Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

Too funny. I enjoyed this.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by lovenhaight on November 25, 2008 at 7:26 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

hmmmm.... sorry matt, I think the original had some better points and was a bit more tongue in cheek. Plus the #1 reason gay marriage killed the dinosaurs made me actually laugh out loud for bit.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by juniper08 on November 25, 2008 at 11:04 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

Well, from the comments that these posts have been receiving, it's smart journalism to want to keep on publishing these op-eds.

So by posting on here vladislav, you're shooting yourself in the foot, to which I don't really care.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on November 25, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

mmm-mm... sum world class cherry pickin' goin on here. goooood idea. let's all reach out and pick sum arbitrary facts and figures that could credit/discredit whatever we want to prove.

"Gay couples do not naturally procreate, so they shouldn’t be able to marry, either. Infertile and elderly couples should therefore be banned from marriage, too"

• good idea. the state provides laws that are needed for individuals to lead more productive lives, and marriage is one of those laws, so really, all non-fertile, non-heterosexual couples do not need the right to marry. and PLUS... there is nothing better than to spread misery around when you cry like a baby and don't get your way.

"If gay people could get married, the meaningful nature of marriage would be destroyed."

you are right again. for billions of heterosexuals, marriage represents the pinnacle of sexual expression and commitment. to intrinsically change the nature of that contract is really a mute point, because, there it is, the dennis rodman exception. marriage is offically debunked. dennis rodman is the example that all marriages should be measured against.

"Being gay is a trend and will pass with time. This is news to Alexander the Great and his lover, Hephaestion, who are probably gasping in disbelief in their graves."

right again!! who really knows what causes a person to be homosexual??? not even homosexuals do.... but something must. who knows? i might be gay right now and not even know it!!!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 26, 2008 at 5:09 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

"Marriage is a religious institution, and all religions, churches and denominations agree on the same doctrines, religious figures and attitude toward homosexuals. Thank God scientologist John Travolta got past his quibbles about gay people to dress in drag to entertain us in “Hairspray"

best point yet. scientology is the most credible and time-tested religion that the earth has ever known. in fact, if it were not for scientology, i really don't think that religion would have ever really caught on. i think that the all other religions that pre-date scientology were really just here to pave the way for the all glorious and logically perfect religion of scientology. and since that scientology is the most respected religion, and john travolta MIGHT be gay... you are absolutely 100% correct, all the other religions before scientology were wrong. about everything. even the don't kill your neighbor thing.

"Conservatives know best when it comes to values such as marriage, because a strong marriage creates a strong family. That’s because the states that voted the most conservatively in the 2008 election have the lowest birth rates (from 2004, ages 15 to 27): Alabama (29.1), Louisiana (30.2) and Texas (37.1). And the most liberal states have the highest: Vermont (8.2), Massachusetts (11.7) and Connecticut (12.1). Wait, what"

pure. brilliance. (it has to be said just like the d-bag in that cadillac commercial that says, "check. mate".) low birth-rates are the MOST fundamental cornerstone to family values. trust, honesty, compassion, love, caring... all red-herrings. THE TRUTH IS HERE!!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 26, 2008 at 5:09 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

"The definition of marriage hasn’t changed since its inception. That whole Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case allowing interracial marriage is just an old wives’ tale"

no. you kinda dropped the ball here.

"Children need both male and female figures at home to have a successful family life. Those 12.9 million single parents (in 2006, according to the Census Bureau) need to find a mate — fast. They clearly don’t know what they’re doing"

EUREKA!!! another logic home-run. every time i hear single mothers complain that they can't control thier adolescnet boys, i KNOW there is something fishy going on. i really think that those single mothers are just making it all up because they don't want all the other parents who are having problems with discipling thier adolescent boys to feel bad. boys don't need fathers. (much less girls need mothers) and you just proved it. it takes guts to just come out and speak the truth like that.

"Gay people have civil unions as an alternative. Four states (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont) offer civil unions, and it’s better to have all the gay people concentrated in one area, too"

california, the most populous state. wut?

"With the success of Proposition 8, clearly the people have spoken, as they did with the 18th Amendment. That beer you’re going to have tonight? Probably came from organized crime, which increased while Prohibition was in effect. It would be ludicrous for an amendment of any constitution, state or national, to be repealed"

bullseye baby. i was just thinking the exact same thing about every law that i really don't feel like following (mostly drinking and driving laws, and laws that have to do with hit and run accidents, and other laws that talk about all that wrong way on a one way crap) but still. you are dead on. 99.9% of the laws that we have are worthless.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 26, 2008 at 5:09 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

"Allowing gay marriage would open the floodgates for anyone to marry anything. “Can someone please get Fluffy a pen"

uh-huh. preach it brotha. i don't believe in those "other" sexual identies either. all make-belive. all of them. pedophilia, make believe. incest, make believe. polygamy, make believe. beastiality, just made up by the dudes that were trying to one-up the dudes that made up pedophilia. and even if they were real, those people who would do those things wouldn't want the same rights as homosexuals anyway. because everyone knows, that all those other, "wierd" people shouldn't be entitled to the rights that homosexuals have. it's just one of those things that everyone knows. plus, homosexuality is really the most stable type of marriage anyway. lots of homosexual males are so shy about thier sexuality, that they are WAYYY more faithful to the person who they are married to than all of other kinds of marriage. it's just all BS. homosexuals are so much more persecuted than any other class of person that there is. and even though there is no practical reason for allowing gay marriage, what it will do, is like totally make gay people equal with everyone else. because this is the only thing that is holding them back, and making everything so totally unfair for them. so if they can just get the one right that they don't have any practical need for, like childless fathers needing paternity leave, then homosexuals will have nothing to complain about, like forever.

