There's little point dissecting the thing--it's just more of the same epithets and "guilt by association" nonsense that Donald Douglas usually writes, especially where I'm concerned. If anyone is interested in my views on marriage equality, they're not hard to find (look here or here), and they don't need translating or explanation by a third party, least of all some crazy obsessed fuck who periodically lashes out at me over the internet, unprovoked.
But since I'm here anyway, I'll crosspost the main part of the post that brought Dishonest Donald Douglas slithering out from under his rock. Those interested can read what I wrote, and then compare it with Dishonest Donald's rant over on his blog, and decide for themselves...:
What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)
I recently had a conversation in the comment section of a youtube video: Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents (I'll link to it, but I refuse to embed the thing, both because I disagree with Carolla's take on the subject and because it's altogether a pretty obnoxious video.)
While the conversation started out kinda rocky--in part because I thought something the guy had said was kind of bigoted, and lashed out in reply in a way I wish I hadn't--it was generally not too bad a discussion. (In fact, I'll likely append it to the end of this post, in case anyone's interested.) The gentleman also sent me three e-mails to my youtube account containing links to posts with which he agreed, and which, surprisingly enough, agreed with him, too. What follows is my response to all three posts, as well as the discussion we had. When I stared writing, I initially intended it to be an e-mail reply but given the length, I decided to send him a link to this, instead. The title of this post is taken from the last of his three e-mails.
"homosexual marriageMy reply:
Not to get all evangelical but the author below has written extensively on the issue of homosexual marriage and politics. His street cred is total and you will find his various articles insightful and even surprising.
R.O. Lopez writes from the heart and I feel you will benefit from his thoughts. The link below is not the only article and you can go to the archives and find his literary works and they are all valuable insights into this issue most people never even know they don't know.
American Thinker: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage
I just stumbled over this...
American Thinker: The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage
We just disagree
So you see, there IS another side of the debate than yours. Remember: I am one of THOSE people.
American Thinker: The Price of Gay Marriage: The Galvanic Corrosion of Language"
Of course there are more sides to the marriage equality debate than mine. In fact, I believe there are more than just two, although the question of equal marriage rights has only two possible answers; equality before the law or inequality.
Everyone has a right to believe as they will, for religious, ethical, or societal reasons. But only one side of this debate is advocating that the other be prohibited by law from acting in accord with their beliefs.
I've read through all 3 of the "American Thinker" articles you offered links to, and trust me when I say I've read many other articles and posts at similar sites by those authors and others with similar views. The fact that you (and they) believe the primary purpose of laws and statutes governing civil marriage is procreation and parenthood simply does not make it so. The laws pertaining to the birth and care of children are the ones that say so. To read more into the rest of the laws pertaining to marriage--the ones that are about tax rates, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, wills, and the rest of the over 1000 federal, state, and local rights and benefits automatically granted to traditional couples at the moment they say "I do"--and that DON'T specifically mention children--is seeing what you wish to see, rather than what's really there. Only a fraction of those same 1000+ rights and benefits are offered to same-sex couples, even in states that allow civil unions or have marriage equality.
Procreation is a natural phenomenon. Marriage is a human creation. It has probably always had a religious component, a legal one, and one based strictly in nature, involving procreation and sexual desire (both to continue the species, and for pleasure, as well). Sometimes those components are in synch, and sometimes they're not.
I understand the natural argument, but given that so few animals choose and stick with one mate for the majority of their lives, I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of marriage, traditional or otherwise, should or would offer nature as an argument. Were we to use nature as our guide, we'd be doing much better at propagating the species, but we'd be screwing like...well, bunnies, with little if any regard for the man or woman we were with the night before.
Once we get past nature, the religious and legal definitions and purposes of marriage have never been set in stone. I can appreciate that the Judeo-Christian God defined marriage in a way that is largely accepted in these parts (especially by the jews and christians who live in these parts), but there are other religions with other beliefs that define marriage in different ways. (Even different denominations within christianity define marriage in slightly different ways.)
A 10 minute google search suggests that a relatively small but still significant number of same-sex marriages and unions have occurred throughout all of recorded history. (Some were legal (that is, civil) marriages accepted by law and the cultures in which they took place, while others were religiously recognized--including by the Christian church. (St. Serge and St. Bacchus, Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John). One of the first laws against same sex marriage was in ancient Rome. Presumably they passed the law to stop same-sex marriages that were taking place at the time.
Even aside that, the religious, legal, and socially recognized and accepted rules regarding marriage have changed in all sorts of ways throughout history, from the ages of the participants, the number of participants, whether people of different religions could marry, whether people of different races could marry, the rules regarding divorce, the rules regarding remarriage after divorce, the practice of marrying the widow of one's deceased brother, even if you were already married, dowries, the role of husbands and wives in the home and out, the necessity of love (or any prior relationship at all) between the participants, ..., ... There is very little about legal marriage, the rite of marriage, or the social definitions of marriage that has NOT changed since each of these institutions began.
It's up to one's church and scripture to decide which changes to accept and which to reject and refuse; I would never want government law to determine religious doctrine, though I do believe change is possible, in that there are already faiths and denominations that allow gay folks to serve and to marry, and because of the extent to which an actual threat to traditional marriage--divorce--has already been accepted by so much of the mainstream religious community throughout the world.
Legally though, appeals to nature, to church, or even to tradition and "the way it's always been" just don't hold up under scrutiny. Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...
I do believe children should have male and female solid long-term role models in their lives, but I don't believe US law should prevent couples from marrying or raising children in an effort to encourage (or really, enforce) those standards.
Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't--and shouldn't be--defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been--except of course, as an argument against marriage equality.... (Women were (and in a few cases, still are) tested for virginity, and blood tests were done to prevent certain diseases (chiefly syphilis, but TB and german measles were also mentioned), but I know of no tests for fertility, or laws or church doctrine that require children or the possibility of them to start or maintain a legal (or religiously recognized) marriage. We don't even require couples to sign an affidavit affirming that they are able to procreate prior to allowing them to marry, which would require no testing.
It's not that I don't understand the arguments those opposed to legal marriage equality are making... I just don't think they hold all that much water.
Read what we each wrote, and decide for yourselves...
American Power: Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness
What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)
Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
An American Nihilist X-post