Open letter to Bush on Church and State

[ofiba]

Then why are you speaking out about your beliefs on a public message board? 

 

Also, ofiba, it's very anal(pun intended) of you to pick apart every last bit of the argument against homosexuality.  Being gay is a sin.  In the fundamental Christian eyes, all sins are equal.  Why aren't you crusading against liars, or going for a Constitutional ban on impure thoughts?  What makes homosexuality such a hot button issue?

115297[/snapback]

 

As soon as the law changes to make lying under oath ok, I will challenge that. Regarding the "impure thoughts", this argument would hold water if I was lobbying to get all homosexual acts to be made illegal. I am not. I simply do not want them to be allowed to get married. People are free to what they want to do, but allowing them to become married would give them the idea that homosexuality is morally right.

[ofiba]

But there is no great call for incest or poligamy legislation and there never will be. Don't even go there because you'll embarrass yourself.

115301[/snapback]

 

Once again, people's values change as the times change. Just watch TV. The majority of things on TV today would definately not be allowed on in say the 50's. As the country is more and more exposed to something (Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), the more accepting they are of the behavior. I'm not saying it will or will not happen, but to say the country will never become more accepting of incestual behavior is ignoring the trends of history.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Once again, people's values change as the times change.  Just watch TV.  The majority of things on TV today would definately not be allowed on in say the 50's.  As the country is more and more exposed to something (Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), the more accepting they are of the behavior.  I'm not saying it will or will not happen, but to say the country will never become more accepting of incestual behavior is ignoring the trends of history.

115324[/snapback]

Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution. They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends. It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people. To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question.

 

As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another.

 

Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous. Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it. On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years. These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved. That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous. In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law. Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise.

 

Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions. Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship. A true separation of church and state.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution.  They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends.  It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people.  To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question.

 

As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another.

 

Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous.  Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it.  On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years.    These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved.  That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous.  In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law.  Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise.

 

Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions.  Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship.  A true separation of church and state.

115418[/snapback]

Bravo on idea of separation of church and state with regards to homosexuality

[ofiba]

Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution.  They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends.  It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people.  To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question.

 

As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another.

 

Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous.  Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it.  On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years.    These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved.  That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous.  In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law.  Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise.

 

Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions.  Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship.  A true separation of church and state.

115418[/snapback]

 

What about if the incestual couple decided not to have kids. Is the only thing wrong with incest the problem of genetic difficulties? If so, an adult incestual couple that did not have kids should be allowed to get married too? I see homosexuality as no different morally than incest. Both can not give birth to healthy children (incest, not healthy, homosexual, not at all). In Kentucky, I believe you are allowed to marry your first cousin. That right there should prove that different cultures have different opinions on the subject. Since there is no clear cut answer, what leads you to believe that people's opinions on incest won't change in the future?

[Campy]

Since there is no clear cut answer, what leads you to believe that people's opinions on incest won't change in the future?

115492[/snapback]

People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual. That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy.

 

If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage. But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker...

[Alaska Darin]

People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual.  That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy.

 

If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage.  But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker...

115519[/snapback]

Plus it helps if your sister is hot.

[ofiba]

People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual.  That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy.

 

If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage.  But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker...

115519[/snapback]

 

It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic. Should alchoholism be encouraged??

Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders. Should murders be allowed as well?

[Johnny Coli]

It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic.  Should alchoholism be encouraged??

Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders.  Should murders be allowed as well?

115539[/snapback]

Why is it that when this debate comes up the people who are opposed to gay "marriage" always bring up poligamy and incest? You never answer the question as to how it even affects your life. How the hell will allowing two gay men or women to call their union a "marriage" impact your life at all? There is no slippery slope. We've had gay marriage here in Mass for over 6 months and it's just not that big of a deal. No swarms of locusts, no rivers of blood. No big deal. You don't like it, that's fine. They're not concerned with your opinion BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. Gay marriage will not impact you or anyone else you know.

[ofiba]

Why is it that when this debate comes up the people who are opposed to gay "marriage" always bring up poligamy and incest?  You never answer the question as to how it even affects your life.  How the hell will allowing two gay men or women to call their union a "marriage" impact your life at all?  There is no slippery slope.  We've had gay marriage here in Mass for over 6 months and it's just not that big of a deal.  No swarms of locusts, no rivers of blood.  No big deal.  You don't like it, that's fine.  They're not concerned with your opinion BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER.  Gay marriage will not impact you or anyone else you know.

115546[/snapback]

 

It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you?? If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right?

[Johnny Coli]

It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred.  If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you??  If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right?

115550[/snapback]

First of all, almost every case of incest is rape, not consensual, so to put forth some 1 in a million scenario is deviating from the debate, but the Right is very good at getting off issue in these debates. Would I find a brother and a sister getting married offensive, yes I would, as would most people you'd ask. But as for relevance of incest for the topic of gay marriage, it has absolutely no bearing other than to cloud the issue.

[Kelly the Dog]

It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred.  If you are going to use that argument though, how would an incestual couple who got married and didn't have kids affect you??  If it doesn't then supposedly you would be fine with it right?

115550[/snapback]

Keeping marriage sacred, that's a good one. How about if we make adultery illegal and lock up everyone that has an affair. I mean, really, you want to keep marriage sacred don't you? How about banning divorce? That would keep marriage sacred. This is really going to hurt the sacred institution of marriage? Give me a break.

[jjamie12]

It is not about directly affecting me, it is about the principle of the thing and keeping marriage sacred. 

115550[/snapback]

 

Roughly 50% of new marriages end in divorce. People are able to get married 3,4,5, 10 times in their life. People can (and do) get married, and have it anulled within 48 hours.

 

Marriage is sacred? Tell that to the guys who are cheating on their wives. Tell that to the wives cheating on their husbands. Tell that to the husbands cheating on their wives with the pool boy!!! What, exactly, is sacred about marriage? That the only qualifying factor is that it includes a man and a woman? who aren't related? who aren't married to someone else? I think you're really missing the boat on the people to whom you should be targeting with your 'keep marriage sacred' point of view. Marriage is only sacred when the two individuals who are involved MAKE it sacred.

 

100 years from now, our great grand-children are going to look back on this and think we were idiots because we refuse to let two guys get insurance together, all in the name of protecting the sacred ability of Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez to marry whomever they want, as many times as they want.

[ofiba]

Would I find a brother and a sister getting married offensive, yes I would, as would most people you'd ask. 

115558[/snapback]

 

Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals?

 

You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well. Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us? We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right?

 

Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is. You have yet to do it. All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest." More people are right handed than left handed. A lot of people cheat on their spouses. You're gonna need to come up with a better argument...

 

For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

People are gentically predisposed to being homosexual.  That is not the case with incest, it's deviancy.

 

If, in some mixed-up Bizarro world of the future, incest is no longer considered deviancy, it sure won't have a thing to do with gay marriage.  But by that time, you and I will have long since met our Maker...

115519[/snapback]

Laurie Lisowski

[VabeachBledsoefan]

Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals?

 

You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well.  Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us?  We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right?

 

Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is.  You have yet to do it.  All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest."  More people are right handed than left handed.  A lot of people cheat on their spouses.  You're gonna need to come up with a better argument...

 

For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical.

115704[/snapback]

Simple in this society...homosexuality is accepted..sorry its true deal with it....even most homosexuals are against incest as is most of society

[Kelly the Dog]

Since it would have no affect on you for them to get married, why should we be able to stop them for being married, but let homosexuals?

 

You guys are missing my point, every reason you guys use to say homosexuals should be allowed to get married can be said about incestual couple as well.  Should we allow any single couple in the world to wed, regardless of any circumstances as long as it doesn't directly affect us?  We might as well since marriage is already tainted, we might as well give up and flush it down the drain right?

