Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: No point in legalizing same-sex unions

Letter by Ryan Ostrander, Gig Harbor on April 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm with 193 Comments »
April 27, 2012 1:33 pm

Many articles have been written about the recent passing of the marriage equality bill in Washington. Nearly all of them point out the freedom which this law will bring to those seeking a gay marriage, but none highlight the consequences or talk about the purpose of the government passing this bill in the first place.

Our legislators have not thought this through. In the act of redefining marriage, they will in turn redefine the family and the culture around them.

What is the purpose of marriage, and why does the government even recognize it? When the state legally recognizes a couple, it is doing so with the expectation that the couple can add to society or, in other words, produce children. They show this by offering marriage benefits, expecting something in return.

Same-sex couples do not have anything to offer the society and therefore it does not make sense for the government to recognize them. There are other ways to live together, to legally share bank accounts and a house, and to be seen as companions of one another. Legal same-sex marriage is not the answer.

What’s the point? Is it all so that a small minority of our country can have what it wants? What will happen when someone wants to marry their pet? Will we allow that also? Marriage equality will provide a slippery slope for untold legalizations of the dumbest things. Is America ready for the consequences?

Leave a comment Comments → 193
  1. Why do people who oppose same sex marriage always equate homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia? Makes you wonder which gutter their mind rests in.

  2. LornaDoone says:

    “When the state legally recognizes a couple, it is doing so with the expectation that the couple can add to society or, in other words, produce children.”

    REALLY? Well I guess the state didn’t know much about biology when approving a marriage license for my wife and I. We were both in our 50s and both sterile. We just wanted to legally share our life together and for the community to recognize our relationship, as well as the legal opportunities.

    I guess you can continue to be discriminatory, Ryan, but it appears that society is leaving you in the dust.

  3. Same-sex couples do not have anything to offer the society


    I guess my wife and I have nothing to offer the society as we are childless – it is stunning that the sole measure of contribution to society is based upon breeding.

  4. Slippery slope, dude, slippery slope.

    Don’t imagine someone hasn’t already though of marrying a pet, or two women, or two men, or a ham sandwich. A precedent for change will invariably have unforseen consequences. That’s why it’s not smart to mess with time-honored tradition.

  5. LornaDoone says:

    Boy, I’m sure glad that marriage has always been the same throughout history.

    It’s never been multiple partners. It’s never been controlled to avoid interracial marriages.

    It was never outlawed in the United States for black people to marry so they had to hold secret ceremonies and jump a broom.

    Yeah, the “time-honored tradition” has never changed a bit. Allow change and the next thing you know, people will be wanting to interracially marry and their offspring might become president.

  6. Ryan – The gays asked how can this affect traditional marriage? You got the answer right – it is going to change our culture. The gays also had no right to redefine marriage and there is no civil right to gay marriage in the constitution. Gay marriage came about due to left wing judges and liberals. Where has it passed? Seven liberal (blue) states. Let’s hope it gets to the Supreme Court.

  7. Oh my gosh, I guess all of the slippery slope people who were against interracial marriages were right. We have people marrying monkeys and people marrying their siblings and polygamy all over the USA. Oh, wait, we don’t, even five or six decades after all those Baptists in Virginia warned us of the slippery slope.

    All of those children who have been adopted by gay couples should have stayed orphans like God intended.

    If God had intended old people to be able to be married, He wouldn’t have created menopause.

    (End sarcasm)

    And velmak doing that racist speech imitation thing doesn’t help that side of the argument, either.

  8. Liberals also told us that a child raised by a single parent was just fine and the child will do as well as one raised by two parents, a mother and father. They were wrong.

  9. LornaDoone says:

    chile74 – the man of a single mother has attained the highest office in our country. A Harvard graduate, law degree, etc.

    How are YOU doin’? You make that grade yet?

    I love how velmak’s hatred for Obama translates to the idea that no offspring of an interracial marriage can be a good president. Nothing racist there.

  10. LornaDoone says:

    “it is going to change our culture”

    :::::horrified look::::::

    Oh my! Not changing our culture!!! We can’t let THAT happen!!

  11. Redefining marriage has the potential for some very interesting “other” redefinitions that some might want to make. Forget pedophilia and bestiality. Is polygamy okay with all of you? If not why not?

  12. “You got the answer right – it is going to change our culture”

    Can you explain how it will ‘change our culture’??
    Aren’t we a nation born out of freedom and liberty? Is so then why do you insist we continue to deny that freedom and liberty to certain of our citizens?
    Isn’t that a worse ‘culture’, one that begs to be changed?

  13. “Is polygamy okay with all of you?”

    Yes it is.
    I won’t participate and I don’t expect very many will but in the end it doesn’t effect me one tiny bit if the people down the block have 2,3,4 or even 10 spouses.
    Why would it effect you?

  14. LD – You picked out one person (who was raised by two grandparents). Is that your case study? a study of one. You made the grade yet? No, you get an F for an invalid study. Now, go look up the real studies and educate yourself.

  15. “They were wrong.”

    No they weren’t, but you sure are.

  16. billybushey says:

    The point of allowing and recognizing full marriage is for equal protection and treatment under the law. Rights of survivorship, inheritance, custody. financial and estate planning, joint ownership and treatment under the tax code come to mind immediately.

    It’s not about ‘special” rights, it’s about having the SAME rights and protections as everyone else. Civil unions grant some, but not all of the above. The homophobic diatribes, once again, come from those Faux News viewers (Mr. and Mis-Informed) with, among other poor character traits, an elevated opinion of their own attractiveness.

  17. sozo, polygamy has been studied by the courts and several, including the Supreme Court, said it was detrimental to the idea of democracy and equality of women. It harmed our legal processes, especially inheritance and confused property rights and other long-standing common law issues.

    There is a push for the Supreme Court to revisit its decisions saying states could have laws against polygamy because of Christian groups and right wing conservatives, not liberals. The people pushing for its legalization are primarily Conservative Christian groups ( see TruthBearer.Org) and libertarians. http://www.truthbearer.org/

    The main differences between polygamy and gay marriage is the former has been so common in societies throughout history, and some conservative Christian groups point to the Biblical support for it. Therefore, it has much more going for it than gay marriage in the eyes of many legal scholars.

    The people pushing for polygamy have no relationship to gay marriage and one will not be the consequence of the other. Any idea of a slippery slope is pure fantasy.

    However, many previous decisions by the Supreme Court have said that marriage is a basic human right and can be denied by the states only if it causes harm. If polygamy supporters can show that the supposed harm that polygamy created was, in fact, just a scare tactic against Mormons, then the Supreme Court may be correct in revisiting whether or not there is real harm to our democracy through polygamy.

  18. Pacman33 says:

    “Nearly all of them point out the freedom which this law will bring to those seeking a gay marriage,”

    They may reference freedom, partaking in hyperbole and rhetoric. None of them are able point it out though, because there is nothing to point out. In Washington current law affords same-sex couples official state recognition of their relationships, they are provided full legal equality with heterosexual couples. P{reserving traditional marroiage would not revoke, deny or diminish a single right gays enjoy today and those rights today are identical to everyone else’s.

    The only freedom or rights to be affected by redefining marriage, pertain to everybody else in the community. The people as a whole, whether they recognize it or not. It should concern all, when SSM activists have no qualm whatsoever in manipulating the power of government to force everyone to recognize and accept their radical ideology, whether they want to or not. If, the redefinition of marriage is made law, mere rational thought such as the ‘belief that children need moms and dads’ will be treated as bigotry and racism. Referencing the “old” institution that was once known as traditional marriage before the “gender-neutral” reordering of society, would be labeled as homophobic and discriminatory. In such an environment, it should hardly surprise us to see freedom of speech become a thing of the past.

