Well, let me summarize my position on this issue with bullet points.
1.) I have a problem with the term "lifestyle".. as if homosexuality is something that people choose to participate in. It's not. Homosexuals' attraction to the same sex is analogous to heterosexuals' attraction to the opposite sex. Just as heterosexuals are sure of who turns them on, so too are homosexuals. Homosexual relationships have just as much of a chance of progressing toward monogamy as heterosexual relationships. There are going to be people who want to settle down with one person for the rest of their lives and there are going to be people who do not. This is the same no matter what your sexual orientation.
2.) The government doesn't make monogamy or having children requirements for marriage. Why should it apply those as reasons for denying homosexual marriage?
3.) Gay marriage is not special treatment. Gay marriage is an acceptance of the reality that there are more than a few gay couples who are loving of one another, committed, loyal, and in every way as bonded as two heterosexuals are.
4.) Intra-family marriage, marriage between more than two people, etc. are all examples of restrictions on marriage that apply to everyone. A heterosexual person can marry someone of the opposite sex and not in the family that they're attracted to. A homosexual person cannot marry someone they're attracted to.. whether or not that special someone is in the family or not.
5.) Morality is not something you can apply to one group of people and not to others. Where is this talk of morality when Brittney Spears gets married to someone she hardly knows and then gets a divorce less than a week later? You don't support those marriages either? Fine. Pass a law or constitutional amendment to deal with it and those drive-thru marriage kiosks in Vegas... but don't preach to me about morality until you remove the double-standard.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 11:44 AM
Mark: I admire your intelligence and passion for debate. You definitely articulate great points of merit.
The problem is this: Over time, values are degraded as one generation slightly lowers the bar. This gives rise to desensitization of the masses, and soon they are "ready" for another lowering of standards.
There are things in life that there seem to be no amount of words to express "why not to". Not that they cannot be discussed, but the point is usually moot. Man can rationalize anything, given enough time to formulate an argument. Just because you can think of a reason to do something does not mean that you should do it.
I can be sure that MW's reason #1 is the primary motivator here. If they are able to attain acceptance, then with so many approving their actions, how could they possibly be wrong?
One can say they are born with predispositions, such as molesting children; feeling genuinely inside that they are just "loving" them. Just because they believe they are born that way, doesn't make their ideology correct.
You can boil a frog to death in water with the lid on, and he'll never try to jump to safety- if you turn the heat up really slow.
Posted by: Jim Price at July 23, 2004 12:40 PM
Turn it around: I'd like to do something about the decline of heterosexual marriage like Britney Spears, but we can't as long as apologists for homosexual behavior keep pushing the SSM issue.
The damage to society from the dissolution of marriages is becoming very clear, despite attempts to conceal the truth. Take a look at how many people in prison came from broken homes...something like 90% plus. More and more evidence is rolling in that the experiment in letting people do what they want regardless of its impact on the children, is a failure. Another 5-10 years, and there would probably be a groundswell we could ride to eliminate "no fault" divorces and other disincentives to lifelong marriage commitments. But we can't even get to that because SSM advocates use people like Britney Spears as a pretext to do further damage, as in, "He's already unconscious and probably dying...kick him again!"
You sling a number of assumptions without a shred of proof. The conclusion of homosexual behavior not being a choice hasn't been fully settled, but there is a much larger and far more compelling body of evidence that indicates homosexuality is not genetic. Taking all the evidence as a whole, it seems to indicate that homosexuality is best understood as somewhere in between a conditioned fetish and an addiction like smoking (which is why "trying to quit" is so difficult and seems impossible).
You say: Gay marriage is an acceptance... Yep, Michael was correct.
...reality that there are more than a few gay couples who are loving of one another, committed, loyal, and in every way as bonded as two heterosexuals are.
More than "a few"? Just "some", then? How many, exactly? What benefit is derived from that "acceptence", and is it worth the harm that may come from the social experiment? We've already seen how the social experiment of sexual freedom has turned out: horrible. Why should I trust this experiment will turn out any better?
The government doesn't make monogamy or having children requirements for marriage. Why should it apply those as reasons for denying homosexual marriage?
A strawman. The government doesn't apply those reasons for denying homosexual marriage. The government has seen that there is a benefit to providing financial incentives for marriage. These reasons include, but are not limited to, taking care of children. It also encourages stability, minimizes sexually transmitted diseases, etc. If you could make a strong argument that SSM could do these things, too, you might have a point. But few even try to argue that......
Posted by: Nathan at July 23, 2004 12:41 PM
Mark:
1. Irrelevant. Call a lifestyle a preference, a preference an "orientation," whatever. It doesn't affect the validity of Mike's point.
2. First, this is looking that situation backwards. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage to begin with, so there is nothing to deny. The question is not "why not," but "why?" Just as it was when society decided to create traditional marriage. Second, the fact that straight couples are not required to have children is a red herring. In the aggregate, many of them do, and there is no perfect, non-intrusive way of knowing which straight couples will or won't have children. Not so for gay couples, threesomes, or any other combination of consenting adults that may seek legal recognition in the future.
3. Changing the rules to accommodate somebody is most definitely special treatment. That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do, of course, but that's a different issue.
4. This argument seems to be based on equality for equality's sake. The main reason we prohibit incest is because the likelihood of birth defects. That's not an issue for gay couples, so why should the ban apply to them? This may be one reason to prefer civil unions over gay marriage; parallel institutions don't have to parallel each other in every imaginable way, only in those ways that make sense.
5. We have to start somewhere. Any law that allows Britney Spears to marry anybody probably could use some tightening up. But until that happens, that's no reason to deliberately weaken marriage further on other fronts.
Jim: I agree with all of your points except two. Analogizing gays to child molesters seems a bit over the top, and your boiled frog analogy is based on an urban legend.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 23, 2004 01:26 PM
For anyone interested, I wrote two articles in a newspaper regarding the gay marriage debate. The first is an interview with an openly gay, and married, professor at the Univesity of California, Irvine. The second article, is a response to the interview. I think after reading the interview and the subsequent response, it will be obvious the real agenda of the gay marriage movement.
Posted by: Mike at July 23, 2004 02:13 PM
Xrlq:
Thanks for the compliment.
In regards to the pedophile thing, let me clarify myself. I did not intend to suggest in the context of debate that those two predispositions were an equal comparison. Instead I was trying to point out the shallowness of an argument that attempts to prove the validity of a lifestyle by suggesting that having a predisposition towards that lifestyle deserves automatic acceptance from society.
As for the frog thing, I know it's a made up story. The moral lesson behind the story is what I was going for. Nontheless, thanks for the link.
I wholeheartedly agree with your response to point 2. Most people don't realize that the term "gay marriage" is an imposibility; marriage is, by defenition, the union of a man and a woman. So gays can marry, if they want- just not each other (well, a gay man could marry a gay women. That'd be marriage).
The term "gay marriage", is literally as impossible to reconcile in meaning as the phrase, "A barefoot boy with shoes on stood, sitting in the grass".
Posted by: Jim Price at July 23, 2004 03:05 PM
I disagree with your agreement (!) that gay marriage is an impossiblity. Traditionally, marriage has not extended to same-sex unions, and current law reflects that. Ultimately, marriage as a legal institution is whatever the law says it is.
IIRC, Ass. Member Mark Leno currently has a bill pending in the Legislature that would define marriage as between two "persons." If that bill passes, I'm going to try to marry a Fortune 500 company, divorce it a year or two later, and claim a 50% community property interest in the profits during that period.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 23, 2004 03:54 PM
It's probably a foregone conclusion that most if not all of you oppose SSM on religious grounds... and that's fine. Apology accepted. Of all the things to tout as factual and "proof" of anything, the Bible is probably the worst. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It's written in parables, hyperboles, and metaphors. It's a book that was constructed by many people over a long period of time... with parts that were left out.. the decision for which was presumably done by some sort of committee. It's basically that time's equivalent of our modern-day "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books.
Homosexuality is not a fetish or an addiction. Is your attraction to the opposite sex something you could just turn off at any given time? No? Well, that's how it feels for me too.
Homosexuality exists in nature.. plain and simple. It's existed in every human society since the beginning of recorded history and is not totally uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom. What does this mean? Well, primarily, it means that it's not some new-fangled thing that's been brought about by a moribund society. Homosexuality is an abnormality... an anomaly.
There are many things I don't like about the homosexual community.. which aren't relevant to this discussion. Diversity isn't a matter of heterosexuals and homosexuals... but there's diversity within the homosexual population too.. just as there is diversity within the heterosexual population.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 04:00 PM
Mark: Until you mentioned it, no one here mentioned religion or the Bible at all. (Although there is a great deal that can be said about homosexuality and the church.) I'm not sure what apology you're accepting, or why you're trying to change the subject.
As for whether or not I can "turn off" my attraction for women, the answer is yes, and I do it all the time. There are women I could be attracted to if I were to let myself, but who are off-limits for various reasons. So be it. That's how life is. We bring our emotions, intellect, and body into subjection to our free will. It's not always easy, but it can be done, and just because it's not easy doesn't mean it isn't virtuous.
All of that is irrelevant to the discussion of what gays want out of the gay marriage debate. How people feel and whether or not its choice or genetics has no bearing on the question.
Posted by: Michael Williams at July 23, 2004 04:10 PM
MW: Perhaps there's a bit of misunderstanding here.
When I said "turn off your attraction to the opposite sex" I didn't mean it in terms of controlling your attraction... I meant it as in "turn off your attraction to the opposite sex and start being attracted to the same sex"
You can control your attraction... but you can't change the nature of it. You can't all of a sudden start being attracted to the same sex. Of course, you could be bisexual.. but that's another matter. Just as you cannot change the nature of your attraction, I cannot change mine.
Yes, Nathan, SSM can promote all of the things you mentioned.. stability, minimizing STD's, etc.
As has been stated already, SSM has never existed. As such, there was nothing for gay people to aspire to.. no instilled belief in the benefits and responsibilities of sharing your life with someone. Couple that with the way some gay people, particularly teenagers, are made to feel... by society, family, etc. and you have a recipe for much of what's wrong with homosexuality today: STD's, increasing apathy toward safe sex, rampant drug use (far beyond what I think should be legal), and other self-destructive behavior.
When you're raised to believe that being gay is wrong, is a "sin", etc. you tend to get frustrated, you repress it (leading to mental problems sooner or later), you get suicidal (it's more common than you think), and maybe.. just maybe.. you accept it. Maybe those other lessons your parents taught you... like being yourself, being honest with yourself, liking yourself, and valuing yourself.. take hold.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 04:41 PM
When you're gay and you're raised to believe etc etc etc.... is what I should've said.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 04:45 PM
Gays simply want to feel like first-class citizens, and will employ any argument -- no matter how dishonest or circular -- to acheive thier goal.
Unfortunately, what they fail to understand is that they can never be first-class citizens until they start behaving like them. Men and women go together like peanut butter and jelly. Two left shoes don't make a "pair". The male rectum is a one-way device. Sperm and feces just don't mix.
These are simple facts of life that cannot be explained away to the rest of us, whether we're religious or not. Gays need help, but are currently so caught up in the politics of identity and victimhood that very few feel safe asking for it.
Posted by: Marty at July 23, 2004 04:57 PM
Marty: Jim Price, a few comments ago, talked about lowering the bar... and I thank you for presenting an example of lowering the bar.
Your comment about the male rectum is absurd. Heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex too. My guess is that gay people weren't the first to find anal sex pleasurable.
As for going together like "peanut butter and jelly", that's rather trite. People go together. It's not a matter of gender.. but a matter of personality. If it were as simple as the way you make it sound, EVERY man would go together well with EVERY woman. This is certainly not the case.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 05:10 PM
I also find it insulting for you to call me a second-class citizen. I'm appalled by your arrogance.
To his and most of his party's credit, Bush doesn't even refer to homosexuals as anything less than first-class citizens.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 05:14 PM
Mark: Thanks for paying attention to my quote, ...although you used it differently...okay you used it well.
About your last piece:
"When you're raised to believe that being gay is wrong, is a "sin", etc. you tend to get frustrated, you repress it (leading to mental problems sooner or later), you get suicidal..."
This is something I've heard used a lot as a "way out" of the whole sin thing. While I understand that many people struggle over the guilt sin brings, quite honestly people feel guilty about sinning because they ARE guilty of it!
Guilt is one of a multitude of God-given emotions which can all run to excess (to err is human), but were provided for a good use. Turning a blind eye to our God-given emotions and accepting sin because "the guilt's to much" is both immature and foolhardy.
When you put your hand on a stove and it hurts, do you take the time to renounce the pain as a foolish and unnecessary feeling while you stubbornly keep your hand on the burner? Or do you quickly remove your hand and file that lesson away in your mind to help guide your conduct in the future?
This new brave world wants no more in the way of good moral conduct and responsibility. Instead of respecting those that came before us, and the lessons they have to teach; instead of learning morals and proper conduct, we are heading down the path of destruction with our self-centered life styles, and are turning away from the wisdom found in reproof and correction.
Our psychologists and psychiatrists would have us believe that guilt is somehow a bad and wrong thing. Excuse me, but how about the part we played in life that brought us to the point of feeling guilty?
Xrlq: Thanks for the banter. But I maintain my position. Taking a time tested definition and pairing it up with an adjective that cannot possibly hope to modify it in the context of it's root meaning is downright Orwellian. It's doublespeak.
Marriage cannot mean two opposite things at the same time.
I really don't care if the gay community wants lifelong partners. Fine. Whatever. But don't steal words that already have meanings. Can't they collectively be a little more creative; have a little pride maybe, and just create their own word?
I'll answer my own question. They cannot. They have not. They took a word with an already socially acceptable meaning, and somehow are trying to gain acceptance of their way of life by (now) litigating in the court of public (pc) opinion to have that word encompass their own twisted meaning. That's pretty selfish and high handed.
I mean, when was the last time that a group of people just decided to completely change the meaning of a well-established word?
Oh, I remember. It's the reason why I can't describe family gatherings as fun and gay anymore.
Posted by: Jim Price at July 23, 2004 07:28 PM
JP: Thanks for proving an assumption I made earlier... that your objections are based on religious beliefs.
Your quote: "trying to gain acceptance of their way of life by (now) litigating in the court of public (pc) opinion to have that word encompass their own twisted meaning. That's pretty selfish and high handed."
Interesting. To me, it's not gay marriage advocates who are being selfish and high-handed. To me, it's the sky-is-falling gloom and doom gesticulators... whining about a society that doesn't pay as much attention to an ancient book of parables, hyperboles, and metaphors as it once did.. who are being selfish and high-handed.
I'm a responsible, law-abiding, compassionate, caring, and devoted man... yet I don't belong to any organized religious faith. I'm not alone, either.
Being a good person does not require the presence or influence of religious beliefs and its infectious moral preaching.
I hope I haven't offended you... I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 08:04 PM
Mark: If homosexuality has been around for millenia (which it obviously has, and often with more acceptance), how come gay marriage isn't already a reality? Why hasn't this ever been an issue before? Gays aren't a new phenomenon, but I haven't read anywhere about them wanting to get "married" before. That's why the topic is confusing to me.
From what you say, it seems like you're mostly after #1. It's not the benefits you want, it's the recognition and acceptance.
Posted by: Michael Williams at July 23, 2004 08:06 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think we're ready for gay "marriage". All I'm doing here is explaining why I think we should be ready.
Politics requires statesmanship... and compromise. Otherwise, it's just theater.
I'd accept civil unions.
Unfortunately, the state I was born in and live in (Wisconsin) has a state constitutional amendment in the works to ban gay marriage, civil unions, and anything else that extends the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples. One body of the state's congress passed it. The other hasn't taken it up yet. If it passes through congress, there'll be a state-wide referendum on it.. where it's expected to fail. I can only hope that it ultimately fails.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 08:20 PM
MW: My best guess as to why it isn't a reality in the US is the severe lack of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals at the time the country was founded.
Elsewhere around the world, however, gay marriage does exist... even as close as Canada.
The Stonewall riots of 1969 were the turning point in gay rights. Before that, equal rights for gays was a pipe dream at best.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 08:34 PM
MW: I actually want both #1 and #2... but I'll settle for whichever has the best chance of becoming a reality.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2004 08:36 PM
I think that the idea that marriage is solely, or even mostly, about producing children misses the entire point of marriage. I feel that it's very obvious that marriage is about companionship, and a very special, intimate kind of companionship, that can exist between two people. Human beings are made to crave companionship and intimacy (and when I talk about intimacy, I'm not necessarily talking about sex, although that is often a part of it). When God created Adam and Eve ("not Adam and Steve"... there, I said it, you can all save yourselves the trouble), or should I say, created Eve and brought her to Adam, it was not primarily that she should start producing babies, but that she should be a "suitable helper" to Adam-- a partner. An intimate companion. None of God's other creatures were suitable for Adam, because they were not "bone of [his]bone, and flesh of [his] flesh". In other words, it was the fact that Eve was human like Adam that she was a suitable companion for him.
Some people would think that this cements the "one man, one woman" case, but not necessarily. Adam and Eve belonged together because God made them suitable companions for each other. The thing is, there are many men and women throughout the world for whom a person of the opposite sex is NOT a suitable companion. In fact, they find the truest, deepest, and most intimate companionship, and indeed the only possibility of that companionship, with members of their own sex.
Some people refuse to recognize this... or to recognize that gay people even have something as human as a "need for companionship". They believe it is all about sex for gay people. Well, that is an inaccurate generalization. It may be all about sex for SOME gay people, but not most of them (and I know quite a few, by the way). After all, it would be ridiculous of me to generalize that all straight men care about is sex, despite the fact that many of the straight men I know are absolute cads. There are also straight men who are loving, dedicated husbands and fathers, and they would show the lie in any such generalization.
But this is exactly why (some) gay people want to get "married". They want to be the best they can be for somebody else. They want to share in that unique kind of interpersonal bond. Marriage to me means permanently binding yourself to another--and in a union of selflessness and intimacy that is unmatched by any other arrangement. It satisfies one of the deepest human needs of all. I'm sure there are probably some gay activists who view marriage as a political goal above all else, but for every one of those, I bet there are ten normal, average gay couples who only want to cement their union and bind themselves to another person in a relationship of love, intimacy, and service to each other. I find arguments against that rather lacking.
Posted by: John S. at July 23, 2004 10:59 PM
Mark: No offense was taken. Healthy debate is about facts; it's not about personalities. I rather admire your courage, although I believe it is sorely mispaced and would serve far better good elsewhere.
As for proving your assumption, happy to help, although it's not exactly an assumption that requires a Harvard degree. :-)
About this section of your post:
"To me, it's the sky-is-falling gloom and doom gesticulators... whining about a society that doesn't pay as much attention to an ancient book of parables, hyperboles, and metaphors as it once did.. who are being selfish and high-handed"
I assume you are refering to the Bible. Could've just said "the Bible". By the way: Our conversation today, while real and vibrant, might just be considered ancient, irrelavant, and metaphoric if dug up by historians in a couple centuries. That doesn't make it any less accurate or relevant.
But don't confuse the fact that this world is growing largely cold and calloused to Christ to mean that there are not plenty of people who still have their eyes on Him.
And:
"I'm a responsible, law-abiding, compassionate, caring, and devoted man... yet I don't belong to any organized religious faith. I'm not alone, either.
Being a good person does not require the presence or influence of religious beliefs and its infectious moral preaching."
I don't understand the point here. Fallability and sin have nothing to do with "good" or "bad" people. I consider myself a child of God- and I can sin with the best of them. He came for the sick, not the well. I definitely qualify. Besides, there are none "well".
Posted by: Jim Price at July 24, 2004 12:25 AM
Some interesting comments, but I guess I should toss in my 2 cents, since I seem to have started this whole kerfluffel (always loved that word).
It seems that we as a people (a culture if you will), have lost a common definition of marriage. Many in here have described marriage in terms of recognition or companionship or even legal benefits. While all those things are certainly benefits of marriage, the central principle of marriage is and has always been to provide the building blocks (a father and mother) for starting a family. "Be fruitful and multiply" was the first commandment that God gave Adam and Eve. Why else would incest be so universally abhored if childre were not an implied part of marriage? Some would argue that plenty of people get married who never have or plan to have children, and while I concede this point, the potential for children is always there between the union of a man and a women.
Someone (Mark I think) made the point that there are no legal requirements in marriage for monogamy or children. While I agree that the is no legal requirement for children (however there are historical examples of people using childlessness as grounds for divorce, Henry VIII springs to mind), I am not sure Mark has a clear understanding of what monogamy is. There are people in jail right not for the crime of Bigamy (taking more than one spouse), and adultery is still a crime in many states (Virginia for example). Even in societies that tolerated polygamy, there are no examples of same-sex unions. The unions are either one man and many women, or vice versa.
Many in here have argued that allowing same sex unions is not changing the definition, but that really doesn't answer the fact that their have always been restrictions on who or what or how many we can marry. While there are many examples of cultures that have tolerated homosexual behavior, there are none that have allowed same sex marriage. So you are arguing that overthrowing thousands of years of tradition is not making an exception. I have a hard time buying that.
Posted by: Rob Smith at July 24, 2004 04:58 AM
John S.: Thank you for commenting. This debate seemed a little one-sided with only me demonstrating the pro-SSM side.
Rob Smith: Marriage's central theme was not always about raising children. Here's a quote from: http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/901/901_bouley.asp
"Marriage, first and foremost, is a legal agreement about property and property rights. It has had many forms. It wasn’t always referred to as marriage, a word that came to English from the 14th-century French marier.
Let’s look even further back: The principal property that marriage was developed to deal with—a property that is still the core right of marriage in many cultures across the globe—is the woman. In this most traditional, most historically accurate form of marriage, the woman is considered a possession: first of her father, then of her lawful husband. She has little voice in where she lives; what her husband does; whether, or how many children they have; or her own duties and chores in the arrangement. She is expected to devote herself to her husband and her family. (Think this is from long, long ago? It’s only been since the emergence of feminism that “love, honor, and obey” in the woman’s vows in most Christian ceremonies was reduced to two out of three of those.) Historically, wives were often awarded to men for great victories or feats of strength and bravery. Sometimes they were—and still are—simply sold outright.
As time went by, the property of the wife was joined by all kinds of other property rights that were settled by marriage: joining lands controlled by multiple families; allotting a portion of one family’s wealth to the heir of another family with the priviso that Junior marries Missy; creating heirs so that all the lands and wealth could be passed along and kept all in the family. And so on.
According to these millennia-old traditions, marriage is a contract that has nothing to do with faith, religion, God, or the like. It has everything to do with real estate, wealth, lines of succession, and business and political negotiations. The notion of marriage as a Christian sacrament and not just a contract can be traced back to Saint Paul, who in his letter to the Ephesians compared the relationship of husband and wife to that of Christ and the church. The troubadours in the 12th century were the first cultural force to encourage the idea that love—love in the way we think of it now—should be the primary impulse for two people to commit to one another.
In the 1500s there were so many marriages taking place without ceremony or witnesses that the Council of Trent, a Catholic body to counter the Protestant Reformation, decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. Marriage, by this time, was a way to prevent men and women from sins, a union for companionship and for procreation. Love wasn’t necessarily invited."
and this one:
"So marriage started out about property and then became about love—to some degree. Even today, it’s still about property, and yes, women are still seen as such, even in these United States. Until fairly recently, married women still needed their husband’s signature to obtain a credit card or a mortgage; single women were much less likely than single men to enjoy those same privileges. In 1970s Texas a woman couldn’t have a tubal ligation without her husband’s consent unless a preset goal was reached: a certain age, a certain number of children, etc."
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 05:25 AM
Mark, you're right -- i should not have said "male rectum" because of course, anal sex is disgustingly unnatural and depraved (albeit 'fun') no matter what your gender. We all have one, and it's still a one-way device.
I hope I haven't offended you... I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 06:17 AM
Marty: I was not offended by your diatribe about the male rectum. I was offended, however, when you called me a second-class citizen.
Technically, the female vagina is a one-way device as well... except during sex. The same applies for anal sex. The anus is a one-way device.. except during sex.
Rectum? Damn near killed 'em!
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 07:06 AM
You're right about one thing, Marty. Sperm and feces do not mix. I'm an advocate of safe sex. During safe sex, nothing mixes with anything else.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 07:11 AM
Again, i'm sorry if it offends you that i find your notion of "sex" to be second rate. I don't think you'll be able to convince me otherwise. I'm amused and heartbroken at the same time when gays try to equate thier poor imitations of sexual intimacy with the very act that gave them life, via precisely one man and one woman, namely thier mother and father. As if such things don't matter...
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 08:14 AM
I don't care what you think of anal sex. I do care, though, when you broadly paint with that brush a picture of me and other gay people as second-class citizens.
By your reasoning, heterosexual couples that have anal sex are second-class citizens as well.
You have an inability to separate what gay people do in the bedroom from who they are outside of it. I don't know where this ignorance comes from, but it's unfortunate that it exists.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 08:41 AM
It seems that people who are against gay marriage are really against the gay sex ("inferior sex", heh) --- and what, by making gay marriage illegal they are going to stop gay sex? They say gayness is immoral, but I'm sorry, it's just not obvious how it is immoral that two consenting adults who are not hurting anyone are doing anything immoral. They say it's "unnatural", but what is natural about marriage? It's a man-made word, a man-made legal contract. If you don't like what the government has done with YOUR word for it (by the way, "sex" used to mean intercourse between a man and a woman, and you folks don't seem to have a problem adjusting how you use it -- "gay sex" -- see, not so hard? now try it with me, "gay marriage"), then don't get them involved; have a private contract (loosely used) with your lover --- it would be much more personal wouldn't it. But no, you seek to be recognized by society as a couple. Isn't it obvious that you aren't going to make people buy into your beliefs simply by making them the law? Oh, and I guess some don't believe in the whole if-it's-not-hurting-anyone thing. All I can say to that is, WTF?!?!?! If John and Frank are having "immoral" gay sex in the privacy of their own home, what are you going to do? How is it wrong? WHO'S GOING TO PROSECUTE? (I guess TX tried to pass something like this a couple yrs ago.. *knock on the door* "Hi, uh.. This is the police.. We heard you and Frank were having gay sex.. we're going to have to.. uh.. take you in for questioning.." -- lovely)
(late jump yea, but my int0rweb sux)
Posted by: michelle at July 24, 2004 09:40 AM
BTW, even the most hetero of you boys have to admit that gay Mr. Sir Ian McKellen was super-hot as Magneto, no?
:D
Posted by: michelle at July 24, 2004 09:45 AM
Mark it's not that i or anyone else think gays are second-class citizens -- that term was invented by YOUR side, not mine.
If you (or activists on your behalf) feel like a second-class citizen, it is not because of the behavior of the rest of us. It is because of your own behavior, or more precisely, the lack thereof.
We don't make public policy between men and women because of what they "can" do that gays can also do -- it's because of what ONLY they can do, that gays cannot do.
michelle, i could care less what John and Frank are up to, until it puts my children's future at risk. Destroying the (already badly beaten and fragile) institution of marriage is what i'm against. And doing it in the name of normalized sodomy makes it all the more disgusting.
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 11:17 AM
Marty: Your quote: "Gays simply want to feel like first-class citizens". How am I supposed to interpret that any differently than I did?
Nothing I have done (or not done) makes me feel like a second-class citizen. You implied that because I'm gay I am a second-class citizen.. and that's what I found offensive.
Your children's future is no more at risk with gay marriage being allowed than it is without.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 11:41 AM
I agree that marriage isn't primarily about companionship, isn't that what you said, Mark? So if it's primarily about property -- which seems right to me -- why do gays want it? They can't have kids, but they can already enter into contractual arrangements that easily facilitate the sharing of property. They can even give each other powers-of-attorney if they want.
The point here is that unlike gay sex, gay marriage does affect the rest of society. Therefore we get a say in it. It's simply dishonest to claim that opening the marriage relationship up to new combinations won't affect anyone, particularly since there's no way to draw the line anywhere short of marriage free-for-all.
Posted by: Michael Williams at July 24, 2004 12:19 PM
Fair enough, but it's your own activists telling you that you are second class because you're gay, not me. Pardon my for using the familiar rhetoric of gay activists...
And if marriage is destroyed as a foundational institution of our society, -- something both gay and feminist activists have been praying for for years -- then you bet your ass my children are at risk, as well as my grandchildrens, and theirs.
Is it worth it? To sacrifice my family's future over your own psychosexual self-esteem issues? Is it?
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 12:25 PM
I have pychosexual self-esteem issues? That's news to me.
MW: Yes, the paperwork can be filed.. but in the event of death, the family of the deceased can in many circumstances sue to effectively undo everything the couple arranged for beforehand.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 01:04 PM
Other benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.. such as lower insurance rates, income tax incentives and the like are what I feel unjustly left out of.
I want recognition and acceptance of my relationship as well.
Is that too much to ask for?
If not gay marriage, why not civil unions?
Is there any room for compromise here?
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 01:19 PM
If there's no room for compromise here, then that's a wrap. I'm done with this discussion.. because there's nothing more to say.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 01:26 PM
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/carpenter/carpenter39.html
"There are several good arguments for gay marriage. Among these are the stability and commitment it would encourage in gay relationships and in gay life generally. That would benefit everybody, gay and straight."
.. and there are several bad arguments for gay marriage, as the article illustrates.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 01:49 PM
I don't think there is room for compromise, personally, because civil unions or "marriage-lite" will be just as detrimental to society as any other solution -- simply because future generations will have no particular reason or incentive to strive for the wholesome definition of "family" that some of us are so deperately trying to preserve. The end result will be the same, the death of marriage as we know it.
That, and the fact that your own activists have no interest in civil unions, because they will not bestow the automatic "societal approval of sodomy" that is at the heart of thier agenda. Gay marriage is simply the vehicle, not the destination.
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 02:11 PM
Incentive to strive for the wholesome defition of "family" will depend on much more than gay marriage or civil unions.
Gay marriage or civil unions will encourage wholesomeness among gay people in much the same way it does for heterosexuals.
In heterosexual relationships, the purpose of marriage (since the 1563, anyway) is to encourage two people to share their lives together in a way that best suits the interests of children.
In homosexual relationships, the potential purpose of marriage or civil unions could be to encourage two people to share their lives together in a way that promotes personal and social responsibility, honesty, and committment.
As is becoming the case with marriage today, the above-mentioned incentive has been lost. All I can say to that is, "welcome to my world". Gay people have NEVER HAD an incentive to work toward any of the stability and committment that marriage brings.
Something has to happen to create that incentive... both among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals... and gay marriage or civil unions is about as good of an idea as any.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 02:50 PM
Mark--Your definition of marriage seems to be at best a selective viewing of history. The Biblical sacrament of marriage is first described in Genesis, not Ephesians. Gen 2:24 states that "for this reason (marriage), a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". This clearly defines the divine intent of marriage as between one man and one women. Not to be snarky, but before you start quoting the Bible, you should probably read all the relevant passages, not just the ones quoted in the Advocate or a Queer Studies textbook.
You do concede the point that "heterosexual marriage" (as if there has been any other kind), is primarily about children, I of course agree but then you talk about "homosexual marriage" as being something different. Something to encourage two people to share their lives together in a way that promotes personal and social responsibility, honesty, and committment. My question is why do you need a bribe (the legal and financial benefits) to live that way? Shouldn't all couples try live that way?
Posted by: Rob Smith at July 24, 2004 04:31 PM
In homosexual relationships, the potential purpose of marriage or civil unions could be to encourage two people to share their lives together in a way that promotes personal and social responsibility, honesty, and committment.
Mark i don't doubt the sincerity of your intentions here, but unfortunately, they are merely talking points for your activists, and they do not jive with what they beleive behind closed doors. See my site for more, if you havent already.
But to your sincere beleifs, i agree - marriage will provide "some" level of stabilizing influence in a highly promiscuous and unstable community. Gays certainly need all the help they can get in that regard.
But for the rest of America, and children growing up in an age where the wholesome ideal of traditional marriage has been ravaged by new traditions of divorce, abortion, institutional fatherlessness, and artificial insemination, an idea as perfectly laughable as "gay marriage" sure ain't gonna help.
To those kids, you might as well marry your dog, or your mother, or your brother, or for that matter -- why even bother with marriage -- just shack up & claim the benefits anyway. Gay marriage trivializes the commitment of a man and a woman, from which we were all created.
Making marriage a meaningless institution is what theyre saying behind closed doors, Mark, despite the well intentioned talking points i expect you truly beleive.
Many decent gay people will be in for quite a suprise when they find the marriage rights they fought so hard for have become just as worthless as the one's I'm fighting to protect.
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 04:46 PM
RS: Your quote: "My question is why do you need a bribe (the legal and financial benefits) to live that way? Shouldn't all couples try live that way?"
As a matter of fact, I don't need such a bribe. My relationship will not change.. even if none of the things I seek come to be.
As for the article I quoted from, please take up any inaccuracies with the author. That one detail about where marriage is first mentioned in the Bible is almost totally irrelevant to the larger point that was being made in the article.
Marty: Your interpretation of what gay rights advocates are saying behind closed doors is likely to be anything but objective and full of the same conspiracy theory nonsense that I never pay attention to.. regardless of who spreads it or who it's about.
As a general rule, I'm done with this discussion. I've tried my best not to take personally anything that's been said here to me.. but because this cause is something I believe in beyond any tangible measure, I cannot continue with this discussion and maintain my civility.
TTFN, ta ta for now.
Posted by: Mark at July 24, 2004 05:11 PM
Civility is not required on "my" blog Mark, so feel free to drop by if you'd like to debate my feminist conspiracy theory in detail.
Otherwise, thanks for the chat.
Posted by: Marty at July 24, 2004 05:17 PM
I guess my concern, is if we can re-define marriage to accomdate same-sex couples, it there any compelling reason not to do the same for polygamous or even incestuous groups. With the current state of medical science, there is no real reason to have a child deformed by inbreeding and who am I to say that a group to 5 women and 3 men are less entitled to have their relationships recognized and celebrated than Mark and his partner or my wife and I. If we decide to re-define marriage so that it mean anything anybody wants it to mean, do we really have an institution called marriage anymore?
Posted by: Rob Smith at July 25, 2004 08:30 AM
I think the "gay marriage" debate is really part of larger question, is Western civilization, its culture and traditions, worth defending? If the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor today, how many of our elites would be blaming the US because we embargoed the Japanese in reponse their atrocities in the Sino-Japanese War? How many of our elites condemned the attack on Afghanistan in response to 9/11 (a lot if I remember)? How many of us look at Israel, the only free and democratic nation in the Middle East as the oppresive regime in the region, while giving a pass to Syria, Iran, and the PA (among others)? How many of us are willing to defend the ideals of Western Civilization vs. the religious based facism of the Islamic World? Not many, I fear.
Posted by: Rob Smith at July 25, 2004 08:56 AM
Next verse, same as the first: This is nearly the same argument that was inspired by the lifting of anti-miscegenation laws a generation ago. I imagine that gay marriage will run the same route: It will become increasingly legally recognized and affect no greater numbers of people than the corresponding gay relationships do today. Gay marriage will no more destroy the "ancient," sacred institution of marriage than the mixing of the races did. Today there are people that still resist the image of a biracial couple, but this resistance is certainly in retrograde. Homophobic or homoresistant views will similarly fade away.
Posted by: Kriston at July 25, 2004 10:59 AM
Speaking as one in the insurance biz, the reason married couples get lower insurance rates for certain things are because of the stats: the type of people who get married also tend to take fewer risks, have better health, etc. That's all traditional marriage data. Don't think the actuaries wouldn't adjust rates if same sex marriage became widespread, and the claim rates changed. Insurance rates are based on many factors, and state law determines which factors are allowable.
The likely upshot of gay marriage is that civil marriage itself will lose all those benefits that people slobber over. The whole point of these benefits to begin were to provide stable homes for children, but once it becomes a matter of the government giving out goodies to registered people, people will wonder why some restrictions are ok, and others are not. Why not marry your mother to get the tax benefits? Instead of giving the bennies to more people, the government will likely say "This is too expensive, let's just get rid of the whole thing." At least it will simplify federal tax regulations. It seems half of them involve married couples.
Posted by: meep at July 25, 2004 11:53 AM
Meep: I generally agree with you on the point about destroying the efficacy of benefits by broadening them to the point of meaninglessness. But this part isn't right:
"Instead of giving the bennies to more people, the government will likely say "This is too expensive, let's just get rid of the whole thing." At least it will simplify federal tax regulations. It seems half of them involve married couples."
Very little of the word volume of the tax code or regulations deal with marriage. It's maybe 1%, tops, probably closer to 0.3%. Conservatives often like to make arguments about the size of the tax laws for causes I'm sympathetic to, but they're almost always completely wrong in the details. Don't talk about the size of the tax code or regs unless you're actually familiar with them.
On the substance of this thread, I see two deep premises behind the SSM movement:
1. "It's morally wrong to suppress sexual impulses, and to urge others to do so." This is the tacit premise behind the argument about the role of genetics in homosexuality: You have no right to frustrate my sexual desires.
Lots of people agree with that today; it has all the natural appeal that "bread and circuses" had nineteen centuries ago. But logically it's ridiculous. If gays can claim a right to act on their sexual impulses, why can't pedophiles, bestialists, etc.? Also, why limit the principle to sexual pleasures? Aren't there other taboo pleasures that people may feel genetically drawn to?
2. "We don't need to worry about reproduction any more." It wasn't all that long ago that people had lots of children with the expectation that many of them would die. Today we've conquered most diseases. Famine is a distant memory. War no longer involves battlefield slaughter on a large scale (at least, not for our side). Not so long ago, governments wanted people to have children so that it would have soliders to fight future wars and preserve the country. Today we're so confident in our national strength that we don't worry about things like that.
Like declaring sexual liberty as a moral good, the SSM disregard for reproduction is emotionally appealing but logically incoherent. We may live a long time, but we still die. We may not have a problem right now with absolute numbers of people within our borders, but we still have serious problems with 1) the number of citizens truly interested in the long-term survival of our country and culture, and 2) the number of people raised well enough to contribute to the country economically and otherwise, rather than being a drain on it.
Demographers already know that birth rates are dropping worldwide, and many countries face problems with their absolute number of people. Western Europe's native population stopped replacing itself many years ago, and their extensive social security programs are headed to disaster while fast-breeding Muslim minorities have very different views on how the government should be run. If the citizens of a country refuse to reproduce, does the country deserve to live?
Ultimately, the demand for SSM seems to come from a world view that assumes that we have discovered absolute peace, comfort and security for all time, and the only task left to us is to find the most pleasurable lives possible. This naturally mandates the removal of moral proscriptions on pleasurable behavior, especially pleasures that don't obviously or immediately harm anyone.
Those of us who disagree tend to understand that there are more important things than pleasure, that history does not always move towards peace and prosperity, and that some day the United States of America will no longer be the superpower that it is right now. We can argue based on those premises, but we're unlikely to convert many SSM supporters. No matter what we say, all they seem to hear is that that we want to get in the way of their fun.
Posted by: Ben Bateman at July 26, 2004 01:43 PM
I'm sorry.. I know I said I'm done with this thread.. but this is ridiculous:
"Lots of people agree with that today; it has all the natural appeal that "bread and circuses" had nineteen centuries ago. But logically it's ridiculous. If gays can claim a right to act on their sexual impulses, why can't pedophiles, bestialists, etc.? Also, why limit the principle to sexual pleasures? Aren't there other taboo pleasures that people may feel genetically drawn to?"
Sex with children and sex with animals are entirely different from sex with another consenting adult. Children are harmed psychologically and, in some cases, physically by pedophelia.. and sex with animals, while quite unusual, is not something that marriage could ever entail, as animals aren't citizens with SSN's and income tax forms to file.
As for what you see as the two "deep premises" behind SSM, here's what's wrong with each:
1.) You make the mistake of treating heterosexual sexual desires and homosexual sexual desires as if one is right and the other is wrong... when, in reality, both are neither right nor wrong. They are what they are. Heterosexual sexual desires "feel" normal to heterosexuals.. and homosexual sexual desires "feel" normal to homosexuals. i.e., it is no easier, consciously, for me to have sex with a woman than it is for you to have sex with another man. Having sex with a woman seems just as "icky" to me as having sex with a man seems to you. The difference between you and I (aside from the obvious) is that I don't think it's wrong for you to feel attracted to females. Indeed, procreation requires a man and a woman.. which ties into..
2.) Procreation does not require sex. It requires sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.. but it does not require "sex". But no one would dream of denying sex to heterosexuals or claim it is wrong.. and I'm not here to tell you that it is.
As for population growth, I highly doubt that SSM is going to negatively impact it. Gay people, by and large, aren't going to contribute to the growth of the population regardless of whether SSM becomes a reality or not. SSM is also not going to cause a big conversion of people from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
Indeed, there are more important things than pleasure. My sexuality does not define me any more than your sexuality defines you.
Indeed, the pendulum does swing away from peace and prosperity from time to time.
Is my relationship important to me? Absolutely. Ask any married man or woman if their relationship is important to them and you'll get the same answer.
Put yourself in my shoes (if you're truly objective enough to do it) before you trivialize my concerns as minutia.
Posted by: Mark at July 26, 2004 05:44 PM
Mark, you can continue to view the world through a fishbowl, without regard to future generations, if you want. I suppose when your grandchildren (yeah right) need an army, or taxpayers to pay for your prescription drug benefit, you'll just clone a few million.
Ben's arguments are right on, and they remind me of that stereotype of spoiled heirs of rich patriarchs, aimlessly squandering the wealth of their forefathers with no regard for those who come after, nor any respect for how the wealth was created in the first place.
Posted by: Marty at July 26, 2004 07:49 PM
Mark: “You make the mistake of treating heterosexual sexual desires and homosexual sexual desires as if one is right and the other is wrong when, in reality, both are neither right nor wrong.”
You’re demonstrating my point about SSM supporters taking a pleasure-centered worldview. I’m not saying that the pleasure from procreative sex is in any way superior to the pleasure from gay sex or any other non-procreative sex. I’m saying that the results of procreative sex are more important than the results of non-procreative sex. I don’t view pleasure as being particularly significant to morality. Procreative sex would be vitally important even if it were not pleasant at all. (And come to think of it, for the woman it can be excruciatingly unpleasant, after the fact.)
It isn’t a question of good versus bad. It’s a question of important versus unimportant. Let’s suppose that Mark enjoys playing paintball and Marty enjoys shooting his AK-47. You both enjoy your hobbies very much. The pleasure involved is equal. And yet the two are not equally important.
Marty’s hobby is dangerous, which makes it more important and deserving of our attention. If he’s careless he could kill someone, so we should require him to take classes on safe gun use, shoot at a properly constructed range, etc. There is also a potential upside to Marty’s hobby. If he lives in a country that uses citizen defenders, like Switzerland or Israel, then by training with his weapon he is potentially contributing to the defense of the country. So his hobby is also important because it has the potential to do a lot of good.
You may absolutely love playing paintball, Mark. You may enjoy it much more than Marty enjoys his hobby. But that doesn’t make it important. There isn’t much harm that could result, and there isn’t much chance of a benefit to society, either. It’s just a pleasure. That doesn’t make it good or evil; it’s just unimportant. Some pleasures are more important than others, and a pleasure’s importance has nothing to do with how pleasant it is.
In case my gun analogy is unclear or too abstract, procreative sex is like the AK-47; it’s important for at least two reasons: First, it is dangerous, because an OS couple can irresponsibly create a child and condemn him to a lifetime of needless suffering. Second, it has a significant upside in that it can be used responsibly to create a strong and healthy citizen for the next generation. Procreative sex isn’t inherently better than non-procreative sex any more than a paintball gun is inherently better than an AK-47. Procreative sex and the AK-47 both have enormous potential for both good and evil, which is why we have to pay close attention to how they are used.
Mark: “Children are harmed psychologically and, in some cases, physically by pedophelia.”
Are you sure about that? Have you checked the latest studies? If researchers determine that pedophelia does not harm children in some cases, or even benefits them, are you prepared to support its legalization in those cases? Is the only obstacle to pedophilia what the men in the white lab coats say?
Mark: “Procreation does not require sex. It requires sperm from a man and an egg from a woman.. but it does not require "sex".”
Have you ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? If not, you should give it a try. He’s way ahead of you on this.
Mark: “Indeed, there are more important things than pleasure. My sexuality does not define me any more than your sexuality defines you.”
I don’t know much about you, Mark, but I think that militant gays do define themselves with their sexuality, which is what makes them so pitiable. They refuse to simply enjoy their pleasure in private, as most of the country is willing to let them do. Lots of people enjoy various unimportant and potentially harmful pleasures in private, from alcohol to overeating to smoking to pornography. But the militant gays proudly define themselves by their preferred method of sex, then attack anyone who doesn’t approve of it. That seems like a very small kind of life to live.
Mark: “Put yourself in my shoes (if you're truly objective enough to do it) before you trivialize my concerns as minutia.”
I enjoy lots of things that other people might consider weird. (Spending so much time arguing politics on blogs might qualify by itself.) At times I have overindulged in them to the detriment of other important areas of my life. But it would never occur to me to claim that I have some constitutional right to overindulge in my vices, and I certainly would never try to force the government to declare that my vices are important when they obviously aren’t.
I like to play computer games. I’m pretty good at historically accurate games of military strategy. But I’m not going to fuss and fume when the Army refuses to make me a general. I’m pretty good at tactical shooting games, too. But I’m not going to complain if I can’t join Delta Force. And sometimes I like flight simulations. But I won’t be hurt if the Air Force refuses to put me into the cockpit of a real plane.
I can accept that my pleasures are unimportant in a larger sense, no matter how pleasant they are for me and no matter how central a place I give them in my life. Militant gays can’t seem to accept that.
Posted by: Ben Bateman at July 26, 2004 11:07 PM
Oh, but you are perfectly free to overindulge in your vices.. as am I. Sex isn't one of my vices, though.
The whole problem is that gay people MUST enjoy "their pleasure", as you put it, in private in many parts of the country because of the insecurities and bias that many people have against them showing it in public. It is homophobia.. because their actions toward homosexuals who show their affection in public (like a gay couple holding hands as they walk down the street) are motivated by fear. It's something different to them, and so they're afraid.
I am not against procreation. I think every heterosexual couple should have many children... not so many that they have to go on welfare, but at least 2.. maybe 3. I know of very few people who are against heterosexuals having more children.
So I ask you again... what does allowing SSM have to do with negative population growth?
So, since homosexual sex isn't "important", homosexual relationships aren't important either?
Wow.. talk about mixed signals. Everyone (including myself) wants gay people to behave in more socially responsible ways.. but hardly anyone recognizes that promoting stable and committed homosexual relationships through SSM is very socially responsible... encouraging less promiscuity, etc.
Posted by: Mark at July 27, 2004 04:01 AM
Sex sells... polygamy.
http://www.nyblade.com/2004/7-23/arts/main/spike.cfm
Posted by: Marty at July 27, 2004 07:27 AM
Indeed it does sell. It's been selling well in the heterosexual section of the population for ages.
.. should we expect it to sell any differently in the homosexual section of the population?
Posted by: Mark at July 27, 2004 08:06 AM
I just think it will be interesting to see, if in fact polygamy becomes the next front in the marriage war, whether or not it's the usual suspects of gay liberation that are the driving force behind it.
Posted by: Marty at July 27, 2004 10:29 AM
I backed off this post for a while to just observe what others were posting. What I have observed is that the majority of posters seem to be against the idea of legalizing "gay marriage".
There is an enormous push in this country by a small group of individuals using TV and print media to convince the population that there is really a majority who want gay marriage.
Guess what? There's not. I'm not fooled for a minute.
I'm not always right, but if this thing went for a national vote today, I'm pretty sure it would be rejected by a landslide. The backbone of this country is working moms and dads who actually care about there kids, have values, and want to ensure a good future for their children.
Mark seems to keep trying to draw out those against gay marriage into providing reasons why it would be so bad. That's as ridiculous as deciding its acceptable to jump off of the Empire State building because you can't think of a reason not to.
We all know what's right and wrong. Some of us just want what we want so bad that we'll do anything in our power to rationalize it, and crush the opposition by encouraging others to ridicule those who would excercise good judgement and morals.
And what's up with the word Homophobe? How is it that it's a bad thing to be one of those? The gay agenda threatens everything that is good and pure in the future for my children. Fear of anything dangerous and damaging to me and my family is a normal reaction. 'Darn right I fear that lifestyle- its tearing apart the last threads of morality left on this planet.
It use to be that everyone was smart enough to understand that guys and gals were made differently, and as such were to be suitable, natural partners for one another.
Now, some of the population wants to turn that upside down, and they actually belive they're the sane ones!
Mark, no offense, but I pity you, man. I really do. The same way I would hope someone would feel for me if I had my head shoved that far up my own butt. You are really lost, brother.
At the same time, I'm pissed off. Because you, and everyone who thinks like you, are a clear and present danger to my kids, and anyone else whose responsibility I'm charged with.
This debate aint going away. As matter of fact, I predict that whatever way the government rules on this (And they will. They think everything needs their intelligent attention) will start a civil uprising the likes of which this country has never seen.
Sad.
Posted by: Jim Price at July 28, 2004 01:19 PM
JP: Your quote: "but I pity you, man. I really do."
The feeling is mutual.
Homophobes are just as much a detriment to society as anything else.
You said it yourself... a majority of this country does not want gay marriage. How interesting it is, then, that you're so worried about this minority... not just when they push for SSM... but because of who they are.
I think you and others like you are just upset that you can't shove homosexuals under the rug anymore. Some of you would like us to all die off from AIDS or in Matthew Shepard-style beatings.
Leave a comment