You’re comments might be taken a little more seriously if you addressed opposing arguments, rather than caricaturing them, Waldo.

Posted by James Young on 24 June 2008 @ 12am

Heh. The opposing “argument” basically boils down to gay people marrying will somehow ruin the “sanctity” (whatever that means) of marriage in general. The concept that two guys or two gals getting married to one another will have ANY impact on anyone else’s marriage is so laughable that to caricature it is being kind. If someone is stupid enough to claim that there own marriage is being affected by what some totals strangers are doing, then they’re just looking for a scapegoat for their own failings.

And don’t think this is religious. It’s not. No one is trying to force any church to do something they don’t want to do. The debate is about civil marriage only. Anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous.

Posted by Dan Kachur on 24 June 2008 @ 12am

James, as Dan says, I just can’t take the opposing arguments any more seriously than you can in this matter.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 June 2008 @ 8am

Well, hell’s bells, I don’t want to be married if just about anybody can do it.

Posted by Sam on 24 June 2008 @ 12pm

They’re using it all up!

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 June 2008 @ 12pm

James Young pegged it. Y’all just go ahead and knock down your straw men if that makes you feel better.

It’s about (not) creating special privileges for one class of people who choose a particular lifestyle. Shouldn’t be all that hard to understand, but apparently it is.

Posted by I.Publius on 24 June 2008 @ 12pm

I don’t know that it’s fair to call them “straw men,” I.P. There are plenty of people who argue that gay marriage will “weaken the institution of marriage.” Sen. Allen ran an against against Jim Webb saying that he would “weaken marriage.” The joke here is, of course, that if marriage is being “weakened,” then that should be tangible. It must be a measurable reduction in the strength of individual marriages, and it apparently increases with physical proximity (at least on a state-by-state level) and the rate at which it’s done. Therefore, I can only conclude that those who employ this logic believe that their marriages just got a little less strong. That’s not a straw man—it’s just logical.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 June 2008 @ 12pm

Hold on, it’s about NOT creating special privileges? But I *WANT* my special privileges! How am I supposed to feel like my heterosexual marriage is special and sacred if the privilege isn’t denied to teh gayz?

Marriage needs to be a special privilege exclusive to heterosexual couples who get married in churches or by Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas.

Posted by Sam on 24 June 2008 @ 12pm

Not that anything James Young says ever deserves a serious reply, but I’ll add that indeed, weakening the institution of marriage is a pretty big component of the opposition. I know *many* people who are okay with the idea of a civil union, but seem to be absolutely repulsed by the idea of calling a same sex partnership “marriage”, as they think it insults what they (as het marrieds) have had all these years. Absolutely it’s a part of the resistance.

~

Also, Publius, you might want to be a little more careful with your language. James has a special obsession with “perversion”, and you might get his attention over the whole “pegged” thing.

But if you’re just looking for things to talk about, maybe you can answer Waldo’s challenge over Gilmore’s fantastic fiscal management record? No?

Posted by MB on 24 June 2008 @ 1pm

It’s about (not) creating special privileges for one class of people who choose a particular lifestyle. Shouldn’t be all that hard to understand, but apparently it is.

Man, why do those silly homos choose to be attracted to people of the same sex? Why don’t they, like us hetrosexuals, choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? That was the best decision I ever made!

This all reminds me of when those uppity coloreds and colored-lovers wanted special privileges to get married, what with the activist judges and the weakening of traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage is in such dire straits, by the time I’m married this October, I’ll be lucky I can even claim my wife as my property anymore!

(P.S. I Publius: the liberals on this blog weren’t attacking straw men, they were just attacking a different bad argument than the one you prefer.)

Posted by Ben C. on 24 June 2008 @ 1pm

Boy, for someone who doesn’t “deserve[] a serious reply,” you sure use a lot of words purporting to do so, MB.

Of course, the reason why the homophiles prefer to make silly arguments and attack straw men is because, if they concede the point that their attack on “marriage” is an assault on biology and language, then they might just be forced to address whether promoting homosexuality is a good idea.

Posted by James Young on 24 June 2008 @ 1pm

So James, you’re saying that prominent Republicans and other opponents of gay marriage haven’t used the argument that gay marriage weakens, damages, or otherwise harms traditional marriage?

Also, please tell me what the hell marriage has to do with biology. Keep in mind that people have been procreating without marriage since time immemorial.

I’d additionally be interested in whether you, at one point, chose your own sexuality and if not, how supporting gay marriage would in any way “support homosexuality.”

As I said before, those weren’t strawmen earlier, they apparently just chose the wrong bad arguments to ridicule.

Posted by Ben C. on 24 June 2008 @ 2pm

James, James, James. You screwed up yet again. It’s not “homophiles”, it’s “homos”.

All that education is getting to you, I see.

Posted by MB on 24 June 2008 @ 2pm

Woo hoo - my marriage is so weakened that perhaps I’ll get lucky tonight!

Silly phobic people, afraid that two people might be in love. Wow, scary.

Posted by Scott Nolan on 24 June 2008 @ 10pm