  19. aislander says:

    I would not have put it quite the way Ryan did, but it is true that the state has no compelling interest in promoting same-sex marriage, as it does have with unions that have the probability of offspring…

  20. aislander says:

    Oops: forgot the quotation marks: …same-sex “marriage…”

  21. LornaDoone says:

    Chile – you are grading my “case study” (avoiding my question) and your “case study” was a three word baseless assertion???????

    Oh…wait…I’m talking to a CONCERNED TACOMAN. I forgot.

    Poligamy? It’s none of my business how many people wish to share a marital relationship.

    Tuddo already hit the nail on the head when using the example of all of the fear mongering the conservatives did when the issue was interracial marriages.

    Opposition is nothing short of bigotry, which is usually the result of ignorance.

  22. Pacman, being gay will become a “race” issue and gay marriage will lead to abolition of the right to free speech?

    Now that takes the cake so far as the funniest (and weirdest) (and saddest) of the slippery slope conspiracy theories so far.

    Is dementia setting in so early, Pacman, or are you spoofing the slippery slope nonsense with those comments?

  23. LornaDoone says:


    There is some study for you Chile. I’ve got another anecdotal for you.

    Male, raised by a single mother, with father involved. Payed for his own college, graduated, got a teaching job, married, went on to a graduate degree, has a fine family, good job in administration….

    He calls me “Dad”.

    How are YOU doing?

  24. LornaDoone says:

    WOW, that’s some convoluted manure, Pac.

    Hey, just wondering. Did you figure out how to create an email account with your own name?

  25. LD – I am doing just fine if that is your question. I had a great career and had more years of formal education than your hero Obama. I didn’t go to Harvard though. The UW is better. How are you doin’? Does that answer your question? The F still stands.

  26. LornaDoone says:

    Chile, you a professional student? Four more years that a law degree? A rocket scientist, I’m guessing.

    Let me guess, you are one of those internet millionaires. You should run for President…..oh wait…you are probably Romney and don’t want us to know.

    If UW is “better” tell me why Harvard is THE elite college in the United States.

    Something tells me, we just heard a fairy tale.

  27. Well Ryan, I guess I should never been allowed to be married for over 25 years.

    I don’t understand homosexual behavior, but I know family and friends would are gay. The way I see it; committing oneself to the welfare of another human being is a good thing.

  28. Time honored traditions that have been changed:
    white men only allowed to vote
    ban on interracial marriage
    jim crow laws
    separate but equal schools
    married women and their personal proberty became husbands property

    chile74 – typical conserative ignorance of Constitution – 9th Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    “more education than Obama” – just goes to show it’s the quality of ones education and not the quantity tnat counts.

  29. LornaDoone says:

    What interest would the government have in promoting procreation? From what we hear, they don’t want the responsibility of children, but have an interest in making sure that couples destined for marriage are of a child bearing nature?

    Maybe the government would be better off, serving the citizens that DO exist and stop worrying about those that don’t.

  30. LornaDoone says:

    xring…that’s 12 years of UW you are talkin’ to there….LOL

    I was just thinking that I’ve only got a couple years of college and I’m leading the 12 year person around like a dog on a leash.

    I guess I got my money’s worth.

  31. Pacman33 says:

    tuddo erroneously clamors-
    “However, many previous decisions by the Supreme Court have said that marriage is a basic human right”

    What the world is a ‘Basic Human Right’?
    I have always wondered that but never looked it up. I figured it a waste of time, because in the United States of America, unless it’s a Constitutional Right, it is an irrelevant “right”.

    So I looked it up this time. First I plugged tuddo’s statement:
    “Supreme Court have said that marriage is a basic human right”
    into a Goggle search. Sure enough … nothing. Nothing came close to resembling the nonsensical remark and I was not surprised.

    The second time I tried “basic human right”. After checking the first couple results I quickly learned why I had not been privy to the meaning of ‘basic human rights’. The term ‘basic human rights’ is meaningless. They are not recognized by any legitimate body, anywhere. There is no official list and around 2,000 unofficial lists.
    ‘Basic human rights’ were first defined as a result of European scholars attempting to form a secularized version of Judeo-Christian ethics. Today it is activist babble.

    The most uniform dictionary definition : any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere.

    If the term “basic human right” was meaningful and relevant, how does marriage fit the script. Far from “all” being allowed to marry, including under aged, family, single, dead, couples+1, etc.

    In conclusion, go shove your “Basic Human Rights” up in you …. attic. If you’re going to use term that doesn’t apply … choose a meaningful term at least. If it must be a meaningless and irrelevant wouldn’t it be reasonable for an attempt at making it applicable?

  32. Final_Analysis says:

    I see the same commenters posting multiple times day after day, posting the same left wing views, are you guys paid web trolls?

  33. surething says:

    (Shaking my head)

  34. If ever I read a completely thoughtless letter this is the premier and velmak could have been the author with his totally thoughtless comments. What a waste!
    One would actually be better off shoveling what this really is into the compost pile where, after a while, it might be useful in the garden.

  35. RLangdon says:

    Ryan! Ryan! Ryan! Here I was thinking yours was a serious letter on the subject and then in the last paragraph you go and throw in “What will happen when someone wants to marry their pet?”

    What a STUPID question!

    Well, here’s your answer: What will happen is that the Same Sex Marriage Law does not give anyone the right to marry their pet, so it doesn’t apply. No current law in Washington state recognizes a marriage between a human and a non-human animal. If someone wants to marry their pet they will need to go somewhere other than the Sate of Washington, or stay here and change the law! Is that simple enough for you to understand? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just simple logic.

    However, you may be one of those people who sees the Jack In The Box commercial where the kid marries his Bacon Cheeseburger and then you believe that someday that will really happen. That’s your slippery slope. You believe stupid commercials on TV.

  36. Final – are you a blind troll – are did you just miss the right wing postings?

  37. Amazing how the party that wraps themselves in the flag and touts their unbridled love of freedom and claim they will give their lives for it, are the ones that go out of their way to make sure as few people ARE free as they can.
    They are conservatives and conservatives are lairs.

  38. xring – nice try – the 9th Amendment does not give you the right to gay marriage (you are showing your ingnorance all the time on this thread). It does not say you have that right. The left wing judge’s interpretation (9th Circuit) of the 9th Amendment gives you that right. Or the liberal legislature and a liberal governor(WA)give you that right. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage. There is a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage in 31 states. It needs to go to the Supreme Court. Prop 8 in California probably will.

  39. Kluwer – Conservatives are “lairs”. What? You mean “liars”. Another brilliant comment. There are far more liberals commenting on this thread than conservatives.

    X-ring – “are did you just miss the right wing postings?” what? And you talking about the quality of one’s education – but never mind.

  40. Frankenchrist says:

    Another Fox-bot parroting Rush’s right-wing talking point. Repukes would be interesting if they were at least capable of formulating an original thought. However, they are fundamentally ignorant of the outside world which inhibits their cognitive capacity.

  41. bobcat1a says:

    People can marry pets as long as the pets are over 18, can sign their full legal name to the license and say “I do.” Still scared of that happening, Ryan?

  42. Frankenchrist says:

    You’re confusing Ryan talking about “signing your full legal name.”

    Ryan is used to “put your mark there.”

  43. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    So many people seem to think that the government’s interest in marriage is reproduction, but it isn’t. Reproduction will occur — recklessly — with or without the institution. The planet is overpopulated anyway, and encouraging more breeding is the last thing our debt-riddled government needs. 

    If reproduction were the government’s basis for sanctioning marriages, it would only allow healthy, fertile people to wed. It doesn’t, and so the only people who continue to rely on that tired claim are those who’ve never accomplished anything in their life greater than the nearly inevitable and relatively basic biological function of procreating. 

    So what is the government’s interest in marriage?.. The same and only interest it has in its citizenry: a reliable, healthy tax base.

    Government-sanctioned marriage — with its tax incentives, acess to shared benefits, guarantee of estate succession, and other benefits — supports that objective by encouraging married couples to settle down in one place.  Sharing everything with one’s partner means supporting one another. The logic is that married couples are more likely to seek and maintain steady jobs, provide for each other’s health needs, become entrenched members of a local community through home ownership, and continually purchase other taxable goods.  

    Do unmarried people do all these things? Of course they do, but having a state-recognized relationship that guarantees the legal piece-of-mind that unmarried couples don’t get encourages the type of behavior that produces reliable, healthy, non-burdensome citizens that consistently contribute to the public coffers.

    Having children further advances that objective, and is rewarded with additional tax incentives, but it is not the objective itself.  

    Same sex couples may not be able to reproduce, but they do provide the state exactly the same thing that an infertile straight couple does.  Civil marriage (as opposed to the religious kind endorsed by your God of choice) should be equally available to all consenting human adults. That’s all anyone is asking, and those who suggest same sex marriage would lead to socially-accepted bestiality and pedophilia are only doing a very poor job of hiding their bigotry, and very good job of displaying their limited reasoning skills.     

  44. tuddo slurs-
    “Pacman, being gay will become a “race” issue ….. Is dementia setting in so early”

    You and others CURRENTLY do this today.

    Of all people …. you tuddo …. are the worst offender of everyone on these threads in making the asinine correlation to interracial marriage. Even more frequently, the vile claims that those who don’t support SSM are the equivalent of Racists.

    What universe do you dwell in? Is there some kind of short circuit going on in that demented melon of yours? Or are you just being dishonest? again?

  45. Oops: forgot the quotation marks:

    Argumentation through snarkiness only convinces me of your bias.

  46. I see the right is still doing the only thing they can do, insult and deflect.
    Spelling smack, the last vestige of the beaten, thanks CT7 (banned)’chili’.

  47. “the asinine correlation to interracial marriage. Even more frequently, the vile claims that those who don’t support SSM are the equivalent of Racists.”

    There is a correlation, a direct correlation and the fact that you are so belligerent about denying that correlation is proof enough.

  48. An interesting comment states, “Same sex couples may not be able to reproduce, but they do provide the state exactly the same thing that an infertile straight couple does.”

    How did you come to that conclusion? That assumes an awful lot, most of which is not correct. For instance, the behaviors of both would have to be identical or nearly so. Also, both pairings would have to share the same or very similar characteristics.

    When introduced to a married couple, I never have to wonder which one is the husband. Kindly explain to me how a same sex pair can be the same as a married pair under that consideration. I guess that is just one of those unimportant distinctions.

    Keep in mind one important reality – one pairing is trying to pretend and the other pairing is not.

  49. pgroup, your being uncomfortable in trying to decide who is the husband is not a detriment or a benefit to society, just creepy sexual curiosity on your part.

    The facts in many studies show that children raised by gay couples turn out as well or better than those raised by heterosexual couples and much better than those raised by single mothers in every category looked at. Families headed by gay couples adopt more frequently than other families, and they adopt children with special needs more frequently.

    And just what do you think gay couples are pretending? The pretense for too long has been unhappy marriages where one of the partners is gay and miserable. That led to all kinds of family problems. That is what society has been forcing on us. Gays do not have to pretend any more to commit to marriage and live a normal family life.

  50. Pacman, you object to my using former Supreme Court decisions as a basis for my discussions about gay marriage. Rational thought is my aim, as that is what I think will win or lose in the final US Supreme Court decision on this issue. And, they do use precendent of similar cases and what has been said about marriage in other cases is very important.

    When people use religious reasons for attacking gay marriage, I point out that the Supreme Court says that religious beliefs cannot be used as a reason for a state to deny marriage. When people use “tradition” as a reason I point out that the Supreme Court says it cannot be a reason. Same with any reason except “harm”.

    Show me what harm gay marriage does and I will listen intently. Try to use unconstitutional reasons for denying basic human rights to anyone and I will rebut.

    You are the one who equated gay marriage with being a race issue. You said:

    If, the redefinition of marriage is made law, mere rational thought such as the ‘belief that children need moms and dads’ will be treated as bigotry and racism.”

    First, “the belief that children need moms and dads” is a disproved theory, not rational thought. Rationality implies the scientific method of testing out a theory. I will never call that idea racist, but I will say it is nonsense as shown by science.

    You need a better search engine. I did a search and came up with scores and scores of references on basic human rights, including in Supreme Court decisions as well as treaties the USA has signed and is bound to respect.

    I am sorry that you do not believe in basic human rights like our founders did. I am extremely glad I live in America where the founders did believe in those rights and said they were granted to all (white) men – with later additions that added blacks and women and others.

    Marriage is one of the basic human rights. The right to privacy, travel, and a whole list of others have been affirmed by the courts. The Supreme Court based them on specifically ennumerated rights in the Constitution as well as “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration.

    It will help to find at least one reference if you search for:

    RICHARD PERRY LOVING et ux., Appellants,
    388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d 1010, 87 S Ct 1817
    Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, 1967.

  51. There is nothing dumber than arguing over the use of the word marriage. Since gays are legally allowed to enter into a relationship that has everything that marriage allows, what is so wrong with calling it marriage? It sounds like that old “separate but equal” segregation non-sense. Give it up, Ryan. This is the 21st century. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck……it’s a duck. Marriage is marriage.

  52. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    I came to that conclusion because in the eyes of the government, the two couples are the same. Read the rest of my comment and you’ll see that the government’s sole interest in its citizens is keeping them as productive taxpayers.

    We’re not talking about sex here, we’re talking about marriage; but since you refuse to separate the topics, I’ll address how my conclusion applies to both. What two people do in the bedroom is none of the government’s business, or yours for that matter. In fact, in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote: “the Texas [anti-sodomy] statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” Thus, the sex lives of private citizens are not of any legitimate interest to the government. They may be of prurient interest to you, but that’s your hang up.

    As for marriage, again, the government’s only concern is that the two participants both be consenting adults, and that they promote a steady, self-sufficient lifestyle with one another while continuing to pay taxes. The government is not interested in “which one is the husband.” That you are interested only proves the final sentence of my last comment.

    But if you insist that I explain how a same sex couple is the same as a heterosexual couple in that regard, well: when I look at you and your spouse, I don’t know what position you have sex in, or what kinks you’re into; for all I know, you’re into pegging, and that really blurs the moral line you draw on homosexual sex. So yes, that is one of those unimportant distinctions. You see, once you get your mind around the fact that what other people do behind closed doors is done so precisely because it is no one else’s business, it becomes infinitely easier to see how it has absolutely no negative effect on you.

    I’ll be happy to explain further if you can give me another example of how the private lives of others are any of your business. Just try to pose the scenario in a way that doesn’t showcase your own salacious interests.

    One last question: You said “Keep in mind one important reality — one pairing is trying to pretend and the other pairing is not” — trying to pretend what?

  53. To all the supporters of equal marriage opportunity I congratulate you on the quality of your arguments on these pages. Those arguments are what separate free, rational people from those whose minds are enslaved by bigotry, ignorance and intolerance.

  54. averageJoseph says:

    Comments like “Argumentation through snarkiness only convinces me of your bias” only convince everyone of your blatant hypocrisy.

  55. BlaineCGarver says:

    Children, Children……..

  56. BlaineCGarver says:


    Wow….74% of AIDS was transmitted by Gay Sex……The Great Straight Hope

  57. LornaDoone says:

    WOW….100% of gay people come from straight couples!

  58. LornaDoone says:

    Wow. My comment about the Final troll was deleted. It appears that my assertion was correct and someone got their undies in a bunch.

  59. LornaDoone says:

    I wonder how cancer is transmitted? Oh yeah. Genetic is the first consideration.

    So when a straight person and other family members die of cancer, that means what, Blaine?

  60. “How did you come to that conclusion?”

    How do you NOT come to that conclusion?
    Two people get married, they add to society in their own way, what does gender have to do with it?

  61. “Wow….74% of AIDS was transmitted by Gay Sex”

    What does that have to do with anything?

  62. it is obvious that some people are obsessed with the sex lives and practices of others

  63. aislander says:

    Despite all the tangents, Ostrander’s main point remains standing: the state has no compelling interest in accrediting same-sex “marriage,” as it does with unions that carry the possibility and PROBABILITY of offspring…

  64. alindasue says:


    I have to wonder about some of the statistics listed on that page. To begin with, why is an organization out of England compiling statistics based on just incomplete data from the USA and dependencies rather than world wide data. African countries should certainly be included in that data, since Africa currently is experiencing the largest AIDS epidemic. There is also absolutely no data from the organization’s homeland in the UK despite HIV and AIDS being there since back before English singer Freddy Mercury died from its complications in the early ’90s

    Specifically, regarding the 74% figure for transmission through “male-to-male sexual contact”… if you look at the small print at the bottom of the page, it says, “The term ‘male-to-male sexual contact’ includes gay men, bisexual men AND SOME MEN WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE NEITHER GAY NOR BISEXUAL. ” (emphasis mine)

    While the actions of the organization in helping to treat and prevent the spread if HIV and AIDS is noble, their procedures for generating statistics leaves much to be desired.

    On to the topic of this letter –
    I have my own religious reasons for not approving of homosexual behavior (or affairs, premarital sex, strip clubs, etc), I do feel that the government has no place telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry.

  65. “Wow….74% of AIDS was transmitted by Gay Sex”

    And encouraging monogamous relationships through legalized same-sex marriage would effect that statistic how?

  66. How does offspring accredit a marriage?

  67. aislander says:

    It doesn’t, BillieJ. It provides a rationale for doing so…

  68. aislander, since I agree with the US Supreme Court that marriage is a basic human right that can only be denied for certain Constitutional reasons, there is not such a thing as government allowing or “accrediting’ same-sex marriage, only denying it, granting exclusive benefits, or regulating it.

    However, I will play your little game and dare you to discuss and dismiss with a rational argument based on facts all of the issues brought up in this thread showing that gay marriage and families provide the same benefits to society as families led by heterosexuals.

    Gays even use surrogates for biological procreation, so they can add to population numbers, just like heterosexuals.

    Mentioned in this thread are (at a minimum):

    -raising children
    -increase in monagamous relationships and decrease of promiscuity and sex outside of marriage
    -increase in stability of families and decrease of problems society must deal with

    As far as HIV, One study at Emory suggests that bans on gay marriage have increased HIV rates in states that legislate them and have reduced HIV rates in states that allow gay marriage. The studies are preliminary, because of few numbers, but they seem to show a trend:


  69. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    You said “Despite all the tangents, Ostrander’s main point remains standing: the state has no compelling interest in accrediting same-sex “marriage,” as it does with unions that carry the possibility and PROBABILITY of offspring…”

    Take a look at my first comment.

  70. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…you suggest changing the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the exceptional circumstance, while I wish to retain that definition in order to recognize the probable one? Interesting…

  71. aislander says:

    Not persuasive, apimp…

  72. rationale. That’s what you seek when there is no logical reason.

  73. summit98446 says:

    Ryan Ostrander of Gig Harbor does a nice job of marginalizing and dehumanizing “the other”. Any student of history will recognize there is very little daylight between his statements and Hitler’s rhetoric against Jews, Gays, Jehovah Witnesses, Ethnic Minorities, and the Disabled.
    Folks are in no way of a single mind on the question of marriage equality, but to use this diversity of opinion as an excuse to deny the many positive contributions of gays and lesbians to human history is simply ignorant and offensive.

  74. aislander, I have no idea what you mean by “exceptional circumstance.” I do not think gays are exceptional. Quite to the contrary, I believe that they are equal as human beings and have all the same basic human rights as other human beings.

    I do not wish to change the “definition” of marriage. Civil marriage is a legal contract sanctioned by a governmental institution in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction, creating a legal relationship between the signers, defining certain responsibilities of all parties, and conveying rights and benefits provided by governmental institutions.

    And any unique religious definitions of marriage will not be changed, since religions will be able to bless, sanctify, vilify or whatever they want to do under their definitions the same as always.

  75. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    It’s persuasive to any logical person. Certainly mores than your alternative.

    Explain this to me: if the possibility or even probability of reproduction were the government’s sole purpose in sanctioning marriages, then why would it allow admittedly infertile people to marry? My dad and his wife were way beyond childbearing age when they married. I am infertile, and my wife and I admittedly have no interest in having kids. Strangely, there was no question, no box to check on our marriage license application that concerned our reproductive intentions. Why would that be?

  76. pgroup,
    “Same sex couples may not be able to reporduce” There are many hetro couples that can not reproduce and turn to surrogates and addoption just like same sex couples do.
    “when introduced to married couples” Most indroductions are on the order of ‘Hello, I Reverend Jim Joones and this is my wife Koolaide’.

    chile = 12 years of college and you are still can’t read. Gay’s have a right to be treated just like the rest of us.
    Yes, your education is poorer than my spelling.

    States that refuse to recognize same-sex marrages preformend in other states are also in violation of the Constitution.

  77. Aislander – wrong as usual – States have no compelling intrest or reason for NOT accrediting same-sex marriage.

    Weather or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there’s no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits — both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:

    Tax Benefits
    Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
    Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

    Estate Planning Benefits
    Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
    Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse — that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

    Government Benefits
    Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    Receiving public assistance benefits.

    Employment Benefits
    Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
    Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

    Medical Benefits
    Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

    Death Benefits
    Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
    Making burial or other final arrangements.
    Family Benefits

    Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
    Applying for joint foster care rights.
    Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
    Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

    Housing Benefits
    Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
    Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

    Consumer Benefits
    Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance.
    Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
    Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
    Other Legal Benefits and Protections
    Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
    Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
    Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
    Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
    Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

  78. Harry_Anslinger says:

    “Civil marriage is a legal contract sanctioned by a governmental institution in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction, creating a legal relationship between the signers, defining certain responsibilities of all parties, and conveying rights and benefits provided by governmental institutions.”

    As a Christian male who understands the difference between the Bible and the Constitutional rights of citizens I don’t see how same-sex marriage ‘changes’ all that much about secular ‘marriage’.

    Just because I don’t understand homosexuality doesn’t mean gay people are not to be afforded the same secular rights and freedoms as straight people.

  79. RLangdon says:

    Harry, yours’ should have bee the first and the last word on this subject. Thanks!

  80. aislander says:

    It has always been lawful to draw distinctions between men and women, and still is, so gays are “afforded the same secular rights and freedoms as straight people.” They have the same rights to marry that straight people do, since one cannot discriminate between one male and another or one female and another, but the law can discriminate between males and females, and marriage is a conditional contract anyway.

    xring: Just because there is no compelling reason NOT to do something (although I believe there is), that does not imply an affirmative duty to do that thing.

    apimp: I didn’t say anything about the certainty of reproduction, only the possibility and probability.

  81. bobcat1a says:

    Blaine, 100% of abortions are caused by heterosexual couples.

  82. aislander says:

    BillieJ writes: “rationale. That’s what you seek when there is no logical reason.”

    rationale: noun
    1. the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.
    2. a statement of reasons.
    3. a reasoned exposition of principles.

    rationalization: noun
    1. to ascribe (one’s acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

    Often confused, I’m afraid…

  83. aislander – you are so wrong your eyes are brown.

