Gay Marriage is just fine, Prove me wrong
A few years ago I wrote a rather ranty article about why, IMHO, gay marriage should be legalized.
One thing I never have gotten a satisfactory answer to is the question of why
this is such an issue for Republicans specifically, but many people of all
political stripes? To me, this is no different than racial or gender equality.
To me, it's not about "special rights", it's about equal rights for all Americans
under the law.
I'm pretty disinterested in biblical arguments, equally strong biblical arguments can
be made for:
- The ownership of another human being
- Subjugation of women and their treatment as property
- The public murder of adulterers
- The public murder of those who eat lobster, shrimp or scallops
Etc. etc. Leviticus...Leviticus... Leviticus is a Troll/Flamewar-inciter's best friend.
We'll never agree on the biblical arguments. What I'd like to know is: "How
would two men or women being married affect your life, day to day"?
I don't believe in civil union laws because they don't provide universal
survivorship rights. Besides, federalized Civil Unions will create the need
for Bigger Government. You'll have to have a bunch of people figuring who is
married, who is Civil Union'ed, etc, it would be more red-tape, we need less of
One thing I almost never saw in the debate over Massachusetts' marriage law
reform was the fact of the intent behind the infamous "1918 law". The "1918
Law" was passed when Massachusetts permitted interracial marriage, but many
southern states didn't. Mass didn't have the infrastructure to deal with all
these out of state couples flooding in to get married, so they wrote a law
stating "If it's not legal in your state, you can't get married here".
Think about how really puts things in perspective. Hopefully 90 years from now
we won't care if two women marry just as (most people) don't care if a black man marries a white woman today.
- Log in to post comments
- 101198 reads
"I don't care how people come to be gay."
And I'll guess you can't think of ways, either.
You paint the whole group as a bunch of meth-addled child rapists.
Not only meth, and nearly all homosexuals were molested as children.
Need a link on that?
The only reason I did post was because you perceived that I was "running away" and somehow losing some imaginary argument.
"Just prove me wrong" isn't asking to be proven wrong?
There's not enough rational opposing media coverage (Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly and especially Beck, are not 'rational').
You can't imagine why there's not enough opposing media coverage? You haven't seen certain college majors commandeer entire dormitories and mens rooms for themselves?
("Breeders" NOT welcome).
O'Reilly is losing the ratings war. Rush is #1, Hannity #2, Beck is #3.
"Especially Beck" means you can't see his shows becoming even more successful? He is bumping "prime time" TV shows in popularity, and his TV show is at 5 PM!
Feel free to start new threads, etc.
I've just returned from reviewing 8 pages of young mothers agreeing with the premise that "it's OK for known homosexuals to babysit their children". They're even enthusiastic about the promise of it.
Only two moms were in opposition and it was conditional. (We'd first check references, sexual predator lists, etc).
I'm sooooo tempted to get on that forum and ask one question. "Do you know who Jesse Dirkhising was?"
I notice you're referring again to the Wealthiest Class
The Globe is bragging about it today.
One homosexual wedding can bring $20,000 to Massachusetts.
Of course, in a state with a $4 billion deficit, and with the population leaving in droves, there will need to be a lot of homosexual marriages to make that deficit up.
You'll notice I left "curing pedophiles", "curing pederasts", "curing child pornographers", "curing homosexuals" and all other religious objections out of the discussion. However, I think it's wrong to ask for studies and then reject them because the outlets may appear to be religion based!
Funding doesn't seem to be a problem with a site I discovered that "scientifically debunks" arguments against pederasty, pedophilia, child pornography and Gay Marriage. I wouldn't ever want to be seen being associated with their arguments.
(A word to the wise, folks.)
The Gay Marriage crowd is well funded and supported. Groups who have the money and ability to produce opposing studies should be expected to be institutions such as those affiliated with Islamic, Catholic, Christian, and Jewish groups.
There is no other media that can command the airwaves like the college based RTV media.
Now, having been courteously allowed the last word, I'll post a new thread as you suggested.
Yours may be the only other "word" on it, but maybe we'll see more "Reality", and less "Dogma".
None is So Blind...
"...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, as I've said, I just want to understand the opposition.
"There's not enough rational opposing media coverage (Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly and especially Beck, are not 'rational')..."
You'll be listening when they discuss this case?
"...This case also has the potential to highlight a growing number of similar cases over the past few years in which gay adoptive parents have been found to be molesting their adoptive children. One of the most shocking cases comes from the UK where Ian Wathey, 41, was jailed for five years
and his partner, Craig Faunch, 32, for six years after being found guilty of several counts of involving the abuse of four boys aged between eight and 14. This was the first gay male couple in the UK to be approved for foster care.
"Social workers said that they were afraid of being labeled
homophobes and ignored some signs that would've otherwise indicated abuse. This pattern of abuse is not just limited to adoptive and foster parents.
"Just this last month a gay rights campaigner and executive adviser on child sex issues, James Rennie,was found to be leading a double life as leader of pedophile ring and carried out an attack on a three-month-old baby boy
while baby sitting him for friends."
Three Days of Silence—What Gives?
I cite just ONE case from ABC News—and garner three days of silence on the subject?
Re: Three Days of Silence—What Gives?
I've told you, I work, a lot. In fact, I just took a second job for the hours I'm awake at night. I figure if I'm going to be up until 3am anyway I might as well be getting paid for it instead of barking at other blockheads on the Internet :-)
You're not going to change my opinions on this matter, just as I won't change yours. To recap:
You discount what causes someone to be a rapist. If someone is told that their feelings are evil and wrong and suppresses them until they feel powerless and evil, how do you think they're going to act out?
Rape is not a crime of sexual attraction, rape is a crime of power over someone else. Do I think child-rapists are capable of rehabilitation? By and large no, they're broken fucked individuals.
Are most homosexuals child rapists? No.
Again, the example of Ed Gein works here, he was browbeaten and told that his heterosexual feelings were from Satan and sick and wrong and that all women were whores. So what did he do? He took power the only way he could, by having sex with dead women and making furniture out of them.
YOU have still never addressed my question, which has stood and been re-posed 1/2 dozen times:
"You only seem to have this obsession with gay men, what about lesbian women, you don't address that at all".
And you still haven't as far as I'm aware.
Never Addressed MY Question...
what about lesbian women, you don't address that at all".
And you still haven't as far as I'm aware.
"Men are animals" by nature. Women are nurturers, and incredibly naive.
I stated earlier that I can't speak for women, and have located no reports of Lesbian assaults on women or girls—and certainly none involving a fatality after stuffing a gag in a girl's mouth.
(Except for one babysitting account caught by a parental video recording device focusing on their young girl...which was broadcast on ABC-TV years ago...Other accounts seem to go "unreported").
Nothing, anyway, like young Jess Dirkhising's death by gagging and "positional asphyxiation".
There's your answer.
If women are nicer, and not abusing as many kids, then we should have no problem with women marrying women? Your argument against M/M marriage seems to have centered around "They're gonna start a drug-fueled rape-gang", so if women are unlikely to do that, why should we discriminate against their love?
And It Should Be Nurturers Who Answer That One...
Aside from that one case on regular TV, no case such as Matthew Shepard's has come forth: If it had, I'd expect you—as a self-proclaimed "neutral party"—had already exposed it.
"...It's sensational, it draws eyeballs. No matter which side of Matthew Shepard you're on, it becomes a rallying point..."
"Matthew Shepard's case is often singled out as the reason we need hate crime legislation. The question is: What more would those who propose hate crime legislation like to be done to the perpetrators? They are serving consecutive life sentences.
"I believe they should be executed for their crime, but it seems that most liberals oppose the death penalty. So what would be different in his case if this legislation were enacted?"
This is England's Version:
Paragraph (middle of page) begins with "Gay":
I read of the same "drug-fueled rape-gang" just last year in NYC.
Note the need for smokers to receive "free" Viagra—courtesy of OPM and Socialized Medicine.
No thanks—YOU pay for it.