WEATHER »

Marriage: No Diversity


Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

This truth we hold as self-evident: All things equal; a homosexual relationship lacks diversity in comparison to a heterosexual one. Because of this lack of diversity, a domestic partnership is sub-par to a marriage. Therefore, should one choose to exclude diversity from one’s own lifestyle, such one is not deprived of the right to marry. What say you public?

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Homosexuals are totally free to live with, have sex with, share their property, their interests and their lives with whomever they choose and just like everyone else they can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and have a family. How can that be said to be unfair or unequal treatment under the law?

Civil marriage was instituted to assign responsibility to the procreative couple for the the children born to them. Civil marriage is a benefit to the state and to the child, but it is ridiculous to characterize it as a benefit to the couple.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Homosexuals are totally free to live with"

So if I have the gay roomate I dont have to pay rent?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd say reread your letter and then write something that makes sense. Your point, whatever it is, seems completely garbled here.

zappa (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage "equality" in the words of the proponents also has it's points of intolerance. Why should just gay marriages be allowed and not incestuous ones or polygamous ones? There is still some "intolerance" there with those remaining prohibitions.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agree, zappa, I couldn't parse this at all...?

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In agreement with zappa and DavyBrown on this one.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since "diversity" is pushed as a critically important "value" in many social formations Mr. McKee was just applying it to a another "cause" favored by liberals.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe, maybe not. It would help if there were more clarity to what he posted. As it stands, it simply looks like a bad case of "stirring the pot".

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Defense Of Marriage Act or (DOMA), kills all other marriages in the US except the Conservatives view of what "real" marriage is between a male and a female and no other.
Let us not forget that is was highly illegal for a black and white to even live together let alone be married and yet this no one really bats an eye to a mixed couple but God Forbids (or Conservatives) that two of the same-sex can get and be married and unhappy too.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If nobody stirs the pot, then stuff just sticks to the bottom.

That said, I don't think this piece did a very good job of stirring the pot.

If most couples are heterosexual, then a homosexual couple would create diversity within society. The only thing that is not diverse are the sexual organs of the individuals within the gay couple. But what if one person in the gay couple is Christian and the other is Buddhist, is that more or less diverse than a straight Christian couple?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Conservatives like division. Keep dividing and war-ing. See how that goes for you.

spacey (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany - "Why should just gay marriages be allowed and not incestuous ones or polygamous ones? " or multi-species marraiges, since the UN advocates bestiality as a means of birth control. Although when Mexico distributed copies of the UN pamphlet in Mexican schools, the UN claimed it wasn't responsible for its policy, since the copies were made by the Mexican government.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They must've found this letter in the gutter.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clear, concise, and to the point. all those things are missing.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry 14, one would have to understand the concept of marriage to agree to it. That's why one shouldn't be able to marry their dog, houseplant or car. But consenting adults CAN agree to marriage. It's only then that we can ask in what circumstances we can prohibit consenting adults from marrying each other.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Originally, marriage was a function of one's religion, not a function of the state. Originally, marriage certificates were issued by some states in order to prevent inter-racial marriages.

I would like to see marriage go back to not having anything to do with government.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, because it interacts heavily with our tax, immigration, employment benefit, welfare and social security systems, that would be difficult to do.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I guess we could wait until we are broke and the entitlements are gone and then do it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dou4now,

The concept of marriage between man and woman derives from and is anchored in our biology. It is the societal response to the fact that sexual intercourse between male and female produces offspring. Every society has ways of regulating sexual behavior and in our society marriage has been used to create a legal bond between two people that gives their offspring the survival advantage of having both a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage necessitates redefining other elementary words that describe reality - husband, wife, father, mother, man, woman. Such exercises make reality unreal. Adults might be able to accommodate this unreality because for them it is a superficial acceptance, but how does the denial of reality affect children?

People are free to have a private lexicon. If they want to call their relationship a marriage, their male partner a wife, or pretend that their lesbian partner is their children's father - there is nothing stopping them. However, we don't want laws that make it necessary to "explain" such nonsense to our children.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The concept of marriage being anchored in reproduction is a false one. Just as married people can choose not to have children, single people can choose to have children. Even married people can choose to have children outside of their marriage. But if one wants to decriminalize marriage between consenting adults, there is no excuse for not doing it for other non-traditional forms of marriage. If anyone can give me a valid reason that we allow marriage between two people between the same or opposite sex, why can't we allow marriage between more than two, or people that are related to each other?

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally the relationships two or more consenting adults choose to have is of no interest to and doubtfully anybody else's business either.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed, but should they be able to consummate a legal marriage as many agree that a homosexual or heterosexual couple should be able to do?

