55 comments

• 

  Patrick Meighan

  9 months ago

  "First, I thought this was really odd considering that 22 states, to date, have passed Marriage amendments and there are two other states this go around who have similar measures on the ballot (Arizona and Florida.) That’s odd to me because out of 25 opportunities, they pick this one. So … I am guessing (TOTAL conjecture) that there are big time investors and prominent employees who identify as gay working for/investing in Google. I would further guess that most of those folks live in California.
  
  Just guessing."
  
  Google's headquarters are in California, and the writer of the piece, Sergey Brin, lives in California, so his/their interest in the fight for marriage equality in this state is naturally more pressing than their interest in the marriage equality fight in other states.
  
  Also, please note that one does not have to be homosexual, or have homosexual investors or employees, to favor marriage equality. I, personally, am not homosexual, and have no homosexual investors or employees, and yet I'm a very ardent opponent of Proposition 8, and a strong supporter of the right of each Californian to marry the man or woman whom he or she loves, and who loves him or her in return.
  
  Patrick Meighan
  Culver City, CA
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  9 months ago

  Out of curiosity...why are you such an ardent supporter of "marriage equality"?
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  Maybe because it's a human right, not a heterosexual privilege?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  It's a human "right"? So those of us who aren't married, can't get married or unwillingly unmarried or choosing to not marry somehow have less rights?
  
  I as a single man have as many rights as married people. I just don't have the same government "benefits" they do.
  
  Marriage is a benefit and people have done it with or without government sanction for all time. Marriage is a covenant before God and sometimes government provides benefits and sometimes it doesn't ... marriage is not a "human right."
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  No, and I couldn't imagine this is seriously your argument. You're not exercising your right. Just like if you don't adopt a child, or don't vote, you're not exercising what you don't have.
  
  The benefits, Randy, are given to couples because they benefit society. And this may be a shock to your system, but couples don't just benefit the world with the children.
  
  And Randy, why don't you run your logic all the way through. Because, really, if that's the case, it not just Gays that can't have a true marriage before God, but Muslims too. They don't worship the true God, correct? At the very least they reject God's Son as His Son. So they can't have a true marriage either. In fact, NO group who doesn't subscribe to your dogma could.
  
  But I don't see Exodus or Focus on the Family or any other religious organization trying to protect marriage in that way.
  
  And by the way, marriage is a right for all human's. Even if Jesus didn't exercise it.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  I didn't mention anything about children in this thread and you could make the same arguments by putting it in the right context.... marriage is not a right it is a benefit according to our legal system. That's the way it has always been considered and should remain that way.
  
  Not every good thing is a right and to frame it as such is to reframe the debate in a way that isn't true.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  I don't think by mentioning that children aren't the only benefit to marriage I was reframing the debate. You're pal Michael does that below. I said that couples benefit society besides children. Therefore, it should be to the benefit of all couples.
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Marriage actually isn't a right for all humans. Children don't have the right to marry, and people who are already married don't have the right to marry again should their eye wander (unless they dissolve their current marriage--which frankly, our legal system makes far too easy).
  
  If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion--that marriage ought to be directed by personal proclivities--then polygamy will be the result. That our the abolition of marriage altogether. Lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage isn't a gay person's automatic orientation--but it isn't anyone else's, either.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  That's a very good point. If it was a basic human right than anyone should be able to marry whoever they love, than they should be able to marry *anyone* and *everyone* they wanted too.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  No, it's a pretty poor point. When did I say "anyone" and "everyone," or anything like it? Children are the property of their parents and can't give legal, binding consent. ergo, they can't wed. Gay adults CAN give consent, and belong only to themselves.
  
  And Michael, your attitude, which by the way paints your blog, is exactly what gives Christians a bad name. As if every non christian who doesn't need God to hand over morality is just some heathen in need of a baptism. It's pretty sickening,
  
  And I really wonder why, Mike, you haven't done a blog on Palin's interview with Couic. Hmmm...
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Well, you referred to marriage as a "human right," which I assumed meant all people. Children are people, not property. But I will concede on the binding consent argument in that case.
  
  Gay adults can give consent, but again, following your logic to its ultimate end, so can polygamists, "swingers", etc. Marriage must have definite boundaries, or it doesn't exist.
  
  And yes, I believe every person (including me) needs God to help them know and do what is right. If that sickens you, so be it.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Hi Mike. I guess my problem with this is that marriage can still have definitey boundaries even if gay people are allowed to marry. I'm not sure why the logical conclusion is if we allow marriage for gays we have to abolish all marriage rules. We haven't done it any of the other times we've changed the "definition of marriage."
  
  As for marriage being a benefit and not a right...there are a lot of things in life that are "benefits" but still fall under the issue of equality and then under the common term of rights. Let's take driving for example...it's a privelege. However, it would be unconstitutional for us to deny the privelege to drive to gays, or Christians, or women, or any other legal adult. Using the internet would be similar. We don't have the right to either of these, but we do have the right to equality and freedom from discrimination, so essentially we do have the right to drive or use the internet. Just because something is a benefit or a privelege doesn't mean we can restrict it to certain groups of people.
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  The definition of marriage has not been changed before. True, interracial marriages were once frowned upon, and women have been regarded as "less than" men in pretty much all cultures to some degree. But these were more transcendent issues of prejudice that, while they affected marriage deeply, did not change what it is at its root.
  
  The justification for gay marriage is that we ought to be allowed to marry according to our personal desires, regardless of sex, and if that offends others' standards of morality or propriety, so what?
  
  But then if the gay community may challenge (and repeal) those standards which exclude the desires they find most natural, how can they impose their own set of standards upon others with different desires?
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Mike- back then the "definitiion of marriage" WAS only between people of the same race or the same religion. It also used to be a contract that was not based in love. Just because we see marriage differently now doesn't mean that it wasn't defined that way back then or that it was just some sort of small caveat or transcendance. It was the way marriage was defined by the populace. Wrongly, but defined nonetheless.
  
  As for your justification of gay marriage...that's YOUR justification of gay marriage...a straw man if you will. It's an easy justification to knock down with a "sky is falling" type of argument.
  
  The only problem is that's not my justification or the justification of most pro-gay marriage folks I know. My justification is that all people ought to be able to marry the person we love, just like straight people do. Not just anyone, not everyone, not the eight people we love, just the person we love. Adding on all of those extra cases is just a way to scare the populace.
  
  If your problems are about all of the other possibilities that arise, you should take the issue up there, not with gay marriage. If gay marriage is wrong, then it's wrong on it's face...it can't simply be wrong because of what might happen next in some realm of fear. We would have never made any social progress if we let the "sky is falling" scare stop us, because it's always been out there.
  
  The problem with the slippery slope argument is it really has no beginning or end. If we outlaw gay marriage because of what may happen next, then we should have outlawed interracial marriage for the same reason, because the definition of marriage in law in most states (if that's not definition, I don't know what is) was two people of the same race. We didn't let the slippery slope argument stop us then because the people finally knew what was right, and we should not let it stop us now.
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  You really didn't give a different justification for gay marriage than I did. But even if it was different, how could someone of another sexual persuasion not make the same argument? How could you say your definition of love justifies changing marriage and theirs doesn't? It would be hypocritical of you.
  
  And yes, I believe gay marriage is wrong all on its own, whether it leads to those other things or not. We could argue on and on about the why's but I'm sure we can each keep thinking up answers for each other. The bottom line is, the standard is set by Scripture--not me. For Heaven's sake, if it was about my personal preference we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Mike...my justification is completely different. You try to strip the justification down ro what it isn't...mine describes exactly what marriage is and should be to all people.
  
  Regardless, I'm actually more saddened by your sexual persuasion argument. Sexual orietnation is the not the same as a "sexual persuasion." I'm honestly sad that you think it is, or at the very least think it's ok to blindly mix the two.
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Could you explain how you've described exactly what marriage is and how I've "stripped it down"?
  
  Also, I'd like to know how you differentiate "sexual orientation" and "sexual persuasion" and why my take on them makes you sad.
  
  Plus I want to see if we can get this thread to one-word-wide columns.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  ummm... start a new comment thread :)
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  9 months ago

  No, the one word wide column would be so totally cool!
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Are we there yet?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  yes
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  I have it set NOT to do this and it is still doing it... I am not pleased :)
  reply
• 

  Oceanskater

  9 months ago

  Seems an unnecessary declaration.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  agreed
  reply
• 

  Patrick Meighan

  9 months ago

  "First, I thought this was really odd considering that 22 states, to date, have passed Marriage amendments and there are two other states this go around who have similar measures on the ballot (Arizona and Florida.) That’s odd to me because out of 25 opportunities, they pick this one. So … I am guessing (TOTAL conjecture) that there are big time investors and prominent employees who identify as gay working for/investing in Google. I would further guess that most of those folks live in California.
  
  
  Just guessing."
  
  
  
  Google's headquarters are in California, and the writer of the piece, Sergey Brin, lives in California, so his/their interest in the fight for marriage equality in this state is naturally more pressing than their interest in the marriage equality fight in other states.
  
  
  
  Also, please note that one does not have to be homosexual, or have homosexual investors or employees, to favor marriage equality. I, personally, am not homosexual, and have no homosexual investors or employees, and yet I'm a very ardent opponent of Proposition 8, and a strong supporter of the right of each Californian to marry the man or woman whom he or she loves, and who loves him or her in return.
  
  
  
  Patrick Meighan
  
  Culver City, CA
  
  
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Why does that seem like an unnecessary declaration? Given the article/post, it seems like a very pertinenet declaration.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  Don't forget to click the "reply" link underneath a commenter's comment so they will be notified of your follow up comment and help out with the conversation flow.
  
  If this was directed toward me, I don't think it is necessary because people don't really look to Google to have an opinion on anything with regard to social public policy. Which he alludes to in his message. I don't really believe anyone would have even noticed if they had not. Also, I don't think Google, who is not known to have any influence in this arena is really going to make any difference either. Doesn't mean they can't make a statement (obviously) it just didn't seem necessary.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  I wish you would reply to the first comment. But perhaps she really said everything perfectly.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  9 months ago

  Out of curiosity...why are you such an ardent supporter of "marriage equality"?
  reply
• 

  Brenna Kater, the Oceanskater

  9 months ago

  Seems an unnecessary declaration.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Why does that seem like an unnecessary declaration? Given the article/post, it seems like a very pertinenet declaration.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  Don't forget to click the "reply" link underneath a commenter's comment so they will be notified of your follow up comment and help out with the conversation flow.
  
  
  If this was directed toward me, I don't think it is necessary because people don't really look to Google to have an opinion on anything with regard to social public policy. Which he alludes to in his message. I don't really believe anyone would have even noticed if they had not. Also, I don't think Google, who is not known to have any influence in this arena is really going to make any difference either. Doesn't mean they can't make a statement (obviously) it just didn't seem necessary.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  agreed
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  I wish you would reply to the first comment. But perhaps she really said everything perfectly.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  Maybe because it's a human right, not a heterosexual privilege?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  It's a human "right"? So those of us who aren't married or choosing to not marry somehow have less rights?
  
  
  Marriage is a benefit and people have done it with or without government sanction for all time. Marriage is a covenant and a benefit ... not a right.
  
  
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  No, and I couldn't imagine this is seriously your argument. You're not exercising your right. Just like if you don't adopt a child, or don't vote, you're not exercising what you don't have.
  
  
  The benefits, Randy, are given to couples because they benefit society. And this may be a shock to your system, but couples don't just benefit the world with the children.
  
  
  
  And Randy, why don't you run your logic all the way through. Because, really, if that's the case, it not just Gays that can't have a true marriage before God, but Muslims too. They don't worship the true God, correct? At the very least they reject God's Son as His Son. So they can't have a true marriage either. In fact, NO group who doesn't subscribe to your dogma could.
  
  
  
  But I don't see Exodus or Focus on the Family or any other religious organization trying to protect marriage in that way.
  
  
  
  And by the way, marriage is a right for all human's. Even if Jesus didn't exercise it.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  I didn't mention anything about children in this thread and you could make the same arguments by putting it in the right context.... marriage is not a right it is a benefit according to our legal system. That's the way it has always been considered and should remain that way.
  
  
  Not every good thing is a right and to frame it as such is to reframe the debate in a way that isn't true.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Marriage actually isn't a right for all humans. Children don't have the right to marry, and people who are already married don't have the right to marry again should their eye wander (unless they dissolve their current marriage--which frankly, our legal system makes far too easy).
  
  
  If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion--that marriage ought to be directed by personal proclivities--then polygamy will be the result. That our the abolition of marriage altogether. Lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage isn't a gay person's automatic orientation--but it isn't anyone else's, either.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  That's a very good point. If it was a basic human right than anyone should be able to marry whoever they love, than they should be able to marry *anyone* and *everyone* they wanted too.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  I don't think by mentioning that children aren't the only benefit to marriage I was reframing the debate. You're pal Michael does that below. I said that couples benefit society besides children. Therefore, it should be to the benefit of all couples.
  reply
• 

  you know

  9 months ago

  No, it's a pretty poor point. When did I say "anyone" and "everyone," or anything like it? Children are the property of their parents and can't give legal, binding consent. ergo, they can't wed. Gay adults CAN give consent, and belong only to themselves.
  
  
  And Michael, your attitude, which by the way paints your blog, is exactly what gives Christians a bad name. As if every non christian who doesn't need God to hand over morality is just some heathen in need of a baptism. It's pretty sickening,
  
  
  
  And I really wonder why, Mike, you haven't done a blog on Palin's interview with Couic. Hmmm...
  
  
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Well, you referred to marriage as a "human right," which I assumed meant all people. Children are people, not property. But I will concede on the binding consent argument in that case.
  
  
  Gay adults can give consent, but again, following your logic to its ultimate end, so can polygamists, "swingers", etc. Marriage must have definite boundaries, or it doesn't exist.
  
  
  
  And yes, I believe every person (including me) needs God to help them know and do what is right. If that sickens you, so be it.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Hi Mike. I guess my problem with this is that marriage can still have definitey boundaries even if gay people are allowed to marry. I'm not sure why the logical conclusion is if we allow marriage for gays we have to abolish all marriage rules. We haven't done it any of the other times we've changed the "definition of marriage."
  
  
  As for marriage being a benefit and not a right...there are a lot of things in life that are "benefits" but still fall under the issue of equality and then under the common term of rights. Let's take driving for example...it's a privelege. However, it would be unconstitutional for us to deny the privelege to drive to gays, or Christians, or women, or any other legal adult. Using the internet would be similar. We don't have the right to either of these, but we do have the right to equality and freedom from discrimination, so essentially we do have the right to drive or use the internet. Just because something is a benefit or a privelege doesn't mean we can restrict it to certain groups of people.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  The definition of marriage has not been changed before. True, interracial marriages were once frowned upon, and women have been regarded as "less than" men in pretty much all cultures to some degree. But these were more transcendent issues of prejudice that, while they affected marriage deeply, did not change what it is at its root.
  
  
  The justification for gay marriage is that we ought to be allowed to marry according to our personal desires, regardless of sex, and if that offends others' standards of morality or propriety, so what?
  
  
  
  But then if the gay community may challenge (and repeal) those standards which exclude the desires they find most natural, how can they impose their own set of standards upon others with different desires?
  
  
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Mike- back then the "definitiion of marriage" WAS only between people of the same race or the same religion. It also used to be a contract that was not based in love. Just because we see marriage differently now doesn't mean that it wasn't defined that way back then or that it was just some sort of small caveat or transcendance. It was the way marriage was defined by the populace. Wrongly, but defined nonetheless.
  
  
  As for your justification of gay marriage...that's YOUR justification of gay marriage...a straw man if you will. It's an easy justification to knock down with a "sky is falling" type of argument.
  
  
  
  The only problem is that's not my justification or the justification of most pro-gay marriage folks I know. My justification is that all people ought to be able to marry the person we love, just like straight people do. Not just anyone, not everyone, not the eight people we love, just the person we love. Adding on all of those extra cases is just a way to scare the populace.
  
  
  
  If your problems are about all of the other possibilities that arise, you should take the issue up there, not with gay marriage. If gay marriage is wrong, then it's wrong on it's face...it can't simply be wrong because of what might happen next in some realm of fear. We would have never made any social progress if we let the "sky is falling" scare stop us, because it's always been out there.
  
  
  
  The problem with the slippery slope argument is it really has no beginning or end. If we outlaw gay marriage because of what may happen next, then we should have outlawed interracial marriage for the same reason, because the definition of marriage in law in most states (if that's not definition, I don't know what is) was two people of the same race. We didn't let the slippery slope argument stop us then because the people finally knew what was right, and we should not let it stop us now.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  You really didn't give a different justification for gay marriage than I did. But even if it was different, how could someone of another sexual persuasion not make the same argument? How could you say your definition of love justifies changing marriage and theirs doesn't? It would be hypocritical of you.
  
  
  And yes, I believe gay marriage is wrong all on its own, whether it leads to those other things or not. We could argue on and on about the why's but I'm sure you we can each keep thinking up answers for each other. The bottom line is, the standard is set by Scripture--not me. For Heaven's sake, if it was about my personal preference we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Brady

  9 months ago

  Mike...my justification is completely different. You try to strip the justification down ro what it isn't...mine describes exactly what marriage is and should be to all people.
  
  
  Regardless, I'm actually more saddened by your sexual persuasion argument. Sexual orietnation is the not the same as a "sexual persuasion." I'm honestly sad that you think it is, or at the very least think it's ok to blindly mix the two.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Could you explain how you've described exactly what marriage is and how I've "stripped it down"?
  
  
  Also, I'd like to know how you differentiate "sexual orientation" and "sexual persuasion" and why my take on them makes you sad.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  ummm... start a new comment thread :)
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  9 months ago

  No, the one word wide column would be so totally cool!
  reply
• 

  Palin = Straight Talk, Biden =

  9 months ago

  [...] The ONLY way that Biden could make those statements and be consistent is if he views marriage like Palin and I do … as a benefit and not a civil right. Marriage is a civilly (legally) defined benefit and not a civil right in our view. [...]
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  9 months ago

  Are we there yet?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  yes
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  I have it set NOT to do this and it is still doing it... I am not pleased :)
  reply