"Marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality," and Other Last Spasms From a Losing Argument

Below, Jacob Sullum talked about being "encouraged by the predictable lameness of the arguments against repealing marijuana prohibition," because "if public opinion is in fact becoming more favorable toward reform," then freedom-constricting prohibitionists "may soon find that the usual vacuous litany does not do the trick anymore."

To experience the exact same feeling about gay marriage prohibition, I recommend trying to read all the way through this bizarre new Weekly Standard essay. As Nick Gillespie said yesterday, it's over for these people; the only question left is when and how.

Comments

[Some Guy]

Years that I have been hearing debate about gay marriage: 6.

Arguments I've heard against it that make any rational sense: 0.

[SugarFree]

Marriage is concerned above all with the lack of female sexuality

FTFY

[kinnath]

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

I've tried reading this piece of shit all the way through twice now, and I still can't do it.

Did someone snatch this guy from the 19th century using a time machine?

[Wicks Cherrycoke]

After reading that article, and realizing that the true, historic reason for marriage was the regulation of sex, one is forced to ask: Do we even need it anymore?

[R C Dean]

it's over for these people; the only question left is when and how.

I agree.

I also think it matters a great deal in this Republic of ours just when and how legal/social changes like gay marriage are made.

[R C Dean]

After reading that article, and realizing that the true, historic reason for marriage was the regulation of sex, one is forced to ask: Do we even need it anymore?

Ask your wife.

[Brian Moore]

The only thing particularly informative in the article is the realization that marriage as defined for most of human history is radically different than what it is today. It was designed to smooth inheritance, prevent oversupply of single males, provide support for children, establish a societal position for women (for better or worse, mainly worse) in societies that outlawed or were unaware of homosexuality.

Now that these things don't apply any more, or have been handled through other mechanisms, it's stupid and cruel to prevent the extension of marriage. The gay marriage debate is over, it's just a matter of time for the legislative mechanisms finally spin their rusty gears and codify it.

Now, let's start arguing whether the current state of marriage in this country is unnecessarily discriminatory against single people!

[Dagny T.]

Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides

I'll take Dudes Who Are Bad in Bed for $500, Alex.

[Episiarch]

SugarFree | May 27, 2009, 2:46pm | #
Marriage is concerned above all with the lack of female sexuality

FTFY

Not getting any again from the wifey? Poor NutraSweet. Does she couch in it "I have a headache", or does she just blatantly tell you she doesn't want your sweaty, stinking, grunting bulk pushing down on her for even the 30 seconds it takes you to finish?

[SugarFree]

Both.

[Mister DNA]

From the article:

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

Someone's got some serious issues.

[Episiarch]

Just as I suspected. It was something your wife said while we were in bed together. She said we had the same build. From the waist up I imagine, and notwithstanding the fact that I'm in excellent shape.

[SugarFree]

when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

Lazurus Long? Is that you?

[Dagny T.]

Sug, may I suggest adopting a more heroic and resigned approach? A cape n' tights, accompanied by sad eyes and quivering lip is, I believe, what our Mr. Schulman had in mind.

[Episiarch]

we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom

This guy should just gouge his eyes out now and spare us the rest of the tragedy.

[SugarFree]

It was something your wife said while we were in bed together.

This is what happens when you make him your Facebook friend... he weaves elaborate fantasies about your women and curses incoherently on your wall-to-wall.

[SugarFree]

Dagny,

It do OK. She's just all successful and shit. She's going out of town for three weeks. And I've got a torn biceps tendon in my jackin' arm.

I wish God existed so that I could stop believing in him all over again.

[Episiarch]

Hey, don't talk to me that way, assface. I don't work for you yet.

[Fluffy]

I encourage everyone to RTFA.

I thought I had the gist, from reading the mockingly quoted excerpts that are popping up everywhere, but I was wrong. You may think you know how much Schulman has embarrassed himself, but you don't.