  84. aislander says:

    Er…xring…is that your reasoned argument, or just your opinion?

  85. Please let me clarify.

    “rationale” – That’s what you seek when there is no logical reason.”

    Was I more clear?

  86. averageJoseph says:

    “Er…xring…is that your reasoned argument, or just your opinion?”

    LMAO… all of it.

  87. aislander says:

    Well you actually could be, BillieJ–you used the wrong definition. Could I be more clear?

  88. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Whether this law makes it or not. Washington state does not know whether I am legally married or not.

  89. this letter, and its supporters, have got to be the epitome of what is wrong with many conservatives and why I am terrified of them running this country. wow, what irrational nonsense.

  90. It is a colorful expression of a rationally derived conclusion.

  91. Frankenchrist says:

    Allay thine fears, O tate. The cold-blooded reptilian repukes won’t run this great nation again for many many years.

    Romney is the sacrificial pimple of the repuke party. After his devastating defeat the GOP establishment will begin the long process of purging the party of its right-wing teabagging fringe and get back to first principles. Only then will they have another chance at the White House.

  92. Often confused, I’m afraid…

    aislander demonstrates a rare moment of clarity in self-reflection.

  93. aislander says:

    I knew when I wrote that, beerBoy, that I was providing an easy “thought” for a simple mind. I didn’t know it would be yours. I was expecting k****r…

  94. averageJoseph says:

    Arts truncates a quote out of context… kooky. ;)

  95. “the 9th Amendment does not give you the right to gay marriage”

    Wow. Someone who actually claims to be well-educated actually said something that stupid?

    “The majority of Americans are against gay marriage”

    Maybe true ten years ago, but not any more: http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/

  96. Jimm – out of context but, since the section I took was originally presented as a separate paragraph, it wasn’t really truncated.

  97. aislander says:

    If you omit the context, well, that’s truncated, beers…

    But, it requires a truncated frame of reference to be a lefty, so have at it, I guess…

  98. “repairing the economy should be the first consideration when voting.”

    Congratulations, that was gratuitous insult number 5,000.

  99. If I had been trying to define a word someone may have been right.

    I was originally pointing how that”

    “the state has no compelling interest in accrediting same-sex “marriage,” as it does with unions that carry the possibility and PROBABILITY of offspring…”

    was just something that is ficticious and has nothing to do with the reason for the original laws on marriage.

    The arrogance is amazing.

  100. aislander says:

    YOU seized on the word, BillieJ. I merely pointed out that “rationalization” meant what you imputed “rationale” to mean. Sheesh!

    As for the state’s interest in ratifying the institution of marriage, stability and continuity for the product of marriage has been that primary interest, along with the rest of it, which has been thoroughly outlined above.

    As for the probability of offspring, MOST new marriages will result in progeny…

  101. “Despite all the tangents, Ostrander’s main point remains standing:”

    Thats funny ailander because it was never standing to begin with.

  102. “Strangely, there was no question, no box to check on our marriage license application that concerned our reproductive intentions. Why would that be?”

    Because the entire ‘procreation’ argument from the right is the only thing they’ve got to hand their white hoods on.

  103. That should be ‘hang’ not hand.

  104. aislander, since you’re having so much fun with word play, have you forgotten my dare (4.28 @ 11:23), or are you “giving up” because you know I’m correct?

  105. “The arrogance is amazing.”

    When dealing with ailander and her ilk, you haven’t seen anything yet….
    They set the standard on arrogance and hypocrisy.

  106. aislander says:

    tuddo: WHEN the Supreme Court declared marriage a basic human right, ratifying same-sex unions as “marriage” was not even on the horizon. Reasonable people did not consider it a possibility.

    They were addressing anti-miscegenation laws, and were correct in their decision that there is no rationale (okay, BillieJ?) for the belief that the races are intrinsically different with regard to that right.

    Men and women ARE intrinsically different, especially with respect to marriage, and are treated differently under the law. There is no correlation between the decision you cite and same-sex “marriage.”

    As for the remainder of your “dare,” (a little schoolyard, doncha think?) it is irrelevant to the arguments I made…

  107. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    Noted, the procreation argument is a nonstarter. Clearly you know my opinions on this issue, since you’ve referenced my statements in support of your own. Can you and some other regulars on this thread dial back the political crap though?

    This isn’t a left vs. right thing; it’s a logical vs. ignorant thing. I’m very pro-marriage equality, as well as pro-everything equality. I also happen to be a die-hard, card-carrying Republican in one of the most conservative states in the nation. Every time you and certain other people here supplement an otherwise rational and convincing statement with political invective, it dilutes the statement.

  108. I also happen to be a die-hard, card-carrying Republican

    Evidence that both Parties don’t fully serve their constituents.

  109. “Can you and some other regulars on this thread dial back the political crap though?”

    I’ll tell you what, you ask your fellow rightists, soso and ailnader and the rest to do the same…I’ll be glad to.

    But I will say this, I agree it is a logic/illogical thing, the evil ‘left’ is as always on the side of logic and….

  110. My mama said, “You can always tell a bigot! But, you can’t tell him much!”

  111. Ruthlessma says:

    What’s an appropriate gift to give at a “same-sex” marriage, a strap on?

  112. I guess I didn’t know this was aislander’s column. It is interesting how she knows what I was thinking

  113. What would two men do with that, Ruthlessma?

  114. LornaDoone says:

    Oh my! It appears that Ruthlessma is watching the wrong videos.

    It’s nice to see aislander making new friends.

    The same old tired crappola about “slippery” slopes and “origins of law” that the conservatives love to tote out for this subject. I particularily love the idea that “culture might change” if we allow laws to change. I know we are doing so well as a culture when I see the racism of the United States and realize that we still have a mentality of using nuclear weapons darned near at the drop of a hat.

    Let’s not change that “perfection” that we call “culture”.

    Now I wonder if I’ll find either word in each other’s dictionary definition.

  115. aislander says:

    I DON’T know what you were thinking, BillieJ; I know what you wrote, and if that doesn’t reflect what you were thinking, that is YOUR problem, not mine…

    Ahem…you wrote: “rationale. That’s what you seek when there is no logical reason.”

    If I somehow misconstrued that, I apologize…

  116. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    My last comment was addressed to you because you referenced my previous comment; but the messages was directed at everyone on both sides who choose to frame this and every other issue as a left/right issue. So aislander and sozo can read that sentiment to apply equally to them.

    I’m glad you see it as a logic/illogic issue; and on this particular one, yes, the left seems to be a little more logical, but they are far from being on the side of logic on every issue. If you can’t see that, then please disregard my request to be civil and open-minded; it’s not worth my time to engage someone who is so rigidly prejudiced in their world views.

  117. aislander, my dare certainly is cogent to your argument:

    “the state has no compelling interest in accrediting same-sex “marriage,” as it does with unions that carry the possibility and PROBABILITY of offspring.”

    I listed several reasons mentioned in the thread that counter your argument. They are the exact same reasons that society has for “accrediting” heterosexual marriages.

    About 40%-45% of heteroseuxal couples are raising children, with that number diminishing at the current time and 25%-30% of gay couples raising children, with that number increasing. Your dismissal of arguments for gay marriage that equal your arguments for societal support for heterosexual marriage just show you have no rebuttal, just intolerance and irrational attitude.


  118. aislander says:

    Every point you raised, tuddo, was dealt with via civil unions, to which I have no objection. We are discussing “ownership” of a word and that word represents an ideal. I would prefer that children aspire to that ideal, but they will have no concept of that ideal if the word is debased by changing its common meaning.

