a discussion; just too many Gene Oldsonesque turns.; 5/28/09, 8:55 PM
Pastafarian said...: I really wouldn't mind the Republican party moving to the center on this issue and supporting some form of same-sex marriage; however, Palladian has raised a very good point:

What is the argument against legalizing polygamy?

The fact that there aren't born polygamists doesn't really do it; why should it be illegal, just because it's learned behavior and not a result of genetic predisposition? And how would you prove that there was no genetic basis?

The fact that there isn't a large contingent agitating for polygamy isn't a good argument for making it illegal.

If 3 consenting adults want to enter into such an arrangement, what is the argument that they should then be denied the same advantages as a pair of people?

And can this argument be made by someone who also supports gay marriage, without logical inconsistency?

I'm not a big fan of polygamy, from what little I know of it, but hell...maybe I'm just a bigot. Jeremy, LE Lee, Jason, etc, please reply with an actual answer, not a parry or thrust.; 5/28/09, 9:01 PM
blake said...: Pasta--

There's no genetic basis for homosexuality either.

Or at least, that's what they're saying now.

Sure hope we figure this riddle out before all dying of cancer, heart disease and stupidity.; 5/28/09, 9:05 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: OK, I just got from the gym and this is still going on.

Let's now all relax, take a deep breath in, exhale and relax and be present.

I am here to say Namaste.

One of the interesting points about gay marriage is it has only been around the U.S. for 5 years. Five years! And it is now in five states. States with the lowest divorce rates in the US by the way. For those of us that support gay marriage the progress has been great. I understand it is not fast enough for others. It will take time but I am confident and hopeful it will happen.

Not for me personally because that is not something I desire. But for my brothers and sisters throughout this great country.

Bill Clinton fucked up with DOMA. But during the 2004 elections when the vote came down to amend the constitution regarding gay marriage a large majority of the democrats voted against it while a large majority of the republicans used it as wedge issue and voted for it.

I predict in 10-15 years 1/2 population of this country will have gay marriage. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York and perhaps a couple of midwest states like Wisconsin or Minnesota or Illinois.

The rest of the country will be slower. But I do believe in years to come it will be a non issue. I will hopefully still be alive to see it but what I remember in 2004 with all talk about amending the constitution really was shitty and incredibly hurtful.; 5/28/09, 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: LE Lee quickly exhibited trollish argumentation, including calling people names and stuff.Looking at it that way, it struck me as an equal opportunity brawl. ;-)

Palladian's swordplay is most fun at these moments.Is it for you? Seems tired and dated to me. (DTL did most of the act before.) But then, I've never been overly fond of repetitive conversation-stoppers. YMMV; 5/28/09, 9:06 PM
Pastafarian said...: And re. the point of the original post: It seems clear that the article that JAC is skewering is partially tongue-in-cheek.

It also appears as though there might be some truth behind its "obviously fallacious logic". JAC says that straight men are at no disadvantage because they have the choice to either marry or remain single, and engage in illicit sex. But the author Schulman already pointed out that it's often not really a matter of choice -- that men feel compelled by societal pressures to marry. And as Titus pointed out above, it's not that simple a thing to get hot monkey sex out of a woman without the possible promise of marriage.

If gay marriage were legal, maybe gay men would feel that same pressure to marry. Maybe sex would more often come with strings attached. Maybe they'd find that the somewhat artificial constraint of lifelong monogamy, enforced by legal contract, is not exactly all they'd envisioned.

Not that I mind being married -- in my case, it allows me to have at least luke-warm monkey sex with a much more attractive woman than I'd ever be able to pick up at a bar. I'm just saying -- be careful what you wish for.; 5/28/09, 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/09, 9:15 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: I too wish the republicans would take a breather on this issue.

Many of my friends are more libertarians rather than democrat or republican.

They tend to work hard, are successful, don't look to the government for anything and are incredibly self sufficient. Their queens but definitely not welfare queens.

Many voted republican in elections (Rudy, Mitt) but during the past two elections they have voted democrat across the board. I know Palladian is an exception to this rule but that is where the gay vote is going now. Even the log cabin republicans have been having difficulty supporting the republican party.

And the thing is everyone knows someone who is gay, whether family, friends, neighbors, co workers. Once they meet us they realize that a large majority of us are not these characters that are running down a parade route wearing assless chaps. Yes, I talk crazy sometimes here but I am a professional who is really pretty normal. But I have never been to a gay pride parade, not that there is anything wrong with the parades. And once they get to know us that makes all the difference in the world.

We are just like you...except as men we like to suck hog and have rare dogs and our women like to eat pussy and have cats.

Now please hold me.; 5/28/09, 9:22 PM
Pastafarian said...: Blake -- I find the idea that there is no biological basis behind homosexuality to be hard to believe, just based on observation.

It might seem counter-intuitive for someone to be born with a trait that reduces their likelihood of reproduction, but these things happen all the time -- some people are born sterile. Others (like me) are born fugly.

And we see homosexuality in nature -- parakeets exhibit homosexuality, often when they become overcrowded (so maybe the evolutionary advantage is as simple as population control).

And here's one more (somewhat weak) argument: Gaydar. I don't have very refined gaydar, but some people do. It seems as though homosexuality in men often comes packaged with other traits that are sometimes readily apparent -- fabulous fashion sense, for example. Maybe these traits are packaged together in the same way that others are -- the way that lefthandedness often accompanies artistic ability, for example.

Certainly a complex set of behaviors can't be attributed to one "gay gene", but I find it hard to believe that a biological predisposition doesn't play at least some role.; 5/28/09, 9:28 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: Pastafarian did you know that there was Jewdar as well as Gaydar?; 5/28/09, 9:33 PM
Pastafarian said...: Titus -- I agree. I know that the religious right is an important part of the Republican Party, but I've had enough of them. It was the religious right that finished Romney in the last election (Fuckabees...) And if Romney had been the nominee when George Soros sprang his October surprise and stampeded the credit markets and created the financial "crisis", the general election would have turned out very different.

I can see the Republican Party moving toward libertarianism on several issues, and this might be one of them.

If the Huckabees of the party don't like it, they can suck your hog.

Jewdar? No, I've never heard of that one. If I trigger your Jewdar, don't recalibrate -- it's my grandfather on my mother's side.; 5/28/09, 9:40 PM
Pastafarian said...: Alright, I'm going to bed, to try to convince Mrs. Pasta to give me a little of that tepid monkey love.

Maybe when I get up, Jeremy, Jason, Titus, or one of the other outstanding liberal commenters here will have provided the explanation that I'd asked for earlier: Why should polygamy be illegal, and is this reason consistent with gay marriage being legal?; 5/28/09, 9:45 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: I have to say my impact on this blog is immeasurable.

I deserve some type of award or recognition.

Think of something Althouse and highlight it for all the world to see.; 5/28/09, 9:51 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Pastafarian : What is the argument against legalizing polygamy?... And can this argument be made by someone who also supports gay marriage, without logical inconsistency?

Well, I think the traditional argument against legalizing polygamy is that it would be hard to divide property in case the marriage broke up.

Other than that I've never heard anything that seems convincing. Maybe someone else has. Personally, I don't see what would be wrong with legalizing it.; 5/28/09, 9:52 PM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/09, 10:03 PM
KCFleming said...: Exactly. There is no logical rejection of polygamy. Once the definition changes, the boundaries cannot be contained.

I think the state does have some interest in families under a man and woman, but the West abandoned any concern with families in the 1960s; 5/28/09, 10:05 PM
somefeller said...: "Exactly. There is no logical rejection of polygamy. Once the definition changes, the boundaries cannot be contained."

Wrong. The basic argument for gay marriage is that you have a good, functional cultural institution (monogamous marriage among adults), and the current laws are simply an arbitrary and capricious barrier that prevents monogamous gays and lesbians from taking part in that institution. It's easier to add gays and lesbians to the existing custom of one-on-one marriage than to move to the ancient and arguably barbarous custom of polygamy. But polygamy may be good for women, in that I've got a lot of love to give.

As far as Ted Olson joining the gay marriage fight, I think that's a great thing, and should be welcomed. If libertarianism is to prevail over social conservatism in the GOP, it has to start somewhere, and the Federalist Society faction of the legal profession seems a good place to start.; 5/28/09, 10:47 PM
Once written, twice... said...: The polygamy issue is a smear against gay marriage just as it was fifty years ago when it was used against marriage between the races.