 

Someone please lay out an argument for me that shows how wrong incest is and how right homosexuality is.  You have yet to do it.  All I have gotten so far is "More people are gay than incest."  More people are right handed than left handed.  A lot of people cheat on their spouses.  You're gonna need to come up with a better argument...

 

For someone to say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because it doesn't directly affect anyone, and then say that a brother and sister getting married would be offensive is completely hypocritical.

115704[/snapback]

 

The difference has been given to you a half dozen times, directly and indirectly, and you just ignore it, so I will give it to you again: the difference between homosexuals getting married and incestuals (if that's a word) getting married is that about half of the country thinks that one (homosexuality) is okay, and

NO ONE THINKS INCEST IS OKAY

 

A large portion of the people who actually are involved in incest and poligamy don't even like it or accept it, for crissakes. Tell me one law (excluding unenforced antiquated blue laws) that NO ONE is in favor of. There aren't any, you know why? Because NO ONE is in favor of them. Public opinion means something. If all of America thinks something is good, it will be okay and accepted. If half of America thinks something is good and the other half doesn't, it will be debated. One side or the other may win, and the law of the land may reflect it. But if NO ONE wants something, it is NOT ACCEPTED. Hence, incest is not accepted. Poligamy is not accepted. They will never be accepted.

[ofiba]

The difference has been given to you a half dozen times, directly and indirectly, and you just ignore it, so I will give it to you again: the difference between homosexuals getting married and incestuals (if that's a word) getting married is that about half of the country thinks that one (homosexuality) is okay, and

NO ONE THINKS INCEST IS OKAY

 

A large portion of the people who actually are involved in incest and poligamy don't even like it or accept it, for crissakes. Tell me one law (excluding unenforced antiquated blue laws) that NO ONE is in favor of. There aren't any, you know why? Because NO ONE is in favor of them. Public opinion means something. If all of America thinks something is good, it will be okay and accepted. If half of America thinks something is good and the other half doesn't, it will be debated. One side or the other may win, and the law of the land may reflect it. But if NO ONE wants something, it is NOT ACCEPTED. Hence, incest is not accepted. Poligamy is not accepted. They will never be accepted.

115727[/snapback]

 

 

This is becoming a circular debate since I keep asking the same question, and I keep getting the same answer.

 

The problem with the answer is that many years ago, homosexuality was not accepted either. I am not arguing that incest is now. I am simply saying that there is no way you could say that down the road, incest will never be accepted as homosexuality is today because there is no real moral difference between the two.

 

I understand your point, and if I had nothing against the act of homosexuality, I too would see no problem with them getting married.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is becoming a circular debate since I keep asking the same question, and I keep getting the same answer.

 

The problem with the answer is that many years ago, homosexuality was not accepted either.  I am not arguing that incest is now.  I am simply saying that there is no way you could say that down the road, incest will never be accepted as homosexuality is today because there is no real moral difference between the two.

 

I understand your point, and if I had nothing against the act of homosexuality, I too would see no problem with them getting married.

115770[/snapback]

Homosexuality has been prevalent and accepted in cultures since the beginning of man. Hell, threesomes with two women being together sexually is one of if not the biggest fantasy men have all over the world. Homosexuality is accepted by a huge portion of the population. People don't put Britney Spears kissing her brother in their avatar but they seem to love her kissing Madonna. Or does two women not count, just two men? No one anywhere (in civilized countries, I am sure there may be tribes somewhere who accept it) accepts incest.

[RuntheDamnBall]

It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic.  Should alchoholism be encouraged??

Some people even think that people are genetically predisposed to be violent and more likely to commit murders.  Should murders be allowed as well?

115539[/snapback]

You are on shaky ground here if only because one could come right back at you and say, if someone is born with sickle-cell anemia, is that their fault? Of course not. Your examples are of people with genetic predispositions to be destructive to themselves and to others. A person predisposed to prefer a homosexual relationship is doing no such thing -- it is only a condition, and not one that has proven to be harmful to others.

 

On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. If we were open and honest about this in society, homosexuals would feel more comfortable about who they are, and we might not see such a high suicide rate among young gay people. It's time we stopped treating them like second-class citizens.

[ofiba]

On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are.  I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children.

116130[/snapback]

 

I understand your point of it being a condition that doesn't harm anyone, but blaiming the molestation of children on society and not those priests?? Come on, thats a little bit extreme.

[MichFan]

On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. If we were open and honest about this in society, homosexuals would feel more comfortable about who they are, and we might not see such a high suicide rate among young gay people. It's time we stopped treating them like second-class citizens.

Yet another reason from libs to blame America.

 

I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage). Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists." Now that would be truly reversing the stigma.

[Campy]

It is not proven that that is the case, but if it is, people are also genetically predisposed to have a greater chance of being an alchoholic.  Should alchoholism be encouraged??

115539[/snapback]

Straw man.

 

Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not.

[MichFan]

Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not.

I'd argue both are diseases. I don't think a guy who imbibes excessively in alcoholic beverages is any more diseased than a guy who uses an enema and then allows other men to anally penetrate him.

[Campy]

I'd argue both are diseases. 

116158[/snapback]

That doesn't surprise me.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yet another reason from libs to blame America. 

 

I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage).  Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists."  Now that would be truly reversing the stigma.

116154[/snapback]

Of course, since sodomy is your language, not theirs. How liberating. How much of a problem do you have with lesbians? Or lesbian twins? Coors light, owned by almost-Senator-of-virtue Pete Coors, seems to like it. No sodomy there.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I understand your point of it being a condition that doesn't harm anyone, but blaiming the molestation of children on society and not those priests?? Come on, thats a little bit extreme.

116145[/snapback]

Go back and read the quote:

I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children.

No excuse. I am saying the grounds for the situation would not be as likely to exist if sexually confused people did not feel that celibacy and the clergy was the only way they could live a good life. The grounds are societal AND personal to the people who committed these awful acts.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I'd argue both are diseases.  I don't think a guy who imbibes excessively in alcoholic beverages is any more diseased than a guy who uses an enema and then allows other men to anally penetrate him.

116158[/snapback]

You're pretty obsessed with the act for someone who finds it so deplorable.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

Yet another reason from libs to blame America. 

 

I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage).  Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists."  Now that would be truly reversing the stigma.

116154[/snapback]

I'm sorry but you would not have enough jail space in America for all those who committ sodomy...be real

[MichFan]

That doesn't surprise me.

You're pretty obsessed with the act for someone who finds it so deplorable.

I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse. Next thing you know they'll be asking thier congressperson to include enemas in the government handout package for poor homosexual males. Poor men should be able to have clean homosexual relations as well, right?

[VabeachBledsoefan]

I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse.  Next thing you know they'll be asking thier congressperson to include enemas in the government handout package for poor homosexual males.  Poor men should be able to have clean homosexual relations as well, right?

116457[/snapback]

HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!! Don't be scared...let it in..don't fight it

[MichFan]

HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!! Don't be scared...let it in..don't fight it

So now I have a fear of homosexuals? Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition.

 

Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do? I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this? I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

So now I have a fear of homosexuals?  Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition.

 

Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do?  I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this?  I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong.

117053[/snapback]

I don't enjoy having my anus penetrated (well maybe Pam Anderson) but for any man that does...carry on smartly....

[Gavin in Va Beach]

So now I have a fear of homosexuals?  Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition.

 

Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do?  I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this?  I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong.

117053[/snapback]

 

Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'. They also believe that if you have family or friends that play for the other team that you should automatically change your views about homosexuality and march in step with them. To date none of them can explain if the 'family and friends' argument means you should accept other types of behavior, but oh well.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'.

117669[/snapback]

That's exactly it Thanks for pinpointing exactly what is going on in my mind.

 

I'm feeling real great about myself, real proud. Thanks for pointing out how !@#$ing amazing I feel because I am championing this unworthy cause.

 

It would just be the worst thing ever to treat people like people, wouldn't it?

[MichFan]

Don't you know? Gay is the new black. Most of the libs backing 'gay rights' are merely people jealous that they weren't born in time to march with MLK, so they're saddling their pony to gays so they can feel good about themselves in 'fighting for the oppressed'. They also believe that if you have family or friends that play for the other team that you should automatically change your views about homosexuality and march in step with them. To date none of them can explain if the 'family and friends' argument means you should accept other types of behavior, but oh well.

It's really quite humorous, actually. Libs believe homosexuals should not only have all rights granted to heterosexual couples on the basis of consenting adults but also should be broadly socially embraced to the point of teaching our Kindergarteners about them. Yet if a third partner were to want to enter a marriage with two other consenting adults, they would still be discriminated against. Or if two cousins were consenting adults they would still be discriminated against. The basis for this? Not good for the family to have polygamist parents or cousins hitting on each other at family reunions? If health of the traditional family structure were an issue with libs we wouldn't even be talking about gay marriage. Potential for birth defects among cousins? Libs already have the solution for this through genetic testing and abortion.

 

No lib has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation as to why homosexual marriage should be legal while polygamy and marriage between cousins should not. Instead of facing these issues head on, libs claim they are red herrings and don't even delve into them. I guess the argument would be gushing with hypocracy were they ever to try.

[MichFan]

It would just be the worst thing ever to treat people like people, wouldn't it?

We are not talking about treating homosexuals like people (which I do, BTW). We are talking about recognizing their relationships as institutional marriage. 70% of the American voters see a distinction there.

[RuntheDamnBall]

We are not talking about treating homosexuals like people (which I do, BTW).  We are talking about recognizing their relationships as institutional marriage.

117785[/snapback]

I know plenty of people who would argue with you that as marriage is a right that those who are not gay enjoy, it does place gay relationships on a lower-tier status.

 

Regardless, a majority in our country feel that committed same-sex relationships should be recognized by either civil unions or marriage.

 

I am saying marriage should be left up to the church and all couples should have access to a civil union. Referring back to the original topic of this thread, church vs. state -- if the objection to same-sex marriage is grounded in one's church, it should remain in that church. Churches can decide for themselves what will be recognized as a marriage and gays can find churches that will accept their unions as marriage, such as Unitarian congregations.

 

Plenty of people are married with no justification of marriage as sacred in a religious sense, in secular ceremonies. What makes the union sacred is the commitment the two people have made to one another. And what is sacred has nothing to do with government these days, if it ever did.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

No lib has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation as to why homosexual marriage should be legal while polygamy and marriage between cousins should not.  Instead of facing these issues head on, libs claim they are red herrings and don't even delve into them.  I guess the argument would be gushing with hypocracy were they ever to try.

117768[/snapback]

 

Hell, I would say there is a MUCH stronger argument to recognize polygamy then there is to recognize 'homosexual marriage'. My wife and I are raising our 3-month old son right now and it keeps us perpetually exhausted. Just imagine if we could add another wife or husband to the mix. Then you could have 1 person stay home as exclusive caregiver while the other two work their normal jobs. 3 can live as cheaply as 2 right? And you save all that money you otherwise would have spent on childcare. It's win-win, and it passes KtFBD's 'cultures have accepted it since time began' argument.

 

[OnTheRocks]

Hell, I would say there is a MUCH stronger argument to recognize polygamy then there is to recognize 'homosexual marriage'. My wife and I are raising our 3-month old son right now and it keeps us perpetually exhausted. Just imagine if we could add another wife or husband to the mix. Then you could have 1 person stay home as exclusive caregiver while the other two work their normal jobs. 3 can live as cheaply as 2 right? And you save all that money you otherwise would have spent on childcare. It's win-win, and it passes KtFBD's 'cultures have accepted it since time began' argument.

 

117859[/snapback]

 

 

 

Gavin in 2008!