Well as a highly educated person living in NYC you should know there is a little something called asexual reproduction. So when you write "...basically every living organism requires a member of the opposite sex to procreate." you are wrong. Now, now, don't think for a minuet I think that asexual reproduction counters your marriages arises in nature argument. It does not. I bring it up only to show that nature is much more diverse than your argument seems to allow. And I still do not accept your sexual reproduction equals marriage position. Marriage has more to do with property rights, the female being the property, than science.

Ed, I have no idea what you are saying when you write, "The argument that I made for marriage being nature based...." I will grant that mating is nature based, and some species mate for life but to assert that marriage is nature based is very strange. What exactly, or where exactly is the marriage ceremony in nature? Would you assert that divorce is nature based since many species only stay together long enough to raise their young? And what about reptiles, say snakes, that don't have any sort of parental relationship, neither the male or female? Same with fish, no parental relationship. I ask these questions without any reference to gay marriage or civil unions, I just need (?) an explanation of the words quoted above.

We agree.

Mark, thanks. About six weeks ago Will Wilkinson called me a pendant because I called him on a certain construction. Now, I know pendant is not a term one should embrace, but I could not take offense. Words matter, I try to be precise. (Fail often.) Simple declarative sentences work best, for me.

And Kip, as long as we are into the unmentionables lets not ignore Holy under ware. And I don't want to ignore native Americans, see Ghost Dance. That really work out well.

Mark, here is my problem, your definition of the term really does not fit any standard definition. As I search the term "compromise" is often mentioned as part of the definition. My background is in history and political science and I must say your use of the term does not comport with standard usage.

I think you answered the question, thanks.

The distinction you are drawing between compromise and bipartisanship is not at all clear to me. Are you defining bipartisanship as some sort of sell-out? You say, at least twice, bipartisanship is cringe inducing. I need more than an assertion before I will buy that line.

This is just a thought, maybe you are really praising nonpartisanship.

Mr. Kain, you are a gentelman, as the name of this bloge says.

Now, if only Freddie would answer my question.

No, Im calling them insane and the insane are incapable of rational acts therefore they have no knowledge of how there actions might be judged.

But I don't think we are making any head way here, and so I declare you the winner. And really, I have enjoyed the discussion. Thanks

I did not use the terms good or bad. I used the term Freddie cast the discussion in, I am not a Manichean.

See your comment #6

This discussion started with Freddie making a plea of respecting religious belief. No mention of good or bad. You injected the notion of good and bad action by bring up the atheist bad guys, see how bad the atheist are. As I said, I reject the notion that religion leads to ethical behavior. But this is really not the point of the issues raised. We could go tit for tat bringing up good behavior here, bad behavior there at at the end of the afternoon we would just have a big pile of tits and tats. I'm not really interested in that particular game theory. Neither do I wish to pit your knowledge of history against mine, I'm thinking we are both well versed in that subject.

E.D. you seem to be equating "good" with religion. I absolutely reject such a notion.

E.D. you forgot Pol Pot. Here is the deal, religion does not make people good, atheism does not make people bad.

Yep, E.D. if you believe in god I do have questions about your sanity, at least in that one regard. I don't recall asking you or any one, or you, to respect my view, but perhaps you will point that out to me. It is so clear, to me, where the vast majority of disrespect comes from. The religious toward the nonbeliever and religious toward other religious. Do you want examples of religious on religious disrespect, and worse? I doubt if that will be necessary. And since we are disagreeing, I think Bill Maher is a true wit.

I am going to shout guilty as charged. I do ridicule the religious, and have no intention to mend my ways, and it has nothing to do with the fact I am in Kansas. Irrationality, I'm mean religion, deserves no respect or hearing. That is my stance. Freddie, you seem to imply that reasoning with the religious, being respectful of their insanity, might move them from the dark side. You ask if any one can point to an instance where being disrespectful has born success. I'm more than willing to consed that I can not. But I turn the question to you, can you point to an instance where reason and civility worked?

Below is the quote I was speaking of in the post above. From an interview in Jewish Week, by Jim Besser.

“Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed,” said Abraham Foxman [...] “But the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn’t been ‘even handed’ - it has been supportive of Israel when it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support.

“So I’m concerned,” Foxman continued. “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”

What else do we need to know, and good luck Mr. President

The Jewish lobby, going on Abe Foxman's statement, seems fearful of President Obam appointing George Mitchell to head negotiations in this dispute. Foxman said something to the effect that he feared Mitchell would be "fair." The fact that the President gave his first foreign press interview to Arab TV also lends hope that the administration might pursue an even handed policy. Now that the christian right is out of favor in the White House the religious nuts, sorry that is being redundant, will have less power to push their one sided pro Israel policy. I'll try to find Mr. Foxman's statement and post it later.

For a spectacularly funny book on postmodernism, a defense of, I recommend Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth.

Jake, for your edification I want to point out the the term of "separate but equal" originated in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision. There the Court established the dubious concept that the state could establish separate institutions, based on race, just as long as they provided equal service. Brown v. Board over tuned Plessy, a decision I am sure you agree with.

So with that bit of history, does the argument the Freddie offers have any more weight for you?

Jake, your response to me is below, just there to refresh your memory. First, the fact that all married people do not benefit by IRS rules dose not negate the fact that some do. So to state the obvious, some same sex married might benefit, some might not. Same rules for every one, equality. Two, SS benefits to survivors is the law. Your injection of some rather nebulous term, "fundamental right," is way off the mark. Define fundamental right and we can discuss that. Short of that definition I will only point out that governments confer rights that may fall short of any definition of fundamental rights and SS benefits may fall into that category. Again, only a plea for equality.

But Jake, I have a question for you. Now that several of us have give you the examples you requested have you changed your mind?

=========

Many married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were to file separately. Remember the “marriage penalty”? In fact, if two people making roughly the same salary as one another enter into a civil union, they will reap huge tax benefits by maintaining their separate filing status.

You are right that SS benefits are not available for those people in civil unions. But is the right to collect someone else’s social security a fundamental right? Is this what everyone is worked up about?

Jake, you write, "The question is what rights are conferred by marriage that are not conferred by civil unions. So what are they?"

I'll give you two:

1. Tax advantages given to married people by the federal government.

2.Survivor benefits under social security.

Jake, you write, "The question is what rights are conferred by marriage that are not conferred by civil unions. So what are they?"

I'll give you two:

1. Tax advantages given to married people by the federal government.

2.Survivor benefits under social security.

Freddie, with regard to your original post "knowing when...."

Your arguments for pursuing legal remedies first are reasoned, and I have no major quibble with them. I have given my opinion in other comments in this discussion, and will not repeat them here.

I just want to say that it is because of cultural factors that even discussing gay marriage is on the table, and recognized one state. (From what I read New York might be next.) Any way, I think it is clear that all the small cultural steps have brought us to the place where this issue can be legitimately debated.