We redefine social constructs all the time and that does not mean " the boundaries cannot be contained." They just get redefined, that is all.

If your argument is that if you let any redefining take place it will open up the possibility of other changes then I would say have more trust in the thrust of human history and our ability to reason and govern ourselves in an orderly way.

Clearly we are accepting gay marriage as being a desirable thing as most of us see the issue of equality more clearly and also see the practical effects among our family and friends.

If you want to have a debate about the merits of polygamy then fine. But most reasonable people see no connection between that and gay marriage or interracial marriage or marriage between non children bearing couples.; 5/28/09, 10:53 PM
Palladian said...: ". But most reasonable people see no connection between that and gay marriage or interracial marriage or marriage between non children bearing couples."

You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party.

But you won't do that, because you're essentially dishonest and, as I have said, using one of the most personal and essential issues for gay people as your own personal political battering ram.; 5/28/09, 10:58 PM
somefeller said...: "You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party."

I'll say that's true, and an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean that the connection doesn't exist.

Also, while I'm glad that Olson is in on this fight, I'm not 100% sure I want him to prevail. For purposes of legitimacy, I think it would be better for gay marriage to be legalized via legislative or popular voting, not judicial action. But, on the other hand, sometimes the courts must break the impasse, particularly when that impasse harms unpopular minority groups that can't expect the legislature or electorate to act on their behalf.; 5/28/09, 11:02 PM
Once written, twice... said...: "You also need to admit that many black Americans do not see a connection between interracial marriage and gay marriage, and that the idea is highly offensive to many, including many in the Democratic party."

Your wrong. I do admit that there are a lot of bigots out there including a few that call themselves Democrats. Feel better now?; 5/28/09, 11:03 PM
Once written, twice... said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/09, 11:07 PM
Palladian said...: And as you and Jason seem unable to comprehend, it's entirely possible to discuss and argue an issue from another perspective besides a personal one. What Jason misconstrues as me being a false persona was my perhaps too flippant way of saying that it's intellectually interesting to me to play the devil's advocate sometimes. Nothing sharpens one's mind and arguments like trying to understand something from a different or even opposite perspective from your own. Conversation to me is a place to play with ideas and words, but apparently literalism is expected in blog comments.

I don't feel particularly strongly about the gay marriage issue, because I think the main premise of the issue, that the State should control and regulate a religious and romantic institution, is flawed from the start. I try to look at issues like this from the perspective of what will give the most people the most freedom. Imposing same-sex marriage is just an invitation to discriminate against the ancient religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews and many other religious and philosophical institutions. I think that religious institutions should have the right to choose their own doctrine and rules and not have conditions imposed by the State. On the other hand I don't believe that religious institutions should be exempt from tax, but that's a different issue.

If the State removed its meddling with marriage, then churches and religious organizations that wanted to perform same-sex marriages would be free to do so and those that didn't would be free to abstain.

I realize that this is somewhat Utopian thinking, but I can't really see any benefit from continuing to argue about the current situation which is just going to get more complicated, burdensome and unpleasant as society changes.

The State regulating marriage is ultimately infeasible and bound to discriminate both religious people and gay people alike.

Personally I believe that we as a nation have more important things to worry about, but these are the kinds of things that people love to get worked up about because the other issues seem intractable by comparison.; 5/28/09, 11:11 PM
Jen said...: @Hoosier Daddy:

I'm sure I'm going to regret this (because I haven't read the rest of this thread yet) but Hoosier Daddy, your 1:15 comment is the best thing I've read all day.; 5/28/09, 11:11 PM
Palladian said...: If marriage is simply a property contract, then make it simply a property contract that can be entered by any two (or more) persons. The religious and mystical definition of marriage can be left to religious organizations where it belongs.; 5/28/09, 11:17 PM
former law student said...: First, the author's POV (of the article JAC quoted) reminded me of the old Playboy party joke: A wife is something you screw on a bed and it does the housework -- i.e. not very respectful towards women.

Marriage is indeed not something every gay couple wants to get into. The long-term couple I know long ago made legal arrangements for their property in the event of death or separation. If either wants to walk, they can do so at any time.

For tax minimization purposes, you're better off filing single unless one party makes twice what the other one does. Pay equality -- which most gay couples should have -- means higher taxes overall.

Redefining marriage will open the door to other redefinition -- what's to stop it? Polygamy is a natural -- it is recognized around the world in a variety of cultures. The argument that a woman should be free to marry the person she loves can easily be generalized to more than one woman loving the same man. Men dies sooner than women even absent war -- if you're 70 or over you could have a harem if you chose.; 5/28/09, 11:17 PM
garage mahal said...: SOME BLACKS ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. INCLUDING SOME DEMOCRATS. HOLD EVERYTHING GAYS. WE NEED MAY NEED DECADES TO DETERMINE WHY. IN THE MEANTIME HERE ARE SEVERAL RIDDLES TO KEEP YOU OCCUPIED. WHY IS IT ILLEGAL TO WEAR A FAKE MUSTACHE THAT CAUSES LAUGHTER IN A CHURCH IN ALABAMA??????; 5/28/09, 11:18 PM
Jen said...: @Hoosier:

3:01.

Forget I said anything.; 5/28/09, 11:20 PM
Once written, twice... said...: (Just read Palladian's last post)

Oh. I get it now.

Palladian, if we ever get to that utopian world I will be with you one hundred percent.

But, I will acknowledge that I did not vote for Ron Paul.; 5/28/09, 11:20 PM
Palladian said...: "But, I will acknowledge that I did not vote for Ron Paul."

Neither did I. His economic ideas were stupid.

And Jen, women don't want money? EVERYONE wants money.; 5/28/09, 11:21 PM
somefeller said...: "If marriage is simply a property contract, then make it simply a property contract that can be entered by any two (or more) persons. The religious and mystical definition of marriage can be left to religious organizations where it belongs."

Which is where the current state of the law is. If a religious group wants to consecrate gay marriages (see - Unitarians or liberal Episcopalians), or refuse to conduct interracial marriages (see - thankfully, few churches outside of white-supremacist circles like Christian Identity), it has the right to do either. The issue is what the state recognizes, and the bundle of rights that results. And while libertarian commentary about the abolition of marriage as a state-backed institution sounds good, it will get nowhere in practice, so let's focus on what exists and is likely to come from what exists.; 5/28/09, 11:22 PM
somefeller said...: By the way, since no one is likely to read my coda to the Elizabeth Wurtzel thread, I'm re-posting it here, because I think it's funny:

"The best part of Elizabeth Wurtzel fell onto the floor of a nightclub during the Clinton Administration."; 5/28/09, 11:26 PM
Jen said...: Hello Palladian:

I'm still reading the thread, but I think what HD was connoting is that women are after money from men.

Which may be true in some circumstances. Some women go to college for their MRS degree, right?

Women don't marry because they want money. We marry because we weren't thinking clearly.; 5/28/09, 11:33 PM
Jen said...: @ Palladian:

"Nothing sharpens one's mind and arguments like trying to understand something from a different or even opposite perspective from your own."

Especially when lubricated with a beautiful Georis Merlot. Which I am working on now.; 5/28/09, 11:37 PM
Jen said...: @ Palladian:

"Marriage is not an in-born trait either. It's a culturally-created human institution. There is no biological imperative for anyone, straight or otherwise, to marry. So appealing to genetics is not a sufficient answer."

YOU WIN!

There is no biological imperative for anyone to marry.

I wonder about monogamy. Especially in non-human animals.

Social, Sexual, Genetic, or Marital? They are not all inclusive.; 5/28/09, 11:45 PM
Joan said...: We marry because we weren't thinking clearly.

Speak for yourself, sweetie.; 5/28/09, 11:51 PM
Jen said...: It was a JOKE, honey.; 5/28/09, 11:53 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: Palladian wants me.

I can smell it.

I may give you a little sniff but that is all.

And quit being so bitchy missy.

Relax, show some restraint once and awhile. You big whore.; 5/28/09, 11:58 PM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: I do admit I do enjoy the Jeremy and Palladian fights though.

And the personal insults are delish.

More please and more vicious.

Thanks dolls.; 5/29/09, 12:04 AM
Jen said...: Titus is counseling restraint.; 5/29/09, 12:04 AM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: Palladian said he was leaving when I returned but he didn't and I absolutely love that. You big old addict Palladian. You enjoy the punishment.

Now get on your knees and service me bitch.; 5/29/09, 12:08 AM
Ralph L said...: There is no biological imperative for anyone to marry
There is one for pair-bonding, except in people who hang out on blogs late at night.; 5/29/09, 12:15 AM
Titusisfeelinggreatthankyouforasking said...: I do want to push Palladian on my hog and tell him to take it.

And gag him with my big hog.

Where can we meet palladian to accomplish this?

By the way the rare clumbers are snoring at this moment.

Who has contributed more to this blog than I? Rare clumbers, pinching loafs, hog-the lexicon I have produced here is overwhelming and deserved of some kind of award.

Give it up bitch. Most notable commenter....titus.

You won't find this shit anywhere on the web and for that I deserve cudos and 10's across the board.; 5/29/09, 12:20 AM
blake said...: Blake -- I find the idea that there is no biological basis behind homosexuality to be hard to believe, just based on observation.I specifically said "genetic". The "gay gene" was the hot thing in the '90s. Now they're looking at hormones.; 5/29/09, 1:36 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Jason (the commenter) said... "Pogo, "Palladian" isn't a real person. He's a character. He's said before that he doesn't necessarily believe anything he says here. Even if the person who writes "Palladian" is gay, it makes sense to question if the character bein"

Palladian is a real person. I've met and spent hours with him in real life.; 5/29/09, 12:34 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Give it up bitch. Most notable commenter....titus."

Define "notable." Is that what you want, "notable"? What kind of recognition is that, "most notable"?; 5/29/09, 12:35 PM
Palladian said...: "Palladian is a real person. I've met and spent hours with him in real life."

Were you convinced of my homosexuality?
I suppose that I didn't try to marry you in those few hours was proof enough.; 5/29/09, 1:18 PM
TitusNippyTucky said...: Most interesting...

How is that?

Divine Miss Althouse.; 5/29/09, 1:59 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Oh, Titus, do you love Palladian or just feel rivalrous toward him?; 5/29/09, 2:14 PM
TitusNippyTucky said...: Maybe a little of both.

But he is so mean to me. Always mean.

Palladian how about a big hug?

Let's make amends and then say amen.

I will let you feel one of my guns.

I do have a funny story. Two guys that had lived in my previous building moved out. I was talking to another guy who still lives in the building. The two guys, who are mos, had a dog like Niles Crane had. I rarely seen the dog. It was afraid of everyone and everything. The guy that lives in the building told me that in the winter they did not take the dog outside and would walk it around the hallways in the building and go up and down the stairs with it. The dog had a kitty litter box that it would shit and piss in. I thought that was so weird.

Dogs need fresh air, even in the winter.; 5/29/09, 4:31 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Give it up bitch. Most notable commenter....titus.

Titus outclassed all of us.; 5/29/09, 4:51 PM
srfwotb said...: Titus: The reason gay men are able to have sex so easily is because they are 2 men involved not because they are gay.

THANK YOU @TITUS for stating what should be completely effing obvious to anyone paying any attention at all. Just check out lesbians compared to gay men. And let's not forget those babies the advent of which will enable the state to take one's check with or without the bonds of matrimony.; 5/30/09, 11:12 PM
kentuckyliz said...: I think polyandry is going to make ever more sense over time. It is practiced in environments that can't support a large human population, or requires a lot of effort to survive so tribal families can't hack it.

So think:
1. gender pay equity is turning out to mean declining male wages
2. Gaia the Green requires ZPG or VHE

So, I would marry a small group of men. The variety would be nice. One gets uppity or dominant and I just move along to the next one. They can pool their paychecks to support me. And I will not be a groveling servant, we'll hire a maid and a cook.

Nice solution for countries with serious gender imbalance due to a high number of females aborted through sex selection abortion--India and China.

Nice solution for Western Dark Greens.

No religious basis needed.

There's people already setting up polygamous households, why should they be legally discriminated against? Pairism!; 5/31/09, 1:22 PM