I think Brian Moore has it right, above. This essay actually further undermines the argument against gay marriage, since it is structured in the form, "Gay marriage makes no sense if you endorse utterly archaic views of the role of the family and of women in society." All that arguing in this way achieves is to make the listener scratch his head and say, "Well, since I don't care about any of these things, I guess that means gay marriage is A-OK." Or, perhaps, the listener scratches his head and says, "I really think that increasing economic opportunity and the advancement of classic-liberal notions of self-ownership and autonomy is what did away with concubinage, and not traditional marriage. So I don't really see how gay marriage is supposed to bring back concubinage."

[nicole]

Ditto everything that Fluffy just said. I can't actually believe the article. It's straight from the bizarro world.

As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone.

Yeah, sounds like you've missed that boat, buddy.

[Warren]

I have a lot more confidence that gay marriage will be accepted in all 49 states (I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah) before you see Norther Lights setting next to Marlboro Reds.

[Dagny T.]

Sug, even someone foolish enough to Facebook-friend Epi doesn't deserve such a fate.

[JB]

It's not over for people like me. For all the douches that think it's ok to go into my wallet, then I have no problem with someone going into their bedroom.

Get the state out of the marriage business and out of my wallet.

[domoarrigato]

What Fluffy said - word. I agreed with everything the guy said right up until he claimed that it would undermine traditional marriage. I was like, huh?

And, coming from a guy who admits he's thrice divorced, I wonder what his tribesmen would have done to him for that...

[ChicagoActuary]

Somebody in the comments a day or two ago linked to this as "the best argument I've heard" against gay marriage. Someone with search skills - out him!

[Solana]

Glad to know that gay marriage will potentially cause a massive spike in... straight rape?

[Brandybuck]

You can't compare marriage today to marriages of yesteryear. It is a completely different thing. Today we getting married because we are in love, but in the past we go married to whomever our parents chose and hoped we would fall in love. In the western world it was the Victorians that brought us the revolutionary idea that marriage was for love. In a world where marriages were arranged for economic and political reasons, gay marriage does not make sense. Even when homosexuality was accepted and open there were no homosexual marriages. That only makes sense for modern, love based, marriages.

There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, because we're not going back to the days of our parents choosing our spouses. Nor would we want to.

[ChicagoActuary]

I found the link from the other day - it was ChicagoTom, and he was clearly joking.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133707.html#1289423

[Marshall]

The whole concept of government sanctioned marriage is an outmoded concept. It goes back to the days when women stayed at home and raised the family. It was a guarantee that the spouse would be entitled to all of the benefits and property of the surviving spouse. In this day and age both spouses work and there is no need for these protections. When it comes to property they can have joint ownership. All extending marriage rights to same sex unions would be to bankrupt Social Security sooner. It is not time for the government to redefine marriage but time for them to get out of the business altogether.

[IceTrey]

There is no "gay marriage prohibition". What is going on is a prohibition on same sex couples receiving a state license legitimizing ,in the eyes of the state, their union. Gay people can get "married" if they want. Just have a ceremony in front of your friends and relatives were you declare your commitment to one another. Jump over a broom, stomp on a glass, say a prayer whatever your want and you're "married".

[Ed]

Marriage is a defined religiously. The question should be why ANY marriage needs to be sanctioned by a government that is supposed to be neutral on religion.

We need civil unions for all. That's it.

[Zeb]

Stop being a dick, JB. There are plenty of people who want gay marriage and don't want to go into your wallet. Didn't anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

[Marshall]

ED gays don't even need that. Marriage is a religious concept. It is time for the government to get out of the relationship business, period.

[John]

I don't know Matt. Maybe you should you know win an election or two before you claim to have won the argument. Just a thought. You might also want to consider the fact, as unpleasent as it is, that a lot of people in this country just don't like gays. Worse still, the people who don't like gays tend to be from groups, hispanics, poor whites, blacks, who have a lot of kids. Given the demographic trends, I don't see a big wave of tollerance for gay people coming. If anything, it think the last 30 years are an enlightened blip that will fade away in the coming decades. I am not saying that is a good thing. But gay rights is the perview of upper class urban white people. Those people seem to get fewer in number every year.

[R C Dean]

This whole kerfuffle is over a word: "marriage".

As noted above, marriage should be regarded as a purely social/religious thing. To the extent we need/want a state-defined set of defaults for the legal dimension of the relationship, it should be "civil union" for everyone.

