Gay Marriage split

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't really know, but #2 would seem to get in the way, as well as perhaps #3. I don't believe this has been recognized in CA as a "suspect classification."

But are the disabled a type of "protected class?" If I understand correctly, sexual orientation and relition are "suspect classifications" and suspect classifications are a type of "protected class"

I don't think the disabled are a protected class, but race, gender, religion, and now, sexual orientation, certainly are.

[_antishock8]

I find it amusing that Mormons want the right to be bigots against those whom they claim won't allow them to be bigoted, thus they themselves are as bigoted as the Mormons because the Mormons aren't allowed to be bigots.

[_Droopy]

but also because heterosexual marriage tends to have a taming effect on men

George Gilder has made some very compelling arguments along these lines, particularly in Wealth and Poverty, and Sexual Suicide.

[_Droopy]

Nehor

Marriage is a legal status that assists with the raising of children and the protection of non-working spouse who is caring for children. Homosexual relationships don't need these protections and I consider it fiscally irresponsible to allow them tax breaks meant to help people through situations they won't go through. Yes, some married heterosexual couples can't have children or don't have children. They're in the minority though and there's no real way to discriminate between the two. Marriage has a lot to do with children. There's a reason that after a girl finds out she's pregnant marriage often follows.

Non Sequitur.. Gay couples can have children either though adoption, surrogacy or previous marriages. Regardless, they should they should be afforded the same rights as any one else. It’s bigotry no matter how you slice it.

They can but how many do? A small minority. I wouldn't give welfare benefits to 100 people just because one might actually qualify it. I see this in similar terms.

Quite apropos. As I've pointed out time and again, the pre-AIDS gay subculture was interested not one little bit in traditional marriage as understood in the "straight" world. Their culture, according to numbers of their own theorists and activists, was indeed seen as the ultimate liberation from the bondage of normative Judeo-Christian sexual values. Only in the nineties did "Gay marriage" reach the front burners as a hot button cultural issue, and the issue there, if one will simply pursue the many books and magazine articles that have been written in support of that issue, by both homosexual and heterosexual partisans, is the radical and thorough redefinition and reframing of the concepts of family and gender. The claimed legal status issues are nothing but game of political and legal smoke and mirrors. The real issue is the full and unambiguous acceptance of homosexuality (and, by extension, and in time, other sexual fetishes and predilections) as equivalent, morally and socially, with heterosexuality and its associated social functions.

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

As Nehor pointed out, they cannot have children, nor, by the way, should those in thrall to this psycho-sexual dysfunction be allowed to raise children if other, more optimum (a stable, two parent family) conditions are available.

[_harmony]

The real issue is the full and unambiguous acceptance of homosexuality (and, by extension, and in time, other sexual fetishes and predilections) as equivalent, morally and socially, with heterosexuality and its associated social functions.

1. There is no connection between homosexuality and "other sexual fetishes and predilections", whatever that means.

2. Heterosexuals have their immoral and antisocial moments. Why would anyone expect anything different for homosexuals?

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

We have a cousin who was only able to conceive with medical help. It matters not how many times they have relations, they can't have children like other people "have" children. We know many couples who have adopted because one of the partners is barren. They can't "have" children until after others have had them. What does that have to do with two gay men getting married?

As Nehor pointed out, they cannot have children, nor, by the way, should those in thrall to this psycho-sexual dysfunction be allowed to raise children if other, more optimum (a stable, two parent family) conditions are available.

Many one parent homes are stable and functional. Would you take away their children, because they can't provide the optimual two parent household?

Your argument has holes a mack truck could drive through. Why not just say you don't like the "ick" factor of homosexuality, and allow your prejudices full disclosure?

[_EAllusion]

George Gilder has made some very compelling arguments along these lines, particularly in Wealth and Poverty, and Sexual Suicide.

Heh. Feel free to share those arguments, especially regarding homosexuality.

[Guest]

A heterosexual just abducted a 12 year-old girl, attempted to have her sold to a sex slave ring, failed, and then murdered her.

Following Coggins' line of reasoning we should outlaw heterosexuality.

[_TAK