    The words “mom” and “dad” are already becoming verboten in public schools. You cannot persuade me that this whole push is not about something other than making perhaps one to two percent of the population feel better about themselves…

  119. “I’m glad you see it as a logic/illogic issue; and on this particular one, yes, the left seems to be a little more logical, but they are far from being on the side of logic on every issue.”

    Have I ever said they weren’t?
    I don’t live in a world of absolutes, unlike the aforementioned ‘conservatives’, they unlike myself truly do think they and only they are correct and ‘superior’ to everyone that dares to disagree with them.
    Just read ailanders comments, she makes up history and meanings to words and expect everyone to fall in line behind her, simply because she said it.
    The other cons are the same way.
    I would love to, truly love to have a rational conversation with them and I have tried and tried to do so, but as always, they, like the monkeys in the zoo, resort quickly to flinging poo.
    Ailander, soso and ct7 are the worst amongst the bad.

  120. “I would prefer that children aspire to that ideal, but they will have no concept of that ideal if the word is debased by changing its common meaning.”

    And yet you regularly change the meaning of words to fit your twisted, warped and dangerous agenda.
    Hypocrisy, thy name is aislander.

  121. “I guess I didn’t know this was aislander’s column. It is interesting how she knows what I was thinking”

    Aislander is the smartest person she knows.

  122. You all can vote on it next election. I predict it will fail, just as it has in every other state that allowed the people to vote on it.

  123. Aislander – ‘reasonable people did not consider it a possibility” – However our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know there were other rights, and the each generation would find new ones. Hence the 9th Amendment.

    What is the difference between a civil union, a civil marriage and a religious marriage? If you want to restrict ‘marriage’ to a religious ceremony there can be no ‘civil marriages’ just ‘civil unions’.

    pgroup – since when do we allow a popular vote on who does and does not get equal treatment under the law? I’m sure that had the Civil Rights Act of 1968 been put to a poplular vote it would have been voted down.

  124. LornaDoone says:

    pgroup – should we vote on men having the right to legislate women’s health care issues? Since there are more women voters than men, what do you think the outcome would be? How about a vote on men having mandatory prostate exams?

    As civil rights legislation proved, there are some things that the majority isn’t right on. To let it pass because the majority thinks they are right, is nothing more than endorsing wrong.

  125. LornaDoone says:

    If there is no difference between “marriage” and “civil union” why don’t heterosexuals adopt the term “civil union” for their unions?

  126. aislander, would you curtail gay couples’ right to call themselves “married” if they had a civil union and then a church blessing of that union?

    How would you have them answer the question, married or single? Why make employers and everyone else add a third category.

    I myself find your argument of what to call it ridiculous, since you have really been arguing against government approved contracts of any name for gays and saying the government has a rationale for accrediting heterosexual unions, but not gay ones. Then you say you’re Ok with civil unions. You have either changed your mind or are now being purposely disingenuous.

  127. aislander says:

    Of course I would not curtail anyone’s right under the First Amendment to call themselves anything they want to. I object to the government that is of my body and spirit (how’s THAT for a trinity? As you guys say, though, WE are the government…) calling it “marriage.”

    I’m not being “disingenuous” at all tuds. All the arguments I have made have been against calling it “marriage.” Perhaps you read more into my posts than I put into them…

  128. You say you would not put restraints on gays calling themselves married, but you would use the power of big government so gays would not be allowed to call themselves married. Your reasoning is that you personally own the government? Wow, niow you really are spinning a deep web you will never get out of.

    You say, ” …it is true that the state has no compelling interest in promoting same-sex marriage, as it does have with unions that have the probability of offspring.”

    So, are you arguing that any union that does not have offspring should not be called “marriage”, but civil unions? I’m trying to read your past arguments in the light of the new revelation that all your arguments are about a word.

  129. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    “…the evil ‘left’ is as always on the side of logic”

    Unless I misread that, that was an absolute statement. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misread something, though. And I do agree with you about the aforementioned individuals.

  130. aislander says:

    There you go being stolid again, tuds…

    You talk about my not reading your screeds, but you have obviously not been reading my posts–and I purposely try to make them short and readable for the benefit of the ADHD crowd.

    I didn’t say that I am the government; I said we are–just as you guys always do when you say it is your right to tax the bat snot out of some poor guy who’s just trying to stay in business. I have the right to try to persuade others to force the state to step away from this lie.

    Most (and it IS most) marriages result in offspring. They don’t all do so, nor are they required to. But most do, so any union of a man and a woman can be called marriage, because of the reality of it as well as the symbolism, which does not exist between same-sex partners.

    And all my posts have been about what the union is called, so that should not be a “revelation” to you.

    If the previous law was called “everything but marriage,” that leaves ONLY the word. Doesn’t it?

  131. “Unless I misread that, that was an absolute statement.”

    No, that was a sarcastic statement, I admit not a very good one but….

  132. “If the previous law was called “everything but marriage,” that leaves ONLY the word. Doesn’t it?”

    And your whining and crying over that WORD is making you look like a fool.
    Nothing has been or will be ‘redefined’, ALL marriages are civil unions!

  133. OK aislander, I guess we are clear. We are not redefining marriage, because in your mind civil unions and marriage are exactly the same thing, convey the exact same benefits, exist for the same exact purposes and have the same governmental reasons to be involved.

    In your mind marriage equals civil unions in everything except the letters that go to make up the words and the sounds they make when you say them. It is those letters and those sounds that you say gays cannot have because they have a lower probability of having children. Got it.

    Doesn’t meet Occam’s Razor test, or any test of rational thinking, but if you want to believe it, have at it.

  134. aislander says:

    So…then, why do YOU want the word so badly?

  135. That’s your argument that the word makes no difference. Leave me out of it. My arguments are based on my beliefs that we should have the same laws for all people and apply them equally; all people have the same rights. Separate, but equal doesn’t cut it for me, because they never are equal.

    Civil unions are for gays, marriages are for real humans. Nope, doesn’t work for me.

  136. aislander says:

    There it is, tuds. Marriage between a man and a woman can never be equated to a same-sex union. That’s why the word matters.

  137. aislander says:

    Everyone who wants to get married is under the same rules. There is no “separate but equal.”

  138. “Marriage between a man and a woman can never be equated to a same-sex union.”

    That is true for any person whose mind is closed by bigotry and the fear of what is changing in the human quest for equality, which is close to the definition of someone on the extreme right.

  139. aislander says:

    No bigotry. Reality. A same-sex union can never have that sense of possibility that almost ALL marriages have…

  140. Dave98373 says:

    Ryan- You are a moron. Marry pets? Really? Why stop there with your twisted train of logic? Why not marry your pet rock or your door mat? You are so clueless that you are beyond professional help.

  141. averageJoseph says:

    I admire your patients aislander. Where’s the blender?

  142. Frankenchrist says:

    Hey TNT, how about some new LTTE? We’ve pretty much reduced your conservative readers to confused sniveling bigots on this topic.

  143. notimetobleed says:

    Wow Mr. Ostrander, you are a very deep thinker, I will attempt to keep up with you.

    Where is it in the Marriage contract that we as heteros are required to have children? How will government’s redefinition of Marriage change your behavior as a husband and father? What is it that you contribute to society that is so much greater than a married gay couple?

    Here is the point. Through no fault of their own, Gays don’t fall in love with opposite sex partners. Say Wha??? Yes, you might want to spend some time in this one…but it is actually true. They do tend to fall in love with same sex partners and as a result, sometimes they wish to enter into a monogamous committed relationship that will contribute greatly to society.

    Just a few upsides to Gay couple contributions (sorry if some of this is stereotyping). Most gay couples are very clean and neat neighbors, this helps keep your property values up because nobody wants buy the house next door to the house with beat up Trans Am in the garden. Many have very good jobs because they put more of their energy into careers and do not split their time and incomes with children, those that are granted children via adoption usually raise them to a much higher standard than many hetero couples. They dress better than you, they teach their children to embrace diversity and not suppress it. There is a Gay Tacoma City Council Memeber. Are you a member of your City’s Council? Why not? Comon Mr. Ostrander try and keep up!