[The Chad]

Just don't get warren started on the metric system! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

[Xeones]

Those people seem to get fewer in number every year.

I say!
[monocle falls into champagne glass]

[Episiarch]

John, it's not a question so much of increased acceptance of gays, but increased tolerance; in that people, even if they hateses the faygalas, are becoming more used to them being here and queer. That translates into just shrugging about things like gay marriage.

[lrv]

"Now to live in such a system, in which sexual intercourse can be illicit, is a great nuisance. Many of us feel that licit sexuality loses, moreover, a bit of its oomph. Gay lovers live merrily free of this system."

He's just worried that gay sex will stop being fun.

This article is the best argument for the prohibition of marriage I've ever read.

[Solana]

I am not saying that is a good thing. But gay rights is the perview of upper class urban white people. Those people seem to get fewer in number every year.

Yeah, this just... isn't true at all. Blacks, for example, may be less tolerant of homosexuality, generally, than whites, but the group is still more tolerant today than it was fifty years ago.

Can't stop the homo love, amigo. Everybody wants a piece. 😉

[Solana]

That translates into just shrugging about things like gay marriage.

Sure, at least at first. Then, hopefully, you'll all turn. That is the agenda after all...

[Bobster0]

I'm for gay marriage but I think the powers that be don't want to legalize same sex marriage because it will undermine many of the illogical laws dealing with marriage.

I think the government should get out of the marriage biz and gay marriage may help that happen.

If gay marriage is made legal what will stop hetero same sex marriage? It would start in the military maybe. Sailors and Soldiers make more money when married. Why not marry your buddy, make the cash and divorce when re-assigned? They wouldn't even have to claim to be gay would they?

[Irwin M. Fletcher]

Episiarch, stop stealing my lines.

[Isaac Bartram]

My impression is that the idea of calling the legal contract a "civil union" and the religious contract a "marriage" would be quite acceptable to a lot of people on both sides of this issue.

Quakers and Unitarians (among others) have been performing* gay marriages for years. The ceremonies had no legal standing but they at least made the couples feel that they had made a commitment before God.

To me the only thing to sort out is whether Ministers would continue have the authority to perform the civil union side of the thing or whether couples would have to get two separate ceremonies as is required for those wanting church weddings in some European countries.

[Isaac Bartram]

IceTrey @ 3:56pm

Your reference to getting "churched" is all well and good. Religious people like the idea of having their unions sanctified.

But such a church wedding has no standing on issues like inheritance, visitation, child custody and whole bunch of other legal issues.

That's what gays are asking for.

And frankly, as far I'm concerned they should be able to have it.

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

IB - Can't they? With a private contract?

The things I see as being specific to licensed married couples are immigration, tax, etc... privileges.

[Zeb]

"IB - Can't they? With a private contract?"

Yeah probably, but who wants to hire a lawyer to figure it all out and then write up the contract when there is already a simpler, less expensive process available where all you need to do to adapt it is get rid of the little tick boxes for gender (or whatever it is that prevents same sex marriage)?

[John]

In the end, if two guys want to get married because they enjoy, banging each other, why shouldn't two guys be able to get married because doing so gives them benefits? If procreation is no longer the point of marriage, then it seems that sex should no longer be part of it either. Once gay marriage is legal, then marriage is just a convienent and often profitable arrangement between two people. There is no reason why it can't be any two people; friends, aquantances, siblings whatever. You can get around the genetic and gross out issues of sibling marriage by eliminating the sex. Marriage no longer means sex. It just means two people live together and have this arrangement.

The problem is that if the benefit extends to everyone, then it really extends to no one. Gay marriage ultimately leads to there being no benefit to marriage for anyone. That may be a good thing, who knows. But that is where it leads.

[Isaac Bartram]

As I see it the defect in the private contract is that it can be questioned.

Everybody recognizes a marriage certificate. By the time the relatives that can't stand you have taken you to court to contest your contract prepared by Joe Doakes Esq the loved one you wanted to see in the hospital may have expired.

And, as Zeb notes, the marriage licence is cheaper.

Look, I'm all for getting the state right out of marriage, but the way I see it, it ain't gonna happen in this universe. I'll accept the OK that's possible over the perfect that's unattainable every day of the week.

[John]

"Look, I'm all for getting the state right out of marriage, but the way I see it, it ain't gonna happen in this universe. I'll accept the OK that's possible over the perfect that's unattainable every day of the week."

You can only do that, if you get the state out of immmigration law. And that isn't going to happen. Let's say you have gay marriage and keep spousal immigration benefits. Then how do you determine which marriages are legit? Again, once you have gay marriage, why is sex even necessary. In the end, why can't I marry my male friend from Mexico who needs a visa? How is our marraige not legit? So what if we don't have sex? That is not the point of marriage anyway. Or if you say marriage doesn't get a visa, then you have people being forced to leave thier spouses behind and as much as ban international marriage.

[Isaac Bartram]

In the end, if two guys want to get married because they enjoy, banging each other, why shouldn't two guys be able to get married because doing so gives them benefits?

That exactly what two straight guys in Toronto did. They were older divorced guys who figured they take advantage of the extra benefits the Canada Pension Plan gives married couples.

Sorry too lazy to find a link. I figure anyone's interested enough they'll google.

And probably prove me full of shit. 😉

[John]

I believe you Isaac. I frankly, under a gay marriage scheme, don't see how anyone can stop them from doing it.

[Brent Royal-Gordon]

"Let's say you have gay marriage and keep spousal immigration benefits. Then how do you determine which marriages are legit?"

That's not a gay marriage problem, that's just a marriage problem. Straight people marry for the immigration benefits sometimes, too.

[John]

I think when the kind of stuff like Isaac points out happened in Toronto starts to happen, people are going to be really pissed off. I am sorry but I don't buy the inevitability of gay marriage. If nothing else, straight people taking advantage of it in sham marraiges will discredit it.

[John]

"That's not a gay marriage problem, that's just a marriage problem. Straight people marry for the immigration benefits sometimes, too."

They do. But it is a bit harder to pull off because currently sex considered a essential part of marriage. Under gay marriage it is not. That makes sham marriages for benefits very easy. If sex is not part of marriage, who is to say that something even is a sham marraige. Again, if two guys can marry because they like banging each other, why can't two guys marry so one can get into the country?

[ellipsis]

As the linked article makes abundantly clear, marriage is a somewhat outdated concept.

The reasons the government got into the marriage business in the first place are mostly null at this point. But momentum is a bitch. This could be resolved quickly if you could choose a beneficiary, instead of having the spouse be the default.

[Isaac Bartram]

John, it's quite possible that if we had a more rational immigration policy people wouldn't feel quite such a need to game it.

But that's a different matter. My tiny brain can only deal with one pressing issue at a time.

And John, in reply to your 5:13, I'm not sure I couldn't get behind allowing unrelated people to form familial units on just about whatever basis they want to.

Having said that, I must confess that I'm every bit as uneasy as you about the potential for abuse of welfare benefits and the like. But again that's a different issue.

[weenis]

I don't know Matt. Maybe you should you know win an election or two before you claim to have won the argument. Just a thought.

Since when did elections win arguments?

Oh yeah, never.

Get a fucking clue, John.

[John]

"Since when did elections win arguments?

Oh yeah, never.

Get a fucking clue, John."

No dumb ass, they don't win arguments, they settle arguements. What does it mean to "win an argument" if the majority of voters don't agree with you? What is the point? Intellectual pride?

[Tony]

As noted above, marriage should be regarded as a purely social/religious thing. To the extent we need/want a state-defined set of defaults for the legal dimension of the relationship, it should be "civil union" for everyone.

'Marriage' is not a religious term necessarily. It is used in civil law and should apply to everyone. 'Matrimony' describes a union blessed by a deity.

[Brent Royal-Gordon]

They do. But it is a bit harder to pull off because currently sex considered a essential part of marriage. Under gay marriage it is not. That makes sham marriages for benefits very easy.

The only way it's harder is that the person who decides to help you game the system has to be of the opposite sex. I have a hard time believing that this constraint is the last stanchion in the wall separating us from the horde of would-be immigrants.

