Maybe because we don’t understand why straight people so ardently committed to “protecting traditional marriage” don’t seem to have nearly as much passion — or any passion at all, really — for dealing with the problem of divorce in the heterosexual community as they do for slandering our families and putting barriers in our way to enjoying the same legal rights and protections that their households do. That indicates to me, at least, that their actual commitment to “family values” is a mile wide and an inch thick; that it’s really more about bashing gay folks and denigrating our families than it is about affirming and strengthening all families.

What LutheranChik said.
Besides, Steve, Conservatives simply would not welcome our support in the fight against “man-on-dog marriages”. Many of them are too busy trying to figure out how to get our humanity re-criminalized or voting to take away our rights.
First, there is no such fight as you propose (albeit facetiously), marriage being a contract between consenting adult humans.
The trouble is people like you (albeit jokingly) keep bringing up the comparison (some then excuse themselves – falsely and hollowly)- by merely adding “Not that I’m comparing the two.”). You’re well aware by now of the myriad similar comments over on the Crunchy Con blog, where our (legal, gay) marriages are repeatedly compared to “marrying a plant” (and to “a bicycle”, to a “rock, to a “corpse”, to a “dog”, etc.)
These aren’t ‘arguments’; they’re scare tactics intended to diminish, demean, debase and dismiss our committed, loving, consenting, human, adult relationships. But Conservatives take this nonsense seriously. Heck, even Mike Huckabee – a man who would (still, unfortunately) be President – said publicly and quite seriously that gay marriage would lead to (or was like) marriage to an animal – or a child. The beastiality and pedophilia inferences are no longer even subtle. (Note Rick Warren’s “incest” comparison.) Conservatives take such public figures’ public comments to heart and actually believe this sh!t. Why would gay people want to join forces with our slanderers?
Ultimately, it’s an out-of-balance request. You want gays to “oppose” a joke/insult/false situation that will never happen, but want our support in reducing the divorce rate, an actual, monumental task of grave importance. That’s a pretty unfair trade if you ask me.
Next, I wouldn’t join a fight to make marriage more difficult. Two of my three (heterosexual) sisters were in (and, thankfully, escaped) abusive marriages through divorce. Sorry, but people make mistakes. Some spouses can hide or ignore the ‘dark side’ until after marriage.
Maybe Conservative Bible-belters (who apparently have a higher rate of divorce than average) should take marriage and its vows more seriously before they enter into the institution of marriage in the first place.
You want to reduce the divorce rate in America? Treat the institution more seriously. We gay people who are fighting hard for equal marriage certainly take it very seriously. Maybe it’s time for str8 America to step up to the plate.

The way toward a Peaceful Coexistence on the Gay Marriage divide must include all kinds of different ideas like this one. That said:
In 30 years it has never been clear to me why we would seek access to a heterosexual institution, when heterosexuals don’t seem to be doing well with that institution. Heterosexuals can only fix their own failures at marriage and can we really commit to fix that?
Perhaps if we recognized that by their very nature (same gender vs opposite) our relationships are different and have different approaches. Our relationships really cannot be the same as opposite gender ones and our experience is in resolving relationship issues with partners of our own gender and issues, ans is usually different.
The next question is why would we seek a heterosexual marriage model to achieve equal legal status? The real goal is equal legal protection for partnerships…

Steve, before you ask the gays to sign up, maybe you could enlist the help of the likes of Mickey Rooney (8 marriages)? Or Rick Rockwell & Darva Conger who turned the holy institution of marriage into a TV game show prize on “Who Want To Marry, um, That Guy Over There?”. Or Britney Spears who added the fabulous, glamourous 55-hour sheen to the “sanctity of marriage”(TM). Or, perhaps you could coax John McCain – you remember, the guy who left his sick wife for a younger, richer new trophy-type model wife – to speak about the evils of divorce. So many potential spokespersons to choose from, why would you even need the support of gays?
Once you got all the betterosexuals on board, then you could maybe come knockin’ at the gays’ doors.

Goodness, let’s just pile another steaming load of shit on one of the few Christians willing to work with us who also happens to have a wide readership and run an influential blog.
Personally, I think the recent behavior of the Mormons in their state legislature makes clear the uselessness of trying to take such absurd claims seriously, the conservative Christians will just make up another lie to replace their current false witnessing.
I live in a country which has marriage equality for all. Works great.
JR Snyder Jr, marriage is not a heterosexual institution, it is a form of partnership between two people, either of the same or differing genders. A partnership based on love, respect, affection and commitment to each other for life.
One of the things which many gay men forget is that science has also progressed enormously in the awkward question of why some men are monogamous. Turns out roughly 17% of men (regardless of sexuality) are just plain that way.
If you want a non-marriage partnership, what should it look like? Be time limited so you can dump your partner when a younger guy comes along? Be open for you, but closed for him? Let you out of all the icky friends help friends stuff, unless they are lovers like caring for each other in sickness and health?
I don’t see why that small number of men, like SSM married gay me, should abandon an institution which works for us and does work for many heterosexuals without you offering something better.