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany,

Sexual intercourse between male and female is the way in which the human species reproduces. All human societies respond to this fact by creating and protecting the family unit through custom, proscription, and law. Most, if not all, the laws we have that regulate sexual behavior are in place to protect the integrity of the family and the health and well-being of children.

Marriage is the only personal relationship regulated by the state because it is the only one that has the potential of producing children. Restrictions on marriage - age, relationship, marital status - all are responsive to the health and well-being of offspring, not the needs or wishes of adults.

Not every act of sexual intercourse between male and female results in a child and the state cannot regulate sexual intercourse between consenting adults, so its method of giving the best possible chance to children is to assign responsibility for children to the procreative couple through marriage law. That some people do not produce children is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage law.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok,

If it is nobody's business what consenting adults do why do homosexuals invite the interference of the state by asking the state to sanction their relationships through civil marriage?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly-

The only people upset about samesex marriage are the ones who are still hiding in the closet.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly - And because we have other laws that favor heterosexual marraige and discriminate against same-sex equivalent relationships.; tax law, employee beneifts of a spouse, inheritance, social security, and also for the same reasons heterosexual people do.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

zappa, if it is so completely garbled, why did the publishers print it? Maybe its for those folks who read higher than the eight grade. donno.

LOOKINGFORAGOODREAD (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly - Marriage is the only personal relationship regulated by the state because it is the only one that has the potential of producing children.

Have you been living in a convent Dewdly? People have children outside of marriage all the time. Marriage is a legal relationship. Procreation is the result of a physical one. The two aren't really related.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes they are. They're married!

LOOKINGFORAGOODREAD (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nativeson, DavyBrown, zappa, and dewdly;

I think Mr. McKee means the diversity between testosterone and estrogen.

The two most diverse cultures in the world are the male and female cultures.

Little boys giggle when they learn that mommy aint got one. Girls are astonished when the discovery is made.

"And she shall yearn for her man." Genesis 3: 16.

LOOKINGFORAGOODREAD (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know you must be wrong when Botany and I agree.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, dewdly-crudely is literally from another era, but she's trying to join ours AND bore us all to death

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany and dewdly,

Marriage is anchored in the capacity to deal with diversity.

Marriage rates are going down. 31 out of 1000 women get married each year.
Divorce rates? steady.

Staying married is the challenge. Staying married to the opposite sex is the most challenging task in the free world.

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard." [Matthew 19:8]

Because of the different paradigms stemming from testosterone and estrogen, it takes a great deal of maturity between the two to overcome that diversity. Men are Martians. Women are Venusians.

At least, that's what I get out of the garbled mess of words that the paper published.

LOOKINGFORAGOODREAD (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2014 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dolphinpod15 and I are very perturbed when KV, Botany, and DavyBrown agree on something: it ain't natural or right (or, left). The younger generation in w. Europe are really leaving marriage behind, what!? Hey, without the religious/ritual angle, it's just a piece of paper, and other pieces of paper like civil contracts can take care of the materialistic details. The real issue is about commitment, loyalty, compatibility...hey, let's call it what it should be: LOVE. And no piece of paper enforces love.
Marriage is passe, gotta say (despite being happily hitched over 40 years).

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany,

What other personal relationship besides civil marriage is sanctioned and regulated by the state? Roommates, friends, neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, brothers, and sisters, grandparents, aunts, and uncles?

Civil marriage was instituted by the state to assign responsibility for offspring to the procreative couple. The state does that to prevent out-of-wedlock children and their mothers from being dependent on the state/taxpayer. In addition to material support we know that our children do best in the intact nuclear family and that benefits children and the society at large.

It is not practical for the state to concern itself with couples who are childless; the most efficient way of handling the assignment of responsibility is marriage for opposite sex couples - period. Marrying same-sex couples is superfluous as it would be to have a wedding ceremony for two cats.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 2:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what an ugly thing you write, doodly-crudely: "Marrying same-sex couples is superfluous as it would be to have a wedding ceremony for two cats. " !

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr.Dan has been married almost half his life.

As I sit here, completly plastered on Jack Daniels, the thought comes into mind:

For those opposed to gay marriage, do U also oppose gay divorce?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage is less of a procreative relationship than it is an economic one.

People at the bottom of the economic ladder don't get married to preserve their government benefits.

Likewise, high powered dual earning couples don't get married to avoid the marriage penalty.

People in the middle more often get married because it's in their economic interests to do so.

I know people in all 3 categories. The institution of marriage is less about love and procreation than it is about money.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The poster “Botany” states: “Marriage is less of a procreative relationship than it is an economic one.”

My wife and I have been married for forty years and it has never occurred to us that what we were doing had anything to do with the “economy” or “economic benefits”. Our three grown sons are living proof that procreation had more to do with our marriage than some pseudo-Marxist ideas about “economic benefits”.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So nativeson, if you two hadn't married- your sperm and her egg could never have met?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, I think Mr. McKee is being ironic--though it is hard to tell. But he certainly stirred it up.

SFGiants (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Procreation has to do with sex, not a legal union. Do you fill out tax returns? Does being married provide an economic tax benefit? Could you have had your 3 kids without being legally married? Let me know if the answer is "no" to any of these.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If it's THE Jonathan McKee, Youth Ministry celebrity then no, the writer isn't joking. Certainly writes like McKee.
It's part of the evangelical onslaught some of you may have noticed on these pages.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: The answer to your question is "no". Although of course it's biologically possible, it wouldn't have been morally possible. That's just who we are.

Same for you, Botany...we would never have had children without first marrying.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Davy,

The word I used was "superfluous" meaning unnecessary. The state uses civil marriage to assign responsibility for offspring to the procreative couple. In practice this means only male-female couples need be considered. It makes no sense for the state to involve itself in personal relationships that on the face of it have no possibility of producing offspring. Superfluous and as unnecessary. The state isn't there to satisfy anyone's romantic fantasies.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@nativeson: "Although of course it's biologically possible, it wouldn't have been morally possible. "

Sure it would have - so long as you don't believe in fiction and imaginary best friends. And you can't produce offering now, so your marriage clearly serves no purpose an is merely a tax shelter. If you were a true patriot, you'd get divorced and pay your fair share. Commie.

@dewdly: "It makes no sense for the state to involve itself in personal relationships that on the face of it have no possibility of producing offspring."

So guess, as I suggested above, we should start dissolving all heterosexual marriages in which the female has reached menopause - no point in giving the marriages of the elderly protection, since they serve no purpose and are merely 'romantic fantasies'.

Or maybe all marriages need to produce offspring within a certain timeline, lest they become other kinds of 'romantic fantasies'.

What so brilliant about your nonsense is that it's so idiotic that I no longer find it offensive - I just find it funny (and a little sad - but mostly funny). I mean, any thread is which 'Botany' is accused of being a 'pseudo-Marxist' is comedic gold.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly, the letter writer sounds an awful lot like you...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SFGiants,

Irony is right. McKee was tweaking the liberals' embrace of diversity and gay marriage by pointing out a contradiction.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a pretty superficial, petty observation which makes me think you wrote the letter dewdly..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A lot of Conservatives also embrace diversity and gay marriage.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR writes: "Sure it would have - so long as you don't believe in fiction and imaginary best friends"

Meh. Your moral relativism is noted, but not approved. Your rant about "economics" is also noted, but again--meh.

Oh, and your sense of humor needs a tuneup. Maybe try watching the movie "Idiocracy" to see what is being planned for the future. You might get a laugh out of that if you don't get serious about it.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok,

If a lot of conservatives support diversity and gay marriage then it was meant to tweak them as well. His irony didn't work very well because diversity for most aficianados only means non-white.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government should not be the one who decides the definition of marriage.

People should not have to be married in order to receive benefits.

As an aside, it's always good to see ETR posting.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR,

Civil marriage is the method by which the state assigns responsibility for offspring to the procreative couple. That being the purpose, it makes no sense for the state to do anything at all about those marriages that do not produce children. Nor is it practical to fine-tune the rules to prove fertility. If you want to give the state more to do and more authority to do it then it makes more sense for the state to require procreative couples engaged in sexual intercourse to marry than to perform marriages and divorces for people outside the system and its serious concerns.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, when conservatives (some, anyway) have sex, they only have children on their mind?

That explains Rick Santorum.

Walter (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@nativeson: "Oh, and your sense of humor needs a tuneup."

Jesus thinks I'm hysterical. I know - He told me so. Laugh or burn, buddy.

I hate to break it you, but you're not my intended audience. I expect most of my jokes to be WAY over your head.

@nativeson: "Maybe try watching the movie 'Idiocracy' to see what is being planned for the future."

I've seen it - although I may have been watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network or the Republican National Convention. Between the corruption and the mouth breathing, it's hard to tell the difference....

@dewdly: ...the state to require procreative couples engaged in sexual intercourse to marry..."

Speaking of Idiocracy...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mere insults, eh, ETR? Not worth my time.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@nativeson: "Mere insults, eh, ETR?"

Sorry - but they are not 'mere insults'. They are 'outstanding insults'.

@nativeson: "Not worth my time."

Your previous comments are evidence to the contrary... you, apparently, have PLENTY of time to waste.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All right, ETR I’ll take the bait enough to state some facts:

ALL insults are merely insults and not worthy of any discussion. They are sort of like cussing; the reason people cuss is because their vocabulary is inadequate to express the emotions they cannot seem to control. The reason people insult is because they lack the knowledge to do otherwise.

As for “Having the time”, for a couple of days, perhaps I have had plenty of time. But I’m just zeroing in on who the trolls are and who seems to know what they are doing. It didn’t take long to find that out.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walter,

Most sex has nothing to do with reproduction - it's masturbatory, but the sex drive itself is reproductive - that's why it is compelling and persistent. Most human cultures understand the biology of reproduction and have made the observation that sexual intercourse between the sexually-mature male and female results in pregnancy and childbirth. Since caring for offspring is an essential aspect of reproduction the society creates rules, customs, and social forms, that make the connection between sexual intercourse and sucessful childrearing. In Western society marriage has been employed to provide the child with the best opportunity to survive - and it works no matter what people are thinking about while have sex.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@nativeson: "As for 'Having the time', for a couple of days, perhaps I have had plenty of time. But I’m just zeroing in on who the trolls are and who seems to know what they are doing. It didn’t take long to find that out. "

As usual, you Religious Right-Wingers think it's all about *you* - but I guess that's to be expected from someone who, like a child, has an invisible best friend.

So you sit there on your self-inflated high horse, actively denigrating the rights of the LGBT community to marry their significant others based of some arbitrary set of outdated morals, and then cry and whine about 'insults' and 'trolls' when someone throws that heavy hand right back at you.

So you're right - you've zeroed in on the trolls, but you haven't figured out that it's poor-poor-pitiful you.

(And dewdly, 'cause WTF is that rambling paragraph about...)

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR, what's wrong with you?...you haven't insulted me once. Oh wait, you might say something such as "You're not worth insulting".

You *are* entertaining, I must say that.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obviously dewdly wrote the letter, it's the same mumbo jumbo

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen: "...you haven't insulted me once."

My mid-year resolution is to be nicer to you... I had to choose *something*, and I've already met all my other resolutions, so congrats. ;)

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crude-dewd, using your definition, you meant "Marrying same-sex couples is [as] UNNECESSARY as it would be to have a wedding ceremony for two cats." How much more pleasant and poignant. You are a very gross woman.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had to choose *something

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2014 at 8:51 p.m.

Well, I have to admit that "Something" was certainly a better song than Harrison's other song "Not Guilty".

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2014 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Davy,

It is unnecessary when you consider the purpose of the state's involvement in this unique, personal relationship. Same-sex couples do not fit the definition of the procreative couple just because there are two of them. Marriage is limited by the number two, not defined by it. If two were the critical factor in civil marriage then two of anythng would qualify for the state's sanction and regulation.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2014 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen,

Civil marriage is a government function and it is defined by law and precedent. The primary benefit is to the children born to the married couple and secondarily to the state that uses marriage to assign responsibility for those children to the couple who produced them. Civil marriage provides no benefit to the couple - if it did more people would marry and stay married.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2014 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I much prefer uncivil marriages.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2014 at 1:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly do it more!
I hear what you are saying. There is a contradiction between gay marriage and diversity. Isn't that what "homo" means?
I remember going to the dairy farms and the workers were bragging about how they "homogenized' all the different cows' milk into one kind of milk that filled up the giant milk truck.
In a marriage, the two partners are different (testosterone and estrogen).
Gay marriage has no diversity. They are both the same. The same sex relationship is "homogenized." They always agree. It is easy for the same sexes to figure out how something should get done. Gay marriages, according to that Jonathan McKee guy, is subpar to a real marriage.
Is that what you are talking about dawdly. Maybe Ken or Eat knows. 14 is already ready to revolt with his/her uncivility piqued.

LOOKINGFORAGOODREAD (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2014 at 3:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The public says your silly letter is completely incoherent.
Here it is again:

"This truth we hold as self-evident: All things equal; a homosexual relationship lacks diversity in comparison to a heterosexual one. Because of this lack of diversity, a domestic partnership is sub-par to a marriage. Therefore, should one choose to exclude diversity from one’s own lifestyle, such one is not deprived of the right to marry. What say you public?"

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say this Jonathan McKee not be let anywhere near children.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV wrote: "I say this Jonathan McKee not be let anywhere near children"

KV, that is a bizarre statement given that there are no facts to substantiate that claim. What possible motive could you have for such defamation of character?

nativeson (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 3:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR - Yes, being called a marxist is a bit amusing. But those on the religious right have as much distaste for the Libertarian point of view as they have for the progressive one.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have no love for each other.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@nativeson,
McKee's own website and this letter.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: