Gay Marriage

Stomping queers for Jesus. What a concept! What's wrong with that? Well, everything. I'm not out to stomp queers. I'm out to see that they get their civil rights under the law, and without the law sanctioning their "marriage." But I suppose you'll call that queer stomping anyway.”HM

FO, may I direct you to bluescat's post in Message 134. He says it pretty well:

quote:

---

I agree, why would anyone want to be a homosexual and be denied rights and be attacked by right-winged bigots and even be killed, in the name of God, by even more right-winged fanatics.

---

Wouldn't you think a cure might be welcomed relief for them?”HM

I personally think the law should sanction their 'marriage'. I don't see what the big whoop de do is. I mean, the various churches don't have to recognize it from a religious standpoint anyway, and the 'marriage' gives them certain legal protections for their relationships that the rest of us take for granted.

So... they should 'convert' to heterosexuality to get away from fucking morons like yourself?How about, instead, you pull your head out of your fucking ass and start thinking?

As far as I know, "mixed-faith marriages" can conjoin members of opposite sexes and produce babies. And, as far as I know, that is the expressed purpose of marriage: to conjoin members of opposite sexes and produce babies if they want to. Furthermore, as far as I know, marriage was never meant to be sanctioned by the state unless it was between a man and a woman.I think two humans with the same kind of sexual equipment ought to be united under the law if they choose to. Give 'em civil unions and send them their happy way. Then, if they want to go get "married," let them go to a church that will do the queer thing for them. Queerer things have been done before in churches. The Catholic Church marries women to a dead person all the time”the Holy Ghost of Jesus Christ”and then His brides go straight into a nunnery for life. I don't care if the Catholic church marries living people to dead ones, and I don't care if it marries queer ones to each other either. The only thing I care about that the LAW stays out of such exotic joineries. If the LAW sanctioned "living-dead marriages," just as it is supposed to sanction "same-sex marriages," then I'd like to marry my long-departed Grandfather Wilber who died without leaving me any access to his Social Security benefits.”HM

This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead.We should be a little more careful than that.

quote:

---

This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead.

---

In what way? Some examples would be nice. Remember in both hetero and homosexual marriage we are still talking about two legal, consenting adults who are able to contract.

Then I suppose you would go along then with what I said in Message 140 about "living-dead marriages"*?”HM*Maybe a better term would be "pre-and-post-mortem marriages."

I read that...and I'm still confused as to why you feel homosexuals need to change. I can only assume by your indirect use of bluescat's rather witty response as something serious, that you would have once felt the same about African Americans in this Country. Did they not suffer the same sorts of things not too long ago (and some might argue still do)?So again I ask, why should a homosexual want to change anymore than a black person should want to change? But what needs to be cured? There's nothing actually wrong with them. They're not ill. They're not diseased. They have no problem that needs a cure.Would not a more simple answer be to just stop denying them their rights and instead grant them the same protections under the law the heterosexuals receive? I know that it seems a rather drastic step to...you know...follow the Constitution and all. But that certainly seems like a more appropriate response to the situation than to genetically alter someone just because you feel icky when they kiss another guy.

If Chuck and Larry get their stinkin' fingers into Social Security they will put an end to it sooner than its death sentence already prescribes.”HM

How can something inanimate give any consent?

You have got to be kidding? You want to deny a group of people their Constitutional rights simply because some of them "might" exploit a given situation. Nice. Yeah...cuz only heterosexuals should be allowed to exploit "The Man", man. What a crock. You should go see someone about your paranoia.

There wouldnt really be any more loopholes than there is right now.
What terrible thing do you think is going to happen?Besides, thats an awful reason for denying people their happiness.

Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery? I'm all for that. That's why I support civil unions for gays. (But watch out for your Social Security account that promises more than it will ever deliver.)”HM

quote:

---

This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead.

---

Ah, up pops ye old "slippery slope" argument. It is a logical fallacy by the way. Am I going to marry a dead woman because the law says I can marry a woman? Makes about as much sense as this question. We can and do "draw lines" when necessary. Also, fear of unintended consequences is not a valid reason for denying human rights. Just what is it that is soooo scary about same sex couples anyway? Afraid happily married heteros are going to ditch their spouses and marry someone of the same gender - just because they can? That's what some of the "marriage defenders" seem to imply. How exactly is same sex marriage a threat to traditional marriage? I would like someone to explain that to me. Gay and lesbian couples are going to be together. Doesn't society have an interest in them forming long term stable relationships? Isn't that better for society than short term relationships?