If sex is not part of marriage, who is to say that something even is a sham marraige. Again, if two guys can marry because they like banging each other, why can't two guys marry so one can get into the country?

Presumably in much the same way they do it for straight marriages: they investigate the couple and look for signs that they aren't actually living as husband and wife and, if they find those signs, they prosecute. What makes this approach inapplicable to a marriage between two men or two women?

[R C Dean]

My impression is that the idea of calling the legal contract a "civil union" and the religious contract a "marriage" would be quite acceptable to a lot of people on both sides of this issue.

At least some gay activists have opposed civil unions legislation. They don't just want equal legal standing, they want universal social acceptance.

'Marriage' is not a religious term necessarily. It is used in civil law and should apply to everyone.

Change the word used in civil law, Tony. That's what I was saying. This can be defused for a lot of people if we separate the legal issue from the social/religious one by changing our terminology.

[weenis]

No dumb ass, they don't win arguments, they settle arguements. What does it mean to "win an argument" if the majority of voters don't agree with you? What is the point? Intellectual pride?

So why the fuck are you saying "win an election" before claiming to "win an argument"?

Get your story straight and rejoin us, m'kay?

[John]

"Presumably in much the same way they do it for straight marriages: they investigate the couple and look for signs that they aren't actually living as husband and wife and, if they find those signs, they prosecute. What makes this approach inapplicable to a marriage between two men or two women?"

You miss the point. Why is sex necessary to marriage? The only reason we think that sex is necessary to marriage is because the point of marriage is to procreate. If procreation is no longer a part of marriage, then there is no reason for sex to be. So what are you going to investigate?

[John]

"So why the fuck are you saying "win an election" before claiming to "win an argument"?"

Because if you had in fact won the argument, people would agree with you and you would win an election now and then.

It is not a difficult concept, if you are not a fucking moron. I guess I set the bar too high for you.

[Marshall]

Isaac

You said that "Look, I'm all for getting the state right out of marriage, but the way I see it, it ain't gonna happen in this universe. I'll accept the OK that's possible over the perfect that's unattainable every day of the week."

Perhaps, the bottom line is that marriage and civil unions are a morality issue. Gay marriage or civil unions would be the government forcing that morality on the population at large. Since we have a clear separation of church and state it should stay that way. What the government givith the government can takith away. California first allowed same sex marriage and the voters took it away. The only way to guarantee this separation is to get the government out of the picture. The government should not be in the position of forcing morality issues whether they are popular or not. All of the sodomy laws, laws against self gratification and prostitution laws are proof that these laws do not work. They all are the majority forcing their morality on the minority and as you can see these attitudes change from generation to generation. As long as the majority can determine what is morally acceptable or tolerated same sex unions will never be a right. The only way it will become a right is when the separation of powers are clearly defined and the government can't make moral decisions based on the whims of the majority.

[weenis]

Because if you had in fact won the argument, people would agree with you and you would win an election now and then.

It is not a difficult concept, if you are not a fucking moron. I guess I set the bar too high for you.

I see. Argumentum ad populum. That's a logical fallacy, John. Go look it up, as you evidently are a "fucking moron."

[jasa]

The problem is that if the benefit extends to everyone, then it really extends to no one. Gay marriage ultimately leads to there being no benefit to marriage for anyone.

Gays are what, one, two, at most five percent of the population? Adding a few percent to the marriage stats ruins it for all of us? WTF?

[Sheep in Tom Wolfe\'s Clothing]

"Gays are what, one, two, at most five percent of the population? Adding a few percent to the marriage stats ruins it for all of us? WTF?"

It's simple, really. Just like allowing everyone the right to vote means that no one actually gets to vote. Damned suffragettes ruined it for everyone.

"Since we have a clear separation of church and state it should stay that way."

Sorry to be a prick, but, hahahaha! Furthermore, rotflmfao!

[Marshall]

Sheep in Tom Wolfe's Clothing

"Since we have a clear separation of church and state it should stay that way."

Sorry to be a prick, but, hahahaha! Furthermore, rotflmfao!

Keep laughing. . . the joke is between your legs. Until we stop the so called majority from inflicting their morals on the minority this will be a problem. What makes you believe that the majority has the right to inflict their morals on anyone. That was the entire reason our forefathers set up a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. Somehow people like you forget that fact. It is also why they clearly defined the separation of church and state so that the state could not force religious views on any minority. M"Since we have a clear separation of church and state it should stay that way. Morality falls under the heading of church and should not be up to popular vote.

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

[Eddy]

"Morality falls under the heading of church and should not be up to popular vote."

Oh, I read that as "Morality fails under the heading of church..." Now that I think about the twisted things that have been done and considered moral, if not downright virtuous, by the sundry religious sects, I think I read it right.

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

What does it mean to "win an argument" if the majority of voters don't agree with you? What is the point? Intellectual pride?

Good question for a libertarian message board.

[Marshall]

Eddy

You said

"Morality falls under the heading of church and should not be up to popular vote."

Oh, I read that as "Morality fails under the heading of church..." Now that I think about the twisted things that have been done and considered moral, if not downright virtuous, by the sundry religious sects, I think I read it right.

In a way you made my point. This is why moral issues should be left to the church. Moral issues do not belong in the political arena. No laws should be passed based on what is considered morally popular. The government does not belong in personal relationships. Historically legal marriage had to do with the legitimacy of children. Bastards had no right to inheritance and unmarried women had little standing in the community whether they were with a man or not. Again these are moral issues. Illegitimate children now have all of the same rights as legitimate and even out of wedlock the father is forced to support the child. All of the reasons for the government to get involved in the institution of marriage are gone and the only thing left are the morality issues. The government has no right to dictate or license personal relationships, It gives them power that was not granted to them by the constitution and it is not their place to make such decisions . . . at least not in a free society.

[JB]

Stop being a dick, JB. There are plenty of people who want gay marriage and don't want to go into your wallet. Didn't anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

But there are more people who want gay marriage and think it's ok to go into my wallet. So fuck them.

As long as they are in my wallet, I want those fuckers to pay and if it's a fucking lesson to their fucking stupid thick-heads then I want them to fucking learn that if they want people out of their bedrooms then they better start by not being a bunch of hypocritical little bitches who go into other people's wallets every chance they get.

Gay men and women are mostly Democrats. I fucking hate Democrats who think my business is their business because their orifice of choice hurts. Fuck them in their orifice of choice with a telephone pole.

If you don't want to go in to my wallet, then you are cool. But for those fuckers that do, the sooner those clumps of cells get aborted, the better.

[shante]

estate tax
shared insurance plans
gift tax
social security benefits
adoption
pension and ira restrictions
hospital visitation

. . . this is what the gay marriage debate is really about.

do not confuse this with a morality issue. while that is why many of the stooges have gone out to the polls to ensure that gays do not get to enjoy these equal rights, this is very much a financial issue. . . for the government more than anyone.

[Adam]

JB:

No matter how righteously and forcefully expressed, two wrongs still don't make a right. You're defending an indefensible position.

[Mike]

I don't think that sham marriages will be a big problem. Right now, a single man could marry his female coworker or neighbor just for benefits, and that doesn't happen much. If I'm wrong at it does become a big problem, I think it would be an argument for the state getting out of marriage altogether, not an argument against gay marriage.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Women's Suffrage---->The WNBA----->The Marriage for the Gays

[Isaac Bartram]

Marshall @ 5:42pm

There are many reasons the state is involved in family law.

shante @ 10:02pm lists a few, namely:

estate tax
shared insurance plans
gift tax
social security benefits
adoption
pension and ira restrictions
hospital visitation

As he points out, these are not morality issues.

It's true that these things can be handled with a custom made contract drawn up by an attorney but, as someone else pointed out, why go to an attorney when the state has a ready made contract that is for all practical purposes unchallengeable.

Because I do believe that gay couples are as entitled to these protections as straight couples, I have come to the concusion that calling the legal family agreement a "civil union" while letting churches make what they will of the religious sacrament of marriage is the most workable solution. And one that will get broad support, even from people who say they oppose gay marriage.

Oh, and I agree with Mike @ 12:06am

[Ben]

The upshot of a lot of pro-SSM arguments is: "This is a new day with new rules. The social structures that served us for millennia are no longer needed and can be sloughed-off and put out with the garbage. What could possibly go wrong?"

