Gay Marriage and Other Stuff.

[bluepeter]

Folks with a different sexual orientation have the same rights as any other individual. What you are talking about is extending rights or priviliges BASED SIMPLY on sexual behavior, deviant behavior at that, which as many have pointed out, should be no else's business.

Tunnel vision. This has nothing to do with sex but you just can't get around that part of it. It has everything to do with 2 people who happen to be of the same genderfalling in love and wishing to validate their relationship in the same way that heterosexual couples do. If you want to call it something other than marriage I don't really care but they have to be afforded the same rights and liberties in their relationship as you do in yours .

If you still can't see that, invent a time machine and teleport yourself back to Mississippi in 1930 and see how you like being discriminated against.

 

[AAP]

Tunnel vision. This has nothing to do with sex but you just can't get around that part of it.

This literally says everything that needs to be said.

Bravo.

 

[mb2]

You guys are trying to make me out to be an ogre for stating the obvious. Just because people have practiced sexual deviance since Roman times doesn't make it right. Man-boy sex was practiced then too.

Deviant? Yes it is obvious that sex was designed to be between male and female, silly to argue otherwise.

Unhealthy? Does AIDS ring a bell?

The vast majority of AIDS cases in the world are transmitted through heterosexual sex. Does that make heterosexuality in Africa "unhealthy"? Or does it demonstrate that unprotected sex is unhealthy?

Whether homosexuality is genetically programmed or socially conditioned is irrelevant. (It is likely some of both, just as heterosexuality is -- since there is plenty of evidence that straight people can engage in same-sex encounters. Indeed, the reason that homosexuality is designated a "sin" is because it is tempting; read the history of Christianity if you need proof. You need to do a little more reading about the formal system of educational pederasty in Greece. It was the norm for MARRIED men to engage in that. Thus it demonstrated that sexuality is indeed not entirely given but learned and demonstrates how unstable our definitions of sexuality are.)

BUT...the fact is that homosexuality has been decriminalized by the state and de-pathologized by medical science. There is no futher basis, other than religious proscription, to delegate civil rights like marriage according to sexual orientation. It is perfectly within any church's rights not to sanctify marriages. "Sanctification" has never been granted by the state.

So gay people are perfectly happy to let straight people retain the sanctification of marriage within their own churches while gay marriages are authorized by the state and, if it happens, sanctified by those churches that choose not to regard homosexuality as a sin.

By the way, AAP has repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how two dykes marrying in Boston undermines your marriage and you have repeatedly avoided answering the question, changing the subject every time to say, basically, that you don't personally approve, that your own claims are self-evidently true and in accordance with nature. These were precisely the claims of those who cited the natural inferiority of black people, even relying on the Bible to support their claims. And, of course, the notion that a group of people is "self-evidently" deviant opens Mein Kempf.

 

[jenscats5]

^^ Wonderfully said!!

K for you!

 

[AAP]

The vast majority of AIDS cases in the world are transmitted through heterosexual sex. Does that make heterosexuality in Africa "unhealthy"? Or does it demonstrate that unprotected sex is unhealthy?

Whether homosexuality is genetically programmed or socially conditioned is irrelevant. (It is likely some of both, just as heterosexuality is -- since there is plenty of evidence that straight people can engage in same-sex encounters. Indeed, the reason that homosexuality is designated a "sin" is because it is tempting; read the history of Christianity if you need proof. You need to do a little more reading about the formal system of educational pederasty in Greece. It was the norm for MARRIED men to engage in that. Thus it demonstrated that sexuality is indeed not entirely given but learned and demonstrates how unstable our definitions of sexuality are.)

BUT...the fact is that homosexuality has been decriminalized by the state and de-pathologized by medical science. There is no futher basis, other than religious proscription, to delegate civil rights like marriage according to sexual orientation. It is perfectly within any church's rights not to sanctify marriages. "Sanctification" has never been granted by the state.

So gay people are perfectly happy to let straight people retain the sanctification of marriage within their own churches while gay marriages are authorized by the state and, if it happens, sanctified by those churches that choose not to regard homosexuality as a sin.

By the way, AAP has repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how two dykes marrying in Boston undermines your marriage and you have repeatedly avoided answering the question, changing the subject every time to say, basically, that you don't personally approve, that your own claims are self-evidently true and in accordance with nature. These were precisely the claims of those who cited the natural inferiority of black people, even relying on the Bible to support their claims. And, of course, the notion that a group of people is "self-evidently" deviant opens Mein Kempf.

Post of the century here. I can't wait to see what kind of flimsy "strategic" comeback that is guranteed to get bush more votes that longhorn comes up with. If he doesn't answer to this post, I am going to put it in my sig.

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

The state really should have nothing to do with marriage at all. It's a social construct, and really shouldn't be any sort of legal entity.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

The state really should have nothing to do with marriage at all. It's a social construct, and really shouldn't be any sort of legal entity.

But, then they can't collect money for licenses, and then you have all the laws they'd have to take off the books, and who's going to decide what occurs in divorces and such?

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

But, then they can't collect money for licenses, and then you have all the laws they'd have to take off the books, and who's going to decide what occurs in divorces and such?

Marriage has been a social construct between a man and a woman. It was mostly a religious union in the past. All the state did was make this social union into a legal partnership. They gave this legal partnership the name marriage out of tradition's sake, but look what it has led to. Now many homosexuals are not happy with legal unions with equal rights if it's not called marriage.

 

[AAP]

Let's keep this thread bumped until longhoot has formulated some kind of silly response.

 

[John C Calhoun]

Gay marriage will be a financial boom for divorce lawyers, wedding planners, restuarants etc. When 2 people get divorced the lawyers wind up with a big chunk of $$$. I suspect the push to allow gay marriage has many advocates from this particular profession, especially since gay relationships don't seem to last that long and alot of queers have alot of money. The rest of this arguing about is it right or is it wrong is a sideshow. Eventually there will probably be gay marriage because a big special interest group will benefit financially from it. To all the gays yelping about getting married, watchout what you wish for because divorce is financially painfull. Some might even argue that you are lucky you can't get married for this reason alone. Imagine if some rich old queen like Giovanni Versace had been allowed to marry and then get divorced and lose half his money. How eager would you all be to join that? My advice is to enjoy your Queer as Folk lifestyle, forget about marriage, and let the whole issue die.