Proposition 8

Last week, Californian's voted to ban gay marriage, which was a "right" created by the California courts, obviously in opposition to what the people of the state really wanted.

The exit poll shows that the proposition had very strong support among blacks. 70% voted for it and 30% voted against it.

If only whites were allowed to vote, this proposition might have been rejected. The exit poll shows that only 49% of whites voted for it, whichs is 1.01% short of a majority. But the margin of error is such that we can't say for certain. Furthemore, some whites might have been lying to the poll takers because they understand that supporting gays is the politically correct thing to do, even if they secretly oppose gay marriage.

If I had been in California, I would have voted for Proposition 8 (in other words, I would have voted to ban gay marriage). I would have done this not because I believe that Jesus commands it, but because marriage represents an endorsement by the government that two people have done something meritorious, and I just don't see what's so great about what gay people are doing.

Marriage between a man and a woman is good because it's the best way to raise children. And once again, this is not because the Bible commands it that way, but because of human nature. Gay couples don't have children, thus society doesn't benefit from gay marriage. By weakening the meaning of real marriage, I think the effect of gay marriage is overall harmful to society. (See what I wrote five years ago.)

Most non-religious white people voted against the proposition, thus in favor of gay marriage. These white people have been brainwashed by the Hollywood mission to promote homosexuality. If this vote had taken place about fifteen years ago, before the pro-gay media blitz, an overwhelming percentage of white people would have voted for the proposition (against gay marriage).

So does anyone find it ironic that, if only whites were allowed to vote, we'd have gay marriage but John McCain as president? I don't, because conservative economic policies and Christian policies do not naturally go together. It would be far more natural for the socialist party to be the Christian party, and the free market party to be the secular party.

Comments

[Peter]

As I understand it, most same-sex marriages and civil unions involve lesbians rather than gay men, even though there probably are two to three times as many gay men as lesbians in the general population.

[Bruno Brazil]

What about long-term gay couples when one of the partners die?

What sould we do if there is a married gay couple abroad in a country that separates in other country? Sould we homologate such a foreign sentence?

Remember, people: law must be adequate to reality, or reality revenges by making law dead letter. A principle everyone here learns at law school, at Introduction to Law 101.

[Vim]

"The exit poll shows that only 49% of whites voted for it"

This increases my perception that blacks, which are 10% of the California electorate, were not the primary cause of this. They are just the scapegoat.

"So does anyone find it ironic that, if only whites were allowed to vote, we'd have gay marriage but John McCain as president?"

An America, where only whites were allowed to vote, would have to be so profoundly different in social, political and economic behaviour that John McCain being president during a period of legalized gay marriage would probably be one of the least interesting things about it.

[Thrasymachus]

"It would be far more natural for the socialist party to be the Christian party, and the free market party to be the secular party."

No. Because (I think that Barzun pointed this out) the idea of having property in common always tends to lead to the idea of having wives in common. God doesn't do well in socialist societies. Sure, Jesus was a hippy preaching love, but practical Christianity has always been more Pauline, a Christianity of duty and judgement.

The two parties in America are the married and the singles. Their ideologies on taxes, the economy, sex, religion, etc., all flow from this. The people who are financially secure enough to embrace the free market are mostly married and are mostly the children of married people.

The parties that you suggest would implode within a week from internal contradiction.

"This increases my perception that blacks, which are 10% of the California electorate, were not the primary cause of this. They are just the scapegoat."

But they still voted against gay "marriage" so you'll have to explain the "scapegoating" part. They share the blame of others who voted against gay marriage as well.

[JewishAtheist]

It wasn't about race, but religion. Blacks voted for it because they are religious, not because they are black.

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-religion-causes-good-men-to-do-evil.html

As for you, you're ridiculous. Gay marriage does not in any way "weaken the effect" of real marriage. Gay people can and do have children, and the stabilizing effect of marriage is just as relevant for those families as it is for "traditional" ones.

Your opposition to gay marriage (and homosexuality in general, if I recall) is laughably irrational. When 83% of people who never go to church are on the other side of an issue, you can probably figure you're not being reasonable.

"It wasn't about race, but religion. Blacks voted for it because they are religious, not because they are black."

How shall we re-educate these spiritual people? As we all know religion is poison and religious people are stupid. These blacks sound just as bad as any Mormon or fundamentalist!

[key]

" most same-sex marriages and civil unions involve lesbians rather than gay men"

This is true - which means, that yes, many gay couples do have children.

[Mike]

When 83% of people who never go to church are on the other side of an issue, you can probably figure you're not being reasonable.

There's room here for a comment about lemmings and cliffs, son.

Society doesn't have any reasonable interest in promoting gay unions. That's reason enough to vote against gay marriage. Live your life like you want, just don't expect me to subsidize your sin.

[J]

A significant portion of the yes on 8 vote was to smack down a court that overruled an earlier ballot initiative. Californians get bent out of shape about that sort of thing.

[as]

HalfSigma: "...because conservative economic policies and Christian policies do not naturally go together. It would be far more natural for the socialist party to be the Christian party, and the free market party to be the secular party."

This hasn't been true in Europe and in the Europeans settler states. Look, I'm an athiest and a conservative, but Communists were athiests. Communists banned religion. Lefty Europeans are also athiests. Unfortunately, it seems that secularism and liberal economic policies often go hand in hand.

Japan might be different though, because Asians seem to be much less inclined towards religion. (And maybe South Korea and Taiwan too).

[Lane Honda]

If you don't want marriage politicized, you need to keep government out of it entirely - which means no special treatment for people because they happen to sign a contract that is called "marriage". If government granted special privileges to coin collectors, then stamp collectors would be in the streets demanding "equal rights". I saw a link a couple weeks ago that showed the income tax rates year to year through US history; before about 1948 there was just one category - individual taxpayer. As far as government is concerned, that's all they need to know. Unless you are a modern liberal (ie, not liberal at all) and think government is a viable vehicle to play social engineering games by granting favors to one group over another.

[Peter]

I agree that there is a natural union between christian values and socialist policies. Liberals in this country have convinced themselves that they alone care about the little guy, for the poor and homeless and sick. But that is because, up to this point, only they have supported government programs for such things. Christian groups, churches and individuals engage in extensive private charity work. They give up their weekends and afternoons to help out in homeless shelters and food banks, organize clothing drives and cousel prisoners. All of these things take much more personal sacrifice than paying taxes and agreeing at cocktail parties that universal healthcare should be a right. Christians strongly believe in protecting and helping the weak, but up to now those impulses have been restrained by the fiscal conservative branch of the GOP. If you listen to some Christians debate public policy, they'll eventually get around to endorsing policies that we would consider "socialist," although their motivation for endorsing them is their Christian morality.

[roissy]

"Gay couples don't have children, thus society doesn't benefit from gay marriage. By weakening the meaning of real marriage, I think the effect of gay marriage is overall harmful to society."

correct, HS. by stripping the child-rearing justification for marriage in favor of the love-centric idealization which ahistorical romantics and gay advocates push, the entire premise for the institution crumbles. plus, the slippery slope argument is a real one in this case. i don't see how the law can allow gay marriage while continuing to refuse the right to polygamists. and that road leads nowhere good.

personally, i recommend men avoid marriage like the plague. you can get all the benefits and none of the downsides of marriage within a long term relationship.

If we had MORE ballot-initiatives, and less legislation from entrenched political parties, you'd probably be suprised at some of the socially conservative ideas many longtime democrats hold.

Most people, including latinos and blacks and Iranians (lots of those in California), want grandchildren. They aren't exactly thrilled to find out one of their kids is busy getting sodomized four nights a week (giving him a much much better chance of dying of AIDS), and is unlikely to have kids because they'd rather have sex with another man than a woman. You'd be right if you assumed they'd rather their kid be "straight", and would get married and get them a grandkid.
Some of these folks would belong to the NAACP, La Raza, and Muslim groups that disagree with the GOP on about 80% of other political issues. Most minorities see "gay" issues as "sissy-assed-white-boys" talking about "their struggle" and trying to compare "their struggle" with civil rights issues of the Jim Crow era.

I thought JEWISH ATHEIST'S remark that "Gay marriage does not in any way "weaken the effect" of real marriage. Gay people can and do have children, and the stabilizing effect of marriage is just as relevant for those families as it is for "traditional" ones": was fundamentally the type of sophistry one encounters with liberals everywhere.

NUMBER ONE: Gay people have to adopt or do something "un-natural" like insemination to even "have" children. Two women cant make a kid together. Two men cant make a kid together.
NATURE, JewishAtheist, makes this so. Two queer lesbian stumptailed macaques (yes, there are such things, and they are one of our closest genetic matches JA, look it up) cant make baby macaques together unless one of them gets impregnated by a male. Nature itself has decreed that it takes a male and a female to raise a kid.

Im a little suprised any women would want two men who eat potato chips in their underwear on the couch watching football games want raising kids personally, but whatever. Many think from a psychological standpoint, that it would be better for a child to have both a male and a female role model, especially in its younger years. We evolved to have two parents, as we are not like sharks that give birth to young that are on their own and ready to kill from day one. Human babies, like newborn puppies, are helpless for a while. In our case years.

What gays and lesbians are looking for (OF COURSE) is legitimization and acknowledgement of everyone else, even those whose ancient religious texts (YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT ONE WRITTEN BY SOME JEWISH GUYS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ABOUT 2600 YEARS AGO ACCORDING TO ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN) have some very derogatory things to say about what should be done to homosexuals. If you dont like how Judaism and Christianity deal with homosexuality (stoning and all that other "abomination" unpleasantness), you can blame the "Yahweh cult" as Finklestein called it in his terrific book.

There was another religion started in the middle eastern deserts by a man who married a nine year old girl in his old age that spoke exceedingly dissaprovingly of homosexuality also in roughly the seventh century A.D. You'd be suprised what some other religions say about it, but the media doesn't tell you that (hint: they think its "un-natural" too).

Why all this bias against men coupling and women coupling one might ask?

Pretty easy answer to that, and its the same one: children. Religions want to increase their number and gay unions dont naturally make children. So the ancients, in a world where "there was strength in numbers" much more so than today, wanted their followers to make more kids to keep up with the Philistines or whomever they lived near, but weren't in harmony with politically. The reason for marriage was to make children and to keep men in stable units that kept them from fighting over females also. After the men get married off, its a hell of a lot easier to keep the peace. Roving bands of males looking for sex in ancient times, would equate with trouble.

In short, and in essence, many blacks and latinos voted against proposition 8 because their religions are against it, but they are no doubt personally against it because they dont want to legitimize it either. They WANT their own child to see being gay as wrong because they want their "line" to continue and they want a grandkid or two themselves. They also WANT a grandkid who is genetically like themselves, not some adopted kid from halfway around the world. They want to see the eyes, the smile, the laugh that they recognize. Its a primal human urge to replicate yourself effectively with a little one that you are proud of and adore, not to find a toddler in a manger who is someone else's and does not look or act like you do.

As long as religions have "hell", they will have followers. Whomever invented "hell" is the genius of all religions. In one nordic religion "hell" was a cold place, but in most of them it involved fiery rivers underground (probably from witnessing volcanos) and other such similar futures of torment. If religions only taught that you'd die and cease to exist and not get to go to a pleasant afterlife (their heaven's), they'd have many many many less followers. However people are afraid of going to hell and when they hear that their every thought is recorded and looking at other humans they aren't married to and lusting after them is a sin........they have to acknowledge that they sin all the time and deserve hell. Then they will attend church or mosque or synagogue and take in all the other stuff. Some of the bias against homosexuality of the male variety is "more" than religion however, and lets not lie to ourselves about that. Having anal sex with another hairy man is kind of a turn-off to many men, whatever their religious beliefs and thinking about it in detail (you know, the smells, fecal matter, semen, kissing another man with a beard) kinda turns many men really "off". I never will forget sitting in a movie theater many years ago and seeing Bruce Willis kiss another man on screen. I actually squirmed in my seat (much to the amusement of my date who laughed aloud), and heard several "ewwwwsss" audible in the theatre with one "yuck" thrown in ALOUD. Many find the image of men having sex "icky" and will never personally approve of it. Women, being much more pleasant to look at than men, would probably from a marketing standpoint, be a better "face" of homosexuality for homosexual advocates to sell as long as it was "lipstick lesbians" being sold. However, that runs into a problem also as single, lonely men, childless men (and their mothers) resent attractive women who forsake their sons and dont give them what they want: progeny also. Homosexuality is seen primally as a refusal to breed and the indulgence of sensual pleasure over carrying on civilization by others. This is probaby why minorities are pretty glad there are many gay whites (because they want less whites), but dont want homosexuality for their own.

I would be willing to wager, that secretely, many of the same blacks and latinos that voted against prop 8, wouldn't mind it if some OTHER state that was overwhelmingly WHITE like Vermont made it legal THERE to be married if you were gay, so more of the "sissy-white-boys" and butch white girls in California would move there. Of course Im right about this, no matter how pissed that makes people.

Almost all politics boils down to the personal and primal, and its ugly. Prop 8 was defeated by THE VOTERS, which is the purest form of democracy. Amongst only whites, it would have passed, but did not pass because of ethnic majorities. Put that into your.......pipe, and smoke it Leftys.

[JewishAtheist]

I find (male) gay sex icky too. I just don't see why ickiness should be enforced by law.

As for reproduction, it doesn't matter HOW gay couples have children. In point of fact, they do. So what use is it to argue what's "natural?" (Vaccination is "unnatural" -- does that mean it should be illegal?)

Regarding democracy, obviously pure democracy would be a disaster. There's a reason we have a constitution with enshrined rights. I think the right to marry the adult of your choosing should be one of those rights, regardless of the tyranny of the majority. Would it be okay to ban black-white marriage if a majority of Americans (or Californians) supported such a ban?

"I agree that there is a natural union between christian values and socialist policies. "

No. Because having the government doing it is to shirk your personal responsibilities.

Christian believe in personal good works but not socialism

Posted by: JewishAtheist | November 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM

So you want or don't want the gov't in the marriage business?

[Patrick]

What a pathetic recitation of the "protect traditional marriage" canard. Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way jeopardizes or diminishes marriage among male-female couples.

This is just patently absurd, and dare I say it reveals either some deep-seeded prejudice, insecurity, or both on the part of those who use such rhetoric.

Moreover, marriage is by no means required for competent childrearing. Following your twisted logic, why should we allow older, infertile couples to marry, if they can't produce children at all?

Finally, that you, halfsigma, in your own words are placing a (completely dubious) "benefit to society" at the expense the individual in a matter of freedom of expression and assembly is disappointing and inexplicable.

I realize you probably run into a lot of gay people in NYC, some of them surely objectionable, but unless and until you can explain how two of them getting legally wed harms you, your argument is total bullshit.

[Asher]

"It would be far more natural for the socialist party to be the Christian party, and the free market party to be the secular party."

Impossible. Black and hispanic voters vote Democrat to transfer social resources from more affluent whites to themselves and transfer local communities from less affluent whites to themselves, e.g. Detroit. Working class whites and blacks simply cannot exist in the same political coalition because their aims are mutualliy exclusionary.

Within 30 years abortion won't matter as a political issue because the current crop of social conservatives will have their hands full preventing their homes from being burned, their sons from being shot and their daughters from being raped.

Too bad the unwillingness of social conservatives to protect their own childrens' objective interests is preventing the rest of us from doing what is necessary to save our civilization, e.g. social limits on the breeding population.

[JewishAtheist]

So you want or don't want the gov't in the marriage business?

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just think if we have it for straights, we should have it for gays.

[Buckaroo]

I am going to reprise my broken record act and ask the discussion participants who are in favor of gay marriage: do you think that we should legalize polygamy and polyandry or, for that matter, "marriage" among any assortment of willing adults? How about blood relatives? If not, why not?

[As a preview of fun obstacles that obvious arguments would run into: if in the incest case you bring up higher risk of birth defects in the union's offspring, how about marriage among brothers and/or their post-menopausal sisters?]

[Vim]

"So does anyone find it ironic that, if only whites were allowed to vote, we'd have gay marriage but John McCain as president?"

I love how the pluses and minuses of black people having the vote is still something that makes sense to HS to think about. And you wonder why people call you racist ... Anyway, let me not interrupt you guys. I am sure you'll want to talk about barring immigration from nonwhite countries, sterilizing designed to disproportionally affect minorities, white separation politics ... and all the other non-racist topics that accompany your neutral, highminded, unbiased scientific interest in human biodiversity.

[Asher]

Vim, your gracious understanding is appreciated.

"I love how the pluses and minuses of black people having the vote is still something that makes sense to HS to think about."

You too, apparently. And the rest of your comment was pretty much the extent of your game. You need some other interests.

[Brutus]

Have to disagree with you, Sigmeister: gays do indeed have children, both naturally and through adoption.

As a lawyer, you must be aware of the problematic nature of your argument, because "having children" is not necessarily a good thing (see Crystal Mangum, among many other low-lifes that have been "birthed").

Marriage is a recognition by the state that a couple has entered into a binding relationship--therefore adding the word "gay" to "marriage" is oxymoronic--agreed?

[roissy]

"As for reproduction, it doesn't matter HOW gay couples have children. In point of fact, they do. So what use is it to argue what's "natural?" (Vaccination is "unnatural" -- does that mean it should be illegal?)"

vaccination = fertility science. we're talking about the social implications of gay marriage, not restrictions on science, so your analogy fails.
let's turn this around. under your logic, JA, would it then be justifiable to refuse marriage rights to gays if the extension of such rights were in question before the advent of fertility technologies that allow gays to have their own children?

patrick:
"This is just patently absurd, and dare I say it reveals either some deep-seeded prejudice, insecurity, or both on the part of those who use such rhetoric."

stalinist remote psychoanalysis in da houze.

"Following your twisted logic, why should we allow older, infertile couples to marry, if they can't produce children at all?"

for the same reason we grant legal rights to retards even when they can't understand the law. we understand that infertile married heterosexual couples are damaged. that understanding allows their existence without acting to undermine the fundamental rationale for marriage, in much the same way the loss of a father through heroic death doesn't undermine the child's awe the way the loss of a father through abandonment would.
we make distinctions between *potential* to procreate versus complete lack of any innate ability to procreate, and allow exceptions for those whose inherent procreative potential is thwarted by age, illness, or choice.
gays have no innate procreative potential unless they either procure the use of science, a third party, or a betrayal of their desire (as would be the case with a lesbian who chose to sleep with a man to get pregnant).

"but unless and until you can explain how two of them getting legally wed harms you, your argument is total bullshit."

the lack of measureable individual harm does not mean there is no social harm.

for the record, i don't think gay marriage would by itself undermine marriage as a whole. there are simply too few gays for them to have that kind of impact, unless their marriages were trumpeted to the high heavens on a daily basis by the media. but there is no doubt that gay marriage, combined with the other cultural forces i have written about extensively on my blog, is another nail in the coffin of the West's shining institutional gem.

[Vim]

Buckaroo:

" do you think that we should legalize polygamy and polyandry or, for that matter, "marriage" among any assortment of willing adults? How about blood relatives? If not, why not?"

I think in general, the state should stay out of marriage and instead support civil union type contracts ie. separation of religion and state. But if the government is involved then yeah I think the government should allow almost any of this as long as both adults are mentally competent. I would stop at animals and children because animals and children can't consent to such contracts. We could favor a ban on brother-sister marriages on the grounds that almost nobody wants to do such a thing. On the other hand, we could allow it since barely anyone would take advantage of the law.

Unlike most people who favor gay marriage, I agree completely that it's a slippery slope.

On a side note, I think this is the right move for America and Europe because it seems to be the point of view that is most consistent with their generally secular, materialist, hedonic populations.

[Vim]

blank

"You need some other interests."

I am knee elbow deep in several pages of equations here. Beleive me, I have other interests. I would comment more on the Megan-McCain-is-hot type posts but I do okay with women so I don't have any nerd angst to contribute.

[Saladman]

I think implementing gay marriage through the courts or sympathetic mayors has been a serious strategic error for its backers. It seems to have provoked a backlash in California, and I know it provoked one in my home state of Oregon.

A further problem is just how much comes along with state-recognized gay marriage. If it were just allowing gays to find a minister to declare them married, I couldn't argue with that. But the anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws on the books take it farther than that. Churches, private organizations and clubs would end up required to recognize and accomodate married gay couples. This leaves them with no choice but to fight it out in the public arena, because any bid for gay marriage amounts to an assault on their freedom of association and self-government. This is why I voted to ban gay marriage in Oregon even as a registered Libertarian.

[JewishAtheist]

Roissy:

"let's turn this around. under your logic, JA, would it then be justifiable to refuse marriage rights to gays if the extension of such rights were in question before the advent of fertility technologies that allow gays to have their own children?"

A: X is unnatural.
B: X should be illegal.

I argued that A does not imply B and is therefore irrelevant. It doesn't matter if A is true or not.

[Underachiever]

Roissy, I think JA is arguing that the purpose of marriage is not solely to create an environment to procreate children because infertile people are still allowed to marry; therefore, it would not be justifiable to deny gay marriage even before the advent of fertility science.

Also, you said "we understand that infertile married heterosexual couples are damaged. that understanding allows their existence without acting to undermine the fundamental rationale for marriage". How does the sex or marriage between infertile married heterosexual couples differ from the sex between or marriage for gays?

Secondly, I fail to see how gay couples adopting or having children who are the offspring of only one of them is dissimilar to straight married people adopting or having stepchildren. Once science advances enough so that gay couples can have children that are the biological offspring of both parents, homosexual marriage would be equivalent to a straight couple with fertility problems that still have children.

The slippery slope argument (if gay marriage, then polygamy) is a logical fallacy if you do not explain the mechanism by which gay marriage would lead to polygamy. The distinction between them is that for gay people, straight marriage is an unacceptable alternative while people who want polygamy are just being greedy.

Also, since gay people are a small percentage of the population and wouldn't (without extreme social pressure) marry straight people anyways, gay marriage will not create a single sexual imbalance that distorts society the way polygamy would.

The "it isn't natural" argument is obviously not applied consistently. I would not classify the laptop i am typing on or condoms as "natural" although I use both of them.

To deny people gay marriage, one should make a rational, CONSISTENT argument about how it would hurt either straight couples or society. For your argument to be good, this hurt must not be trivial.

[Buckaroo]

Vim,
I appreciate your answer for its directness and willingness to follow the implicit logic of virtually all pro-gay marriage arguments.

However, I have to quibble a bit with your notion that "the state should stay out of marriage and instead support civil union type contracts". How would that be different in practice beyond giving the 'contracts' a different name? Would the "civil-unionists" be treated differently under the tax code than the "non-unionists"? Would they have different inheritance rights? Would they be exempt from testifying against each other in criminal proceedings [that's another amusing scenario to contemplate]? Etc.

If the answer is no then in what way is the state "supporting" them? If yes, then on what basis is an arbitrary collection of individuals that has entered into a civil union deserving of this special treatment? And remember that the bedrock principle is that essentially all that is required of the participants is that they be adult, sane, and willing.

[Asher]

"in much the same way the loss of a father through heroic death doesn't undermine the child's awe the way the loss of a father through abandonment would."

Roissy, while I generally like your writing and think you have interesting stuff to contribute, I must take particular issue with this assertion. Men who die in heroic battle are also men who have good genes, while men who are absent due to crime, drug use or other socially-related ills have bad genes. They then pass their respective genes onto their children, which is why you see fatherless children displaying all sorts of behavioral problems.

Fatherlessness is the correlation, bad genes are the causation.

[Vim]

Buckaroo:

I admit that the change in the name is just cosmetic. It is meant to separate the church aspects and state elements of these sorts of contracts.

I think that if government is interested in increasing birth rates then it should support children not marriages. Childless marriages should get equal amounts of support from the state whatever that amount ends up being.

I think most other issues with marriage like testifying against each other, inheritance, hospital visits etc are completely independent of the sex of the parties and can be adjusted in the obvious ways.

[Buckaroo]

"The slippery slope argument (if gay marriage, then polygamy) is a logical fallacy if you do not explain the mechanism by which gay marriage would lead to polygamy."

I can do better than that. Here is a link to a story on a study comissioned by the Canadian Justice Department that pretty much says polygamy should be legalized:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/polygamy_060112/20060113/

You will see that this issue is clearly interacting with the gay marriage issue. To be sure people are trying to come up with desperate-sounding explanations for why polygamy is different, e.g. it promotes inequality. What if someone doesn't want to be "equal" but instead wants to be happy?
There is your mechanism. If you cannot see that a legal/opinion climate not just tolerant but actively approving of gay marriage makes it harder to argue that polygamy should be illegal then I can't help you.

"The distinction between them is that for gay people, straight marriage is an unacceptable alternative while people who want polygamy are just being greedy."

Yup, millions of Muslims, adhering to their sacred, immutable, centuries-old texts and traditions are just "greedy". Furthermore you can obviously arbitrate as to who finds what "acceptable" and to what degree. Good luck selling that.

[Richard H]

I'm guessing blacks have lower IQs and thus are less likely to take in PC brainwashing. In college, I've found the most intelligent are often the most brainwashed while the communism and "gender is a social construct" garbage goes over the head of the stupid.

Intelligence is good for most things, but there are some things so sick, like gay marriage or the undesirability of gender roles, that you need to reason yourself away from common sense and human nature to believe.

[Buckaroo]

"I think that if government is interested in increasing birth rates then it should support children not marriages. Childless marriages should get equal amounts of support from the state whatever that amount ends up being."

These two sentences appear to be mutually contradictory. Is this really what you meant to say?

"I think most other issues with marriage like testifying against each other, inheritance, hospital visits etc are completely independent of the sex of the parties and can be adjusted in the obvious ways."

Well, color me dense. What are these "obvious ways"? Suppose several housemates (related or not, irrelavant, right?) enter into this new "civil union". One of them is accused of robbing a liquour store. Are the others exempt from testifying or not? If the answer is not, then this common feature of marriage does not apply to civil unions. What other features don't apply?

[Brutus]

I see a lot of people referring to the word gay. Is gayness a concept or a pseudoconcept? After all, heteros practice cunnilingus and ass-humping, just like so-called gays.

Think outside the box, fellas.

[Noel Evelyn]

That still creates a legal inequity between gay and straight people. The principle should be based on equal protection under the law, not 'reward for meritorious behaviour'. There are straight couples that do the same 'immoral' things that gays are stereotyped as doing.

Now, I do not believe that churches or other religious groups should recognise gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. It should be recognised by government, though, as a basic right that should not be granted to one group of people and not to another.

It's not about morals. It's about equal protection.

[ty]

roissy: "personally, i recommend men avoid marriage like the plague."

How can you be both against marriage and hostile to single motherhood? We need one or the other if the human race is not to go extinct.

The human race won't go extinct. It will just live in a more uncivilized society with high illegitimacy rates, crime, and all around decay. Charles Murray has talked about the coming "custodial democracy." Britain's illegitimacy rate for whites is already hovering around 50%.

[Underachiever]

Buckaroo,

If we can't think of good reasons to deny polygamy, it probably should be legalized. Things should only be illegal for a reason and these reasons should be explained. Just saying, "I don't know, so let's keep it illegal" is not valid. Now one of those good reasons could be the male:female ratio that it makes.

In either case, you might have noticed that to prevent gay marriage, people "are trying to come up with desperate-sounding explanations" about why gay marriage is not like straight marriage (ie they are unnatural). Usually these reasons are not applied elsewhere to straight marriage or even to general life. The argument goes: unnatural, biologically useless things are okay generally (like blowjobs), but in gay marriage they are horrible. Considering the advances in scientific research in this area, in a very short period of time gay marriage will almost certainly be the meaningful, biological equivalent of straight marriage.

Also, the argument could just as well have gone: if interracial marriage --> gay marriage --> polygamy. Should interracial marriage be banned because it promotes permissive attitudes?

Disclaimer: I am agnostic about polygamy. I find it plausible that it might be good for the US if it encourages successful males to have more kids.

[Buckaroo]

Underachiever,

Thank you for considering the issue and its logical implications further. I understand how the view that polygamy unbalances the M/(available F) ratio could be used as an argument against it. It is, of course, a perfectly valid objection. But I cannot imagine anyone of any standing in public life actually taking this line given the liberal/feminist ethos of the times. Can you? It would just sound laughable: what, now our moral leaders are worried that the loserly guys cannot get any action?

One more thing. I suggest it is a serious conceptual error to say that gay marriage is "illegal". Two gays can certainly find a sympathetic pastor who will "marry" them and, for modest legal fees, arrange inheritance, visitation, power-of-attorney rights, etc. They can even adopt children. And of course they can cohabitate and do whatever it is they like behind closed doors. Their arrangement just won't be given a particular state-sponsored status which accords certain benefits*. I would say they are simply ineligible for a government program just as whites are ineligible for minority set-aside contracts. And we can argue about the rightness of these government policies but "illegality" seems like the wrong term.

*BTW, as a practical matter, other than tax considerations, is there any significant benefit that marriage provides that cannot be reasonably replicated through a private contract? I suppose employee spouse benefits come to mind but where I live it seems like just about every company offers "domestic partner" benefits so that seems like an issue that is going away.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

The real question that is begged in all this discussion is if society is bettered by using its most basic institution as an ideological football. I would say not.

Then again what do they have to moan about if they are given "marriage equality". If homosexuals want to pretend to get married BFD. They can agitate for a right to call themselves ocelots or alligators for an encore for all I care.

[JewishAtheist]

"They can even adopt children."

Actually, they just made that illegal in Arkansas.

[tommy]

"The exit poll shows that the proposition had very strong support among blacks. 70% voted for it and 30% voted against it."

So will gays be boycotting blacks?

[Vim]

Buckaroo:

When I said obvious ways, I meant all the usual rights were to be respected including not having to testify againt your spouse(s). You could argue that people would marry just to avoid testifying but that wouldn't be a problem unique to gay or polygamous marriage.

""..Childless marriages should get equal amounts of support from the state whatever that amount ends up being."

These two sentences appear to be mutually contradictory. "

When I said equal, I was including the possiblity of zero support but if there was SOME support then it should be equal. However, I think any support should be directed to children not to the spouse(s).

[whiskey]

I agree with Roissy, and will have a post up soon explaning why Gay Marriage is a bad idea.

The West was built on the nuclear family, something libertarians just can't understand, like an economist baffled at how the actual, real bazaar works.

The nuclear family invests nearly all men in society by giving them an equal shot at a family, and thus handles the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM OF HUMANS:

CONTROLLING MALE VIOLENCE.

People just don't understand, because they live in the affluent, sheltered, nuclear family West, how violent MEN can get when they compete over women with no rules and winner-take all. Think: West Africa, cutting off limbs, and eating people. Or Saudi Arabia, and harems and such, or Afghanistan-Pakistan, possibly the most violent and tribal place on earth outside Somalia. All dominated by constant, non-stop fights over ... WOMEN.

Even the weakest man can fashion a weapon and kill someone of greater power and stature. This is particularly true in the firearms era. Even Jessie James found that one out.

The reason for the West's success over the centuries is monogamy + limiting male competition over women which led to the nuclear family, being widespread and creating a deep pool of resources. Wipe out the elites and new ones take their place, just as good, from the middle classes and there are a LOT of them.

Men ALWAYS fight over women unless institutions like traditional marriage, monogamy, and the nuclear family restrain that fighting.

This is why Joseph Smith was killed -- his polygamous system and fanatical followers posed a threat to other men. It's why Utah in the early Mormon years routinely killed non-Mormon settlers passing through, to the point that the other major issue of the day before the Civil War was possibly sending in the Army to suppress them. It is why today surplus young men in the FLDS (which is all of them) are dumped out as useless competitors to the old men who run that sect. The very first Sherlock Holmes story "Study in Scarlet" had revenge for Mormon polygamist abducting a man's fiancee as the main plot point.

Using this point: "Guys gay marriage = legalized polygamy = you alone for the rest of your life" is a potent wedge. I expect it to be made soon.

Every guy knows the competition for women is brutal and wants things arranged to maximize his chances.

[Underachiever]

Whiskey,

the wedge you are referring to can only be potent if it is used, but it won't be. I would be surprised if a single politician argued "we can't allow gay marriage because then loser men won't get wives".

Marriage has already been altered severely. Look at the divorce rate. The nuclear family is getting owned at the moment.

I think the gap between gay and regular marriage though is small compared with the gap between gay marriage and polygamy. Gay marriage is just allowing 2 consenting adults to marry each other where no one can get hurt (unlike the case of incest). Polygamous marriage, on the other hand, implied giant societal changes.

Also, everyone should check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Love

it is a good (fictional) HBO special about a polygamous family.