Hmmm... seems like we have heard this kind of nonsense before. From Marx, for one. One should be careful about throwing away foundational institutions that have served us well -- You never know when you might need them again. Does anyone really want to bet that our current holiday from human history will last indefinitely?

Megan McArdle makes this point and others very well here:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

[JB]

No matter how righteously and forcefully expressed, two wrongs still don't make a right. You're defending an indefensible position.

Bullshit. Those people are hypocrites and I'm calling them out on it. They think it's ok to invade my privacy and my rights so I don't feel much sympathy when they whine about their privacy and their rights.

[Fluffy]

One should be careful about throwing away foundational institutions that have served us well -- You never know when you might need them again. Does anyone really want to bet that our current holiday from human history will last indefinitely?

This is idiotic.

As even the essay you're defending freely concedes, the marriage model that excludes gay marriage already no longer exists basically anywhere in western civilization.

Marriage freely entered on the basis of romantic love is already the norm everywhere in the First World. That ship has sailed.

So far all your faux concern about "foundational institutions" to make any sense, you'd have to explain to me your plan for turning the clock back and no longer having heterosexual marriages be based on romantic love either - but have them be about property and kinship and the relationship between the hearth unit and the state again. Because if you don't have that plan ready, the argument completely falls apart: "A critical foundational institution is in jeopardy if homosexuals treat it the same way all heterosexuals in our society already treat it." Um, OK.

[Ben]

Fluffy,

The argument that "heterosexuals have abandoned marriage, so why not let the gays join?" is hardly new, but deeply flawed:

1) Many of the same folks who are now arguing against SSM are/were also against liberalized divorce laws.

2) While heterosexual marriage as an institution is certainly not as healthy as it once was, the divorce rates are inflated by "serial divorcees" who marry and divorce many times. In spite of everything, there is still a solid core of lifetime heterosexual marriages in this country.

3) While it is absolutely true that the process of mate selection has greatly changed over the years such that romantic love plays a much larger role and economic factors less blatantly so, it is ridiculous to say that romantic love is the ONLY factor that comes into play these days. Indeed, science continues to shed light on the ways economic and reproductive factors subconsciously guide our selection of a mate. Furthermore, whatever our conscious goals when looking for a spouse, the fact remains that committed marriage still provides the foundational benefit it always has: An economic and emotional support system in which to raise children, providing them with role models of each gender. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that, in addition to the effects of living in an affluent society, the main reason we can select more on the basis of romantic love is because our increased mobility allows us to have such a wider selection of potential mates from which to choose, thus allowing secondary factors to dominate.

Having said all of that, the fact that you utterly ignored McArdle's main arguments only shows how lacking your position is on substance.

[Sheep in Tom Wolfe\'s Clothing]

Marshall, you misunderstand my laughter. I agree, separation of church and state is a good thing. Too bad we don't really have it.

I agree completely that the religious views of the many should not be foisted upon the rest of us (trust me, I am not the "people like you" you think I am). I am all for gay marriage (well, actually I am all against marriage, but if they're going to let some people do it, they should let everyone do it.)

We have a president who had an Evangelical minister say a prayer over his inauguration, 2 Christian legal holidays every year, a dollar bill that says "God" on it, continuing debate over whether or not (Christian, of course) religious rules should be allowed in courthouses, churches that truly amount to for-profits (some, not all) being tax-exempt, and on and on.

We have theoretical separation of church and state, but it doesn't really exist. We have freedom of some religions, but not all religions are protected, and those who are areligious are still thought of as immoral freaks.

As for what's between my legs...well, I'll need a ring before I share that info, thanks.

[Fluffy]

The McArdle argument I sited was the best of a bad lot.

Every word in that article proved over and over that McArdle is a lying cunt when she claims to be a libertarian.

The whole argument about the "gate" is some of the most asinine liberty-hating nonsense I've ever seen a closet autocrat cunt write. Here's the easiest way to immediately and conclusively debunk it: pretend it's 1860 and apply it to slavery. The people who want slavery gone can't be trusted because they won't first explain why slavery is good? Go fuck yourself, McArdle, you cunt.