I appreciate the suggestion, and for the record, I personally believe that divorce should be made more difficult. That’s an issue I’m happy to stand with social conservatives on.
As for standing with conservatives to oppose extending marriage beyond gays and lesbians, well the problem I have with that is that the whole SSM debate has forced me to reexamine just why I did oppose polygamy. If a certain group’s faith leads them to believe that polygamy is permitted or even mandated, then why should you or I stand in the way?
As long as it involves adults and is entered into freely, with no coercion, then I don’t see the problem with it.
I’d point out that polygamy has a far, far longer and deeper history among human familial relationships, so it seems odd to forbid it on any of the grounds that are used to argue against same sex marriage.
Obviously, to dismiss the Santorum-style arguments against it, I think that relationships involving children, animals, robots or what have you are inherently unequal, with one party lacking the capacity to understand the nature of the arrangement they are entering into, and so should be forbidden on those grounds.

==Maybe because we don’t understand why straight…slandering our families and putting barriers in our way to enjoying the same legal rights and protections that their households do.==
Households have no Rights. Persons have Rights. The Constitution protects persons, individuals from State action.
Those who claim to be homosexual have the same Rights as those who are heterosexual.
All men have the same opportunity to marry women. All women have the same opportunity to married men. The law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, doesn’t distinguish between individuals who say they are homosexual and those who are heterosexual; it doesn’t say that the man must be heterosexual; it doesn’t say that the woman must be heterosexual. The man and/or the woman may claim to be homosexual, or bank robber, or people from Mars.
== That indicates to me…==
Translation: “It’s just MY opinion.”
==… at least, that their actual commitment to “family values” is a mile wide and an inch thick; that it’s really more about bashing gay folks and denigrating our families than it is about affirming and strengthening all families.==
That’s the PR, anyway.

==… relationships involving children, animals, robots or what have you are inherently unequal, with one party lacking the capacity to understand the nature of the arrangement they are entering into…==
That’s not necessarily so. Where it is so, it’s irrelevant.
It’s up to no one else to say what another person understands, nor whether the amount of understanding in that other person is adequate. The person who makes the decision will, if given the chance, ALWAYS say that he understands. An animal will signal consent by submitting.
The other person may not have as much capacity to understand as YOU do, but that doesn’t mean that he has no understanding. It doesn’t mean that he has so little understanding that he can’t choose. Some people will say that, just because they don’t agree with somebody else’s decision, that somebody else just didn’t understand. It may be true, or, maybe, it isn’t true.
This is made more clear, regarding the issue of abortion.
You may say that a woman has the Right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, thereby killing the unborn child. You may say that she understands everything about it. I, however, might say that she DOESN’T understand everything about it, and that she should have more information, that she doesn’t have enough information to make such an important decision.
So, based on your standard above, she shouldn’t have the abortion because, after all, she just doesn’t understand, though she may say she does.

Where is the discrimination in a law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife? After all, EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female, and the law covers every one of them. None of them are left out. Nobody is excluded.
If the law excludes members of a third sex, let us know.

==I live in a country which has marriage equality for all.==
So do I.
Here, in the United States, ALL men may marry women, and ALL women may marry men. There is no requirement that the man be heterosexual. There is no requirement that the woman be heterosexual.
So, where is the sexual discrimination in a law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife? After all, the law covers ALL men and ALL women, and EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female.
Please let us know whether the law excludes members of a third sex.

==… marriage being a contract between consenting adult humans.==
That’s not what the law says. Of course, YOU want to water the definition of “marriage” down so that it appears to include everything under the sun. It is the nature of propaganda.

==We gay people who are fighting hard for equal marriage…==
No need to fight for what you already have.
All of mankind is either man/male, or woman/female. There is no third sex.
The law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, includes ALL men and ALL women. The law includes no sexual discrimination.
Now, if you’re saying that those who claim to be homosexual are members of a third sex, that’s different, IF you can prove that they are utterly separate, sexually, from the other two sexes.

==In 30 years it has never been clear to me why we would seek access to a heterosexual institution, when heterosexuals don’t seem to be doing well with that institution. ==
Irrelevant. The truth of our statements has nothing to do with whether we can face and handle our own marriage problems.
== Heterosexuals can only fix their own failures at marriage …==
We are multitaskers; we can chew gum and walk at the same time. I, for instance, can talk about one thing while thinking about five other things. As a citizen of this country, this culture and this society, I’m called upon to think about many things, all at the same time.

Mr. Incredible, why does homosexuality so horrify you that you feel the need to resort to spam to make your point?
“Here, in the United States, ALL men may marry women, and ALL women may marry men. There is no requirement that the man be heterosexual. There is no requirement that the woman be heterosexual.”
A gay man be definition would not want to marry or be in a romantic relationship with a woman. A gay woman by definition would not want to marry or be in a romantic relationship with a man. The only exceptions are if the person is bisexual (big difference), confused, or just self-loathing.
I don’t understand why so many people are opposed to divorce. I just don’t see why someone should have to jump through burning hoops to end a relationship that just doesn’t work.

==why does homosexuality so horrify you that you feel the need to resort to spam to make your point?==
It’s not spam to reply to posts.

==A gay man be definition would not want to marry or be in a romantic relationship with a woman.==
That’s HIS choice. It’s not a matter for law.
== A gay woman by definition would not want to marry or be in a romantic relationship with a man.==
That’s HER choice. It is not a matter for law.
== I don’t understand why so many people are opposed to divorce.==
Of course you don’t.
Willy-nilly divorce demeans marriage.
== I just don’t see why someone should have to jump through burning hoops to end a relationship that just doesn’t work.==
So that they have the time to make the adult effort to see how it CAN work.

==… you feel the need to resort to spam to make your point==
I am one person.
There is a handful of persons posting. Each of them has something different to say.
Therefore, in order to answer each of them and their points, I must post many times.
Several persons would be posting the same amount. So, it doesn’t matter whether all those posts are under one name, or many. In other words, as I say, merely posting answers to posts is not spam, just because the posts are under one name.
Now, it’s possible that you don’t like what I post. You have a problem with content for which you have no answer. That would explain why you choose to focus on a distraction from that fact.

“Willy-nilly divorce demeans marriage.”
Not all divorce is “willy-nilly”.
“So that they have the time to make the adult effort to see how it CAN work.”
If a man is beating his wife, would you tell her that divorce isn’t an option? That she should just take time to “make the adult effort to see how it CAN work”? I’m going to give you some credit and assume you would not.

==”Willy-nilly divorce demeans marriage.”
Not all divorce is “willy-nilly”.==
You wondered why divorce is so difficult. I merely point out only that it is difficult in order to give the parties some time to work things out in an adult manner.
==”So that they have the time to make the adult effort to see how it CAN work.”
If a man is beating his wife, would you tell her that divorce isn’t an option?==
It depends. Is he doing it all the time? Or did he make one mistake, and that’s the end of it? People DO make mistakes, y’know.
==That she should just take time to “make the adult effort to see how it CAN work”?==
Maybe it CAN work. Saying only that “man is beating his wife” is not enough information.
== I’m going to give you some credit…==
I don’t care whether you do, or do not. I’m not running for president.
==… and assume you would not.==
I would tell her to think about it. I would tell him to think about it. If, after all counsel in and consideration, circumstances call for divorce, on account of safety, she should divorce him. Again, there isn’t enough information in “a man is beating his wife.”

after all counsel in and —-> after all counsel and

==If a man is beating his wife…==
WHY is he beating on her? Maybe she came at him with a knife, or a bat, or a gun, and he needed to disable her. In THAT case, HE oughta divorce HER.
If, on the other hand, he beats on her consistently and without provocation, even just one time severely enough, that’s cause for her to get a divorce.
However, as I say, your scenario, “a man is beating his wife,” doesn’t contain enough information for anyone with any brains to decide.

Mr. Incredible,
I have seldom read anything as absurd your contention that the institution of heterosexual marriage obviates the need for same sex marriage.
Well, no, actually, your contention that homosexuality is a choice. That is even more absurd.
Come to think of it, your semantic games to suggest that the man is justified in beating his wife top all your other gay bashing, misogynistic comments.
I certainly think we should provide those Christians who are quaking in their boots over human rights for gays and transgendered with the assurance that their bigoted churches won’t be forced to marry us. It is that way now, but it might help some of them to drop their level of panic a notch. As for religious institutions, if they want even one cent of our tax dollars, then they must cease all discrimination.
Divorce should never be entered into lightly, but there is no such thing as a ‘single mistake’ in beating someone. Ever. It is a murderous attack and answerable only with criminal penalties and divorce with full compensation, not no-fault divorce for the beaten party.

==Mr. Incredible,
I have seldom read anything as absurd your contention that the institution of heterosexual marriage obviates the need for same sex marriage.==
I’m sure I don’t know what you mean.
All I say is that the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, doesn’t sexually discriminate since everybody is either a man/male, or a woman/female. Are there members of a third sex being excluded?
==… actually, your contention that homosexuality is a choice.==
That’s cuz it IS a choice.
== That is even more absurd.==
We understand why you say you think you must try to make that case.
==… your semantic games to suggest that the man is justified in beating his wife…==
So, in YOUR world, the man does not have a Right to defend himself, is THAT it?
==… we should provide those Christians who are quaking in their boots…==
We’re hardly quaking in our boots.
==… over human rights for gays and transgendered…==
They already have human Rights. Nobody has lost any human Rights in this matter.
==… with the assurance that their bigoted churches won’t be forced to marry us.==
We never thought that churches would be forced to do so. That, of course, would violate what you people say you believe is the so-called “separation of Church and State.”
== … it might help some of them to drop their level of panic a notch.==
In other words, you suggest we drop our guard, so that it would be easier for you. Well, that would be tantamount to supporting you, and we’re not gonna to do that.
==As for religious institutions, if they want even one cent of our tax dollars, then they must cease all discrimination.==
Where, in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the discrimination based on sex? After all, EVERYONE in Humanity is either a man/male, or a woman/female. Does the law exclude members of a third sex we don’t know about?
==Divorce should never be entered into lightly, but there is no such thing as a ‘single mistake’ in beating someone.==
We’re sad to see that you believe everyone should be perfect, that they never make mistakes.

In, “The Love Shack,” Panthera, February 25, 2009 3:53 PM, writes:
“I now understand why it is best to just ignore Mr. Incredible. Sorry I ever made the mistake of engaging him/her in discussion…”
A change of mind?

I have posted the question,
“Where, in the law that defines ‘marriage’ as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the discrimination based on sex? After all, EVERYONE in Humanity is either a man/male, or a woman/female. Does the law exclude members of a third sex we don’t know about?
in many places. I have yet to get an answer from anyone who claims that this law is the epitome of sexual discrimination. That’s cuz they CAN’T answer it, for, to answer it honestly, they would have to admit that the law contains no sexual discrimination, unless, of course, as I say, there is a third sex we know nothing about.

God created the spirits of Man. He programmed the spirits in heterosexuality, to go and to multiply and populate the Earth.
If God created, say, a man homosexual, where, in His Word, does He say that he programmed the spirits of Man to include homosexuality? God was mighty explicit in his programming. Detailed. And, yet, no programming in homosexuality.

==… your contention that homosexuality is a choice. That is even more absurd.==
Of course, the PR sheet from homosexual activist headquarters insists that you people try to make that point, and try to make it frequently.

Mr. Incredible: “Where, in the law that defines ‘marriage’ as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the discrimination based on sex? After all, EVERYONE in Humanity is either a man/male, or a woman/female. Does the law exclude members of a third sex we don’t know about?”
Under the current system, a man cannot marry a man because he is male. A woman cannot marry a woman because she is female. If that’s not sex discrimination, what is?

Hopeless. Mr. Incredible, you are beyond words to describe. Yes, I was foolish enough to make the mistake of thinking one could reason with you.
Silly me.

==Mr. Incredible,
I have seldom read anything as absurd your contention that the institution of heterosexual marriage obviates the need for same sex marriage.==
There is no “need” for so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.’” Society doesn’t need it. The culture doesn’t need it. The country doesn’t need it. The world doesn’t need it. The universe doesn’t need it. God doesn’t need it. As a matter of fact, in Leviticus, God condemns what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.” That is reiterated in Romans. Not only that, but God, throughout His Word, refers to “marriage” as being Godly only between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

==Mr. Incredible: “Where, in the law that defines ‘marriage’ as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is the discrimination based on sex? After all, EVERYONE in Humanity is either a man/male, or a woman/female. Does the law exclude members of a third sex we don’t know about?”
Under the current system, a man cannot marry a man because he is male. A woman cannot marry a woman because she is female. If that’s not sex discrimination, what is?==
However, ALL men may marry women, and ALL women may marry men. NO man may marry another man. NO woman may marry another woman. Everyone is treated equally. Everyone is treated equitably. There is no sex discrimination. No one person may claim sex discrimination.

Mr. Incredible: “God created the spirits of Man. He programmed the spirits in heterosexuality”
Hold on there a second. I actually program for a living. And I can tell you this much: if god had turned in an assignment that has as many bugs (errors in programming code) as the world has, he wouldn’t last very long in this business. Unless we’re in some kind of test run to simply check for bugs, which is an unsettling thought in itself.

==Hopeless. Mr. Incredible, you are beyond words to describe. ==
Oh, well.
== Yes, I was foolish enough to make the mistake of thinking one could reason with you.==
You CAN. Unfortunately for you, you’ve run up against somebody who can reason back.
==Silly me.==
You can see a doctor about that.

==Mr. Incredible: “God created the spirits of Man. He programmed the spirits in heterosexuality”
…if god had turned in an assignment that has as many bugs (errors in programming code) as the world has, he wouldn’t last very long in this business. Unless we’re in some kind of test run to simply check for bugs, which is an unsettling thought in itself.==
Your point?

You are right, that is in Leviticus. Then there’s that whole thing about all those laws being nailed to cross to free us from them. The part so many fundamentalists forget… The New Testament.

==Then there’s that whole thing about all those laws being nailed to cross to free us from them.==
However, being free from the Law refers to those who are born again. Those who are not born again are not free from it.
In any case, where God says that He detests what we now call “homosexuality,” it is reiterated in Romans. Therefore, it is still relevant to those who are born again.
Those who intentionally violate God’s Law cannot love Him. If they don’t love Him, they cannot be born again.

==… there’s that whole thing about all those laws being nailed to cross to free us from them. ==
God doesn’t treat the obedient the way He treats the disobedient, and He doesn’t treat the disobedient to wait He treats the obedient.

to wait He treats—-> the way He treats

Here’s a slippery slope that is closer to a real-life scenario: heterosexual women marrying other heterosexual women and then having affairs with men to bear children home to their same-sex household. Sounds kind of dreamy to me–ask a newly divorced woman if that doesn’t sound just about perfect–and ask anybody else if it wouldn’t be bad for the men of America.
Sure, the man-on-dog stuff sounds pretty lame, but on the other hand, wasn’t there a woman who died and left her pet a fortune?

As a supporter of gay marriage, I think that’s a wonderful idea. But instead of tightening divorce laws, I’d rather encourage couples to put more time, thought and effort into their decision to get married in the first place. A great many divorces are the result of people getting married for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Incredible (and all others who believe homosexuality is a choice):
Would you want your daughter to marry a guy as masculine as Richard Simmons?
Would you want your son to marry a woman as feminine as Martina Navratilova?
In other words, would you be OK with your adult progeny marrying an opposite sex person who is an “ex-gay” or is actually gay or struggling, trying really hard to be heterosexual?

==Mr. Incredible (and all others who believe homosexuality is a choice):…==
==…would you be OK with your adult progeny marrying an opposite sex person…==
I would be happy if she married a heterosexual of the opposite sex which is God’s way, as He says.
==… who is an “ex-gay”…==
What do you mean, “ex-gay”? That he chose to unchoose homosexuality, realizing the error os his ways?
==… or is actually gay…==
You mean to say “actually chose to go homosexual.”
Answer: No.
==… or struggling, trying really hard to be heterosexual?==
No one has to struggle with it. All are created heterosexual. People choose to go homosexual.
Another “no.”

==…heterosexual women marrying other heterosexual women and then having affairs with men to bear children home to their same-sex household. ==
Soooo, you’re saying that a woman who claims to be homosexual has to go heterosexual to have children???? Oh, no!!

==As a supporter of gay marriage…==
Those who claim to be homosexual may ALREADY marry.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
Where’s the discrimination in a law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife? Everybody is either a man/male, or a woman/female. The law covers both. Unless you are saying that the law excludes members of a third sex.

==A great many divorces are the result of people getting married for the wrong reasons.==
We should have a committee, headed by YOU, that would decide the correct reasons for marriage, and enforce these reasons, denying marriage to those who have reasons other than what’s on the approved list.

==A great many divorces are the result of people getting married for the wrong reasons.==
Define, “wrong reasons,” as it would apply to everybody in all cases, so that everybody knows precisely what to avoid.

Mr. Incredible:
When was the exact moment you chose to be straight?
Don’t prevaricate or twist the question. Day/date/time, please.
Thank you.

==Mr. Incredible:
When was the exact moment you chose to be straight?==
God chose for Man to be “straight.”
Individuals chose to go homosexual.
==Don’t prevaricate or twist the question.==
I didn’t.
== Day/date/time, please.==
Irrelevant cuz the only thing important is that He made Man heterosexual.

==Don’t prevaricate or twist the question.==
Translation: “Give me the answer I want, the way I want it. My answer.”