    And yes, if you wish to marry your dog, you may. Just make sure your dog is a female.

  144. Aislander;
    This is not a 1st Amendment issue.

    Do you object just to the term ‘marriage’ or is it the ‘same-sex’ part that has you knickers in a twist?

    I’ll accept calling ‘same-sex marriage’ anything you what – As long as the same term applies to ALL marriages. How about we change ‘civil marriage’ to ‘civil union’ and let the churches decided (a) if they will sanction same sex unions, and (b) what these unions will be called.

    So if a heto-couple want to get married but do not have kids are they still married?

    You logic is such a joy – seldfom right but always entertaining.

    Procration is not and never has been a reqirement of marriage.
    (which negates all your arguemnts)

    Dave – what Ryan and company forgets is the both parters have to be mental competent to obtain a marriage license.

  145. LornaDoone says:

    “averageJoseph says:
    April 29, 2012 at 8:45 pm I admire your patients aislander. Where’s the blender?”

    Dr. Aislander, we presume?

  146. aislander says:

    Your spelling is such a joy–seldom right but always entertaining…

    Oh, and the First Amendment thing was a throwaway line–not serious…

    And if you don’t know what my objections are by this time, xring, you haven’t been paying attention.

  147. averageJoseph says:

    Bingo ai.

  148. The comments surrounding a letter pointing out the obvious: social engineering has consequences, are predictable.

    Some change advances society; some change portends folly. The inability to discuss homosexual marriage as a societal advance or folly is the problem.

  149. aislander – we all do – you don’t thank gays should have the same civil rights as the rest of us.

    can you spell deflection?

    Nanook – tis difficult to discuss a problem with a closed mind.

  150. LornaDoone says:

    Probably a good time to reflect on Barney Frank’s comment about “I’m keeping track of the number of heterosexual marriages I’ve ruined”

  151. Some change advances society; some change portends folly.

    And some change is just inevitable and society adapts….

  152. LornaDoone says:

    “A same-sex union can never have that sense of possibility that almost ALL marriages have…”

    Two women who decide to marry have the same exact ability to procreate as any heterosexual relationship. All it takes is a union of sperm and egg, and that need not take place in coitus.

    The biggest problem with the “rationale” of the right on same sex marriage is the lack of open minds.

  153. nanook, advance or folly? – that is why I asked aislander to discuss the various issues that pro-gay marriage commenters had brought up. Aislander did not disagree that legalizing gay marriages would provide those benefits. The response was only disagreement with the word, so if you don’t disagree, then the presumption is agreement.

    Perhaps you or someone against gay marriage can discuss these issues rationally.

    I know that no one has a rational reason for saying gay marriage will bring any harm to society (except for the unsupported and paranoid “slippery slope” argument). I have been asking for over ten years now, and no one has said how gay amrriage would harm the people in the marriage, harm other people’s marriages or harm our democracy. Its all about quoting the Bible. As many ahve pointed out, churches will be able to continue to believe however and no one is asking or demanding people who do not believe in gay amrriage for any reason to go against their beliefs and get married to a same-sex partner.

    Here are some of the positives proposed just in this thread:

    -raising children – gay-headed families meet or exceed comparable heterosexual families in every area studied and are superior to single-parent families

    -adoption – gays families adopt at a higher rate and adopt “unwanted” children and children with disabilities at a higher rate

    -increase in monagamous relationships and decrease of promiscuity and sex outside of marriage

    -decrease in HIV rate found in states that ahve legalized gay marriage and increased in states with bans.

    -increase in stability of families and decrease of social problems society must deal with

    Then there is my big one – we move toward the ideal our founders set for this country, that everyone is treated equally under the law and no one is discriminated against under the laws of our nation.

  154. wildcelticrose says:

    So by your definition, no one should be allowed to get married unless they plan on having children?

    What about a couple who ends up being infertile? Should their marriage be dissolved if they don’t spawn within a set number of years?

    And as far as the ridiculous pedophilia and bestiality fear mongering, neither a child nor an animal can give consent.

    If you’re truly worried about pedophiles, I’d quit worrying about gay couples getting married and instead take a good hard look at the Catholic church.

  155. aislander says:

    tuddo makes a series of assertions regarding the societal benefits of same-sex “marriage,” but I would be interested in knowing the percentage of the gay (especially male) population who are even interested in “marriage.”

    Got any stats, tuds?

  156. Jupiter25 says:

    Answer — homosexuality is in the same category as bestiality and pedophilia — aberrant sexual behavior.

  157. aislander – ‘percentage of gay interested in marriage’ another throw away line.

    jupiter – ‘aberant sexual behavior’ – And this you know because your bilble tells you so. (But only in the Old Testiment – yon know the books befor christ.

  158. aislander says:

    Not at all, xring. If the benefits that tuds lists are actually going to occur, wouldn’t that require that a substantial percentage of prospects actually do “marry?”

  159. aislander, what is the percentage of straights and why does that matter?

    In 2010:

    In Camden, N.J., 35% of couples are not married, up from 28% in 2000 and the highest of any city with at least 50,000 people. Other cities where more couples are choosing not to marry: Rochester, N.Y., 33%, up from 26%; Flint, Mich., 29%, up from 21%; Cleveland, 27%, up from 20%.

    Of course, gays living together unmarried are much higher percentages, because in most areas they cannot get married.

    is there a cutoff where government should just get out of giving licenses and benefits for marriage, if say 50%, 60%, 75% of people do not get married?

    As of 2010, 51% of women over 15 are living alone and not married in the US. Is that why you want gay men to marry women?


  160. Jupiter25 is at least honest and announces that he has an opinion. It’s not factually correct or based on anything, but he is not afraid to announce:

    “I am a bigot and I don’t care what anyone says, I will remain a bigot.”

  161. Poor conservatives, they just can’t win. It seems hatred and bigotry are out of fashion.

  162. aislander says:

    Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is no argument, tuddo…

    Here’s the politically incorrect deal, tuds: men (gay and straight) are less interested in long-term relationships, let alone marriage, than are women. I think the majority of gay males would much rather plight their troth to a park or highway rest area convenience than to pledge lifetime loyalty to another person…

  163. Sigh….
    Why do so many topics turn into pi$$ing contests?
    I always hope to find thoughtful discussions, but they are rare.

  164. Tuddo – why do aislander’s work? let him produce the data to support his throw away claim.

  165. “I think the majority of gay males would much rather plight their troth to a park or highway rest area convenience than to pledge lifetime loyalty to another person…”

    How would you know that?
    You really do just make things up to sound smart don’t you?
    Epic fail.

  166. and aislander proves his/her bigotry that has underlied every argument by making up a phony and unsubstantiated slur: “I think the majority of gay males would much rather plight their troth to a park or highway rest area convenience than to pledge lifetime loyalty to another person”.

    Prove it or get out of the way and let reasonable, sane people have a discussion without disgusting slanders like that one.

  167. LornaDoone says:

    Sounds like someone is spending too much time in certain places.

    Being a person who has traveled extensively by car and used lots of rest stops, I’ve never encountered homosexual behavior in any of them.

    “homosexuality is in the same category as bestiality and pedophilia — aberrant sexual behavior.”

    Since 97% of pedophilia is perpretrated by “known heterosexuals”, we must be at the point of a toss up.

  168. aislander says:

    tuds: Do believe men are equally motivated with women to settle down in monogamous relationships? I’m not talking about only about gay males, but ALL men.

  169. aislander says:

    Shorts: Since the percentage of gays in the population has been estimated at three percent, I would say they are holding up their end.

    Statistically, I mean…

  170. Ehill – The 9th Amendment is silent on marriage. It is liberal judges like Judge Walker in California and the 9th Circuit that granted same sex marriage through their interpretation of the 9th Amendment. The Loving case does not support the opinion that gays have the right to marry.

    The spelling by you lefties is atrocious. Spelling is a 6th grade class. Stupid? who?

  171. Ehill – “majority favor gay marriage” – polls are deceptive. It depends how the question about gay marriage is worded. Where was your poll taken? There was no info on the poll. There has not been a ballot initiative since 2009. Prop 8 was approved in California. With 31 states having amendments that ban same sex marriage, I will stand on my statement. The majority of Americans still are against same sex marriage. I’ll leave it up to the Supreme Court. My guess is they will leave it up to the States and Prop 8 will stand.

  172. averageJoseph says:

    “holding up their end” LMAO!

    I always get a kick out folks that support gay issues who then attempt to insult others by calling them gay (either subtly or overtly.) Mucki was fabulous at it.

  173. took14theteam says:

    Probably a good time to reflect on Barney Frank’s destruction of the housing market.

  174. took14theteam says:

    LD, apparently you never drove pac highway, in your car by the closed truck scales just north of Fife. That was a known meeting area for the males to “enjoy” a little anonymous “coitus”. Just ask the residence that lived by there what they had to deal with.

  175. Aislander,
    A 2002 Gallup poll indicated that 21% of men were gay, and 22% of women were lesbian.


    A 2012 Gallup poll indicated that 25% of Americans were gay.


    Loving case – would that be Loving vs Virginia case where the Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti interracial marriage law to be unconstitution?

    Same-sex marriage is still not permitted in California, and the 9th Circuit does not have jurisdiction over 7 of the 8 where it is permitted.

    So which is better – A properly spelled lie or a misselled truth?

    took – deflect much?

  176. averageJoseph says:


    SPANAWAY, Wash. —
    More than two dozen people are busted in a popular and busy Pierce County park during an undercover sex sting.Police said the trails along Spanaway Lake Park are known as a meeting place for illicit sex. Police said it’s mostly men looking for a quick anonymous encounter.

    During a five-day sting, undercover officers arrested 28 men at the park for lewd conduct. Investigators said most of the suspects came to the park because of Internet posts seeking illicit sex.


  177. averageJoseph says:

    X… you must not think people will follow your rabbit hole.

    You skipped over this in your link…

    “The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households.”

    … to get to this…

    “In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual.”

    What it illustrates is that there is a MAJOR discrepency between what people think and the facts. Thanks for the illustration.

    BTW… do you work for NBC?

  178. averageJoseph says:

    “So which is better – A properly spelled lie or a misselled truth?”


  179. I guess no one can dispute with any rational argument or facts the positives I listed twice about how gay marriage will benefit us as a society, so, going once, going twice, seeing no objections, the gavel strikes.

  180. AJo – I do not remember the 2000 Census containing even a single question on sexual identity.

    ‘which is better’ – need help getting that hook out of your mouth?

    PS – does you mind work, and is it connected to you mouth and fingers?

  181. aislander says:

    I provided a rational counterargument, tuds, but you chose to dismiss it.

    There aren’t enough gay males in committed relationships–let alone “married”–to have an impact on society.

    As for lesbian couples…well, SOME of them have a positive esthetic impact…

  182. Pacman33 says:

    “I listed twice about how gay marriage will benefit us as a society”

    What thread was this? Link?

    “It will help to find at least one reference if you search for:”

    The term “Basic Human Right” appears nowhere in the Loving decision/opinion nor does it appear anywhere in the Constitution.

  183. aislander, that was not a rational counterargument on the issues I brought up, it was a homophobic supposition based on your fantasy world.

    So, you tell me how many gays want to ahve a stable monogamous relationship?

    In states that have approved marriage, the wedding cagterers sure are happy with the huge increase in weddings going on.

    And Pacman, In every text I’ve seen, the first sentence of the second section reads: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

    If you were quibbling about “human” or “civil”, they mean the same thing in that context.

    If you think there is a distinction, please explain so I can understand how the conservative mind works on this issue. Is it that a civil right applies to more than humans? Aliens, maybe?

  184. averageJoseph says:

    “AJo – I do not remember the 2000 Census…” Ummm , the internet does. Your link does… Gallup does…

  185. averageJoseph says:

    x… I see you’re following the same tactic some of your leftist clones employ when someone so easily provides factual correction to your willful ignorance. (I’m being nice)


  186. averageJ, if aislander could show that all gays want to do is go to a truck stop for sex, then I will apologize and stand down. Since the actual polls and other studies show thousands of them wanting to get married in states where marriage or civil unions are legal, then I won’t hold my breath for his “facts”.

    The fact about the census is that neither the 2000 or 2010 census asked about sexual orientation, so any statistic quoted from the census could not say that 1% are gay.

    Here from the Census fact sheet:

    “The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations”

    In addition, DOMA does not allow the Census or any other governmental agency to show any official data that would say that gays are “married” or in a civil union, so the computers automatically changed any relationship questions to living in same household, roommates in college, I guess.

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife”

  187. See how easy it is to provide factual correction to your willful ignorance. (I’m being nice)

  188. averageJoseph says:

    Is your name x ??? Tuddo?

    As long as you decided to chime in on xring’s faulty interpretation. Did you go to the link xring provided? Do you concur that “A 2012 Gallup poll indicated that 25% of Americans were gay”?
    Talk about willful ignorance… we shall add intentionallty obtuse. Here’s your sign.

  189. averageJ, I didn’t cite any statistics. I just pointed out that the US Census had no statistics on gay households.

    I did not address anything to xring. That’s your fight to fight on that one. Perceptions of people in the community of the number of gay people is one important element and an interesting fact. The numbers being larger than most estimates tells us that people think there are large numbers of gay people whether that actual percentage is statistically accurate or not. There may well be, since coming out as gay is a real strain to one’s work and social relationships in many cases.

    I do not think there is currently a good way to determine the number of gay people in the USA. I’ve read estimates, polls and I think, based on numerous data points I’m acquainted with, that I would have answered the Gallup poll in the range of 10% who are out as gay, and another 10% who refuse to admit they are gay, so about 20%.

    The number of divorces because one spouse has decided to come out is growing. I take “estimates’ with a grain of salt, but there is increasing identification of gays in straight marriages. Here is one such “estimate” with some demographic support:

    “Statistics from the Straight Spouse Network contend that up to two million gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States are or have been heterosexually married. Demographer Gary Gates recently found that of the 27 million American men currently married, 1.6 percent, or 436,000, identify themselves as gay or bisexual.”


    The thesis that the number of gays wanting to get married is miniscule and that gays are only 1% of the population, is totally unsupported and belied by current activities of gays getting married, but I suggest someone on the right to fund a study if they want to make that assertion with a straight face. (pun intended)

  190. averageJoseph says:

    A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
    So is it a no? 25% is not correct?

  191. averageJ, I have no idea its not my number, and you don’t know either. For my argument’s purpose and for rebutting aislander’s weak argument it makes absolutely no difference.

  192. aislander says:

    So…a statistically insignificant cohort is supposed to have a significant impact on society? YOU’RE the fantasist, tuds.

    I have NO idea from which orifice xring is pulling his stats, but I think they may pose an impediment to the sort of relationship he seems to be advocating…

  193. aislander, it makes a difference to the freedom and independence of those people and to the very idea of our nation as a Constitutional place of equality under the law.

    I suppose, by your argument, that we could deny freedom of religion to Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims and religions which had small percentages of the population, and it would be insignificant to you. Even Jews at less than 2% of the population would be in danger in your America.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0