bleaah... seriously, i wonder what would happen if it was law that homosexuals HAD to get married, and they were not allowed to engage in civil unions. what is the over/under % chance that they would complain that marriage was illegally making them too much like everyone else?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on November 26, 2008 at 5:09 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

god todd... please try to at least make sense when you are writing... some coherence is necessary so we can at least understand your prejudices...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by oliveira on November 26, 2008 at 12:45 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

Todd, Marriage, has been a law or something having legal merit since 1982, when Ronald Reagan decided that to curb the sky-rocketing divorce rate we should give people who are married a tax break. Marriage is an unnecessary legal institution, and if we're going to have it, we might as well let everyone reap the benefits. If we're trying to provide stable family lives how do you personally guarantee that homosexual couples cannot provide them? There are plenty of unstable families out there, with abusive fathers, and destructive mothers, can you prove that gay couples will not provide at least slightly better relationships then these families?

"for billions of heterosexuals, marriage represents the pinnacle of sexual expression and commitment. to intrinsically change the nature of that contract is really a mute point"

Well, first I believe you meant moot not mute point, and second, for a lot of people marriage does not represent the "pinnacle" of commitment. Why do over half the people who get married later divorce? The question for you is really, do you think the current state of marriage in America is acceptable? This "pinnacle" that us, heterosexuals are striving for, achieved in modern America? And if we are not all holding marriage to the standard that God obligates us to, how can we say no to gay couples?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by selliott on November 26, 2008 at 9:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

To your belief that no one can no what "causes" homosexuality, you operate too often in your logic in absolutes. Which, if you were to spend any time observing this world, you would see there are no absolutes, especially now. Homosexuality, biologists have noticed correlates with a chemical difference in the part of the brain that controls attraction. And you're idea of a slippery slope that inevitably leads to bestial marriage is ridiculous. Marriage is not something most state governments have taken on; however, the California Supreme Court decision that Prop 8 overturned decided that marriage would be between two humans. The legal scholars, who have spent years in school and decades practicing law and defining human rights, are well aware and very much prepared for your silly little game.

Your issue with Mr. Hirschfield's quip about scientology, is understandable. However, the establishment clause according to historic Supreme Court interpretation prevents laws from being created or struck down on religious grounds and that you believe that certain religion's "superiority" gives you greater credibility in the gay marriage argument defies American values.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by selliott on November 26, 2008 at 9:29 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

And that you suggest "trust, honesty, compassion, love, caring" are cornerstone conservative values is also silly. I think even William F. Buckley would wake up in his grave to laugh at those as conservative values; I had always been under the impression that conservative values were: "don't help me I can do it myself" and that, "I deserve these rights not because the government gave them to me, but because God did." In fact, I remember from history lessons in high school that Nixon and other Republicans would laugh at the idea of love and caring trumping intelligence and government. All that gay marriage asks for is compassion for their turmoil. Civil Unions are ok; however, they have restrictive requirements similar to a common law marriage and their status is easily disrupted.

You're suggestion that single mothers are inferior to a "normal" home life is sad, at the least. Sure, a single mother may wish to have a father figure around, but you're suggestion that she cannot provide is also hurtful to the millions of single parents out there. Our Vice President-elect was a single father for a few years, did his sons turn out ok? I think they did, they may have lacked the care and nurturing that only a mother can provide, but being Attorney General of Rhode Island and an officer in the United States Army is pretty bad.

You are mixing different sectors of the law to prove your point. "mostly drinking and driving laws, and laws that have to do with hit and run accidents, and other laws that talk about all that wrong way on a one way crap" and in also assuming that Mr. Hirschfield is saying our laws are worthless. The Constitution of the United States was written by men who knew that times, opinions and the electorate would change, but they also put a rule in their following rules issued from the Magna Carta stating the superiority of a court's decision. It was first, not the people's right to overturn a judicial decision and second, not just that the electorate is stripping freedom, human and civil rights away from the people.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by selliott on November 26, 2008 at 9:29 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Hirschfeld: Maybe it is time to re-think gay marriage

And your last paragraph, I believe you gave up on trying to make sense; however, I think I can determine your core ideas. Which is, excuse me if I'm mistaken: "Gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society by allowing all the strange beliefs out their legal precedence." Well, I'm afraid to inform you that once again, you are incorrect and too quick to assume. The Supreme Court of California is intelligent enough to recognize legal loopholes and made sure the decision could not be interpreted in that way. Also, they left room for themselves to come back and strike any misinterpretation of the decision. You too quickly dismiss the importance of the Loving case because you need to understand the importance of that decision. That decision through out states previous definitions of marriage that said in more or less racist terms that the Court's had the ability to override a marriage because of race. No longer, so there is court precedent to change the current interpretation of marriage.

I personally, however am an advocate for removal of all benefits of being married; because as you said Todd, it is about commitment, and who is the government to tell me if I'm committed or not? or deserving of a tax break because I love someone enough to stay with them forever?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by selliott on November 26, 2008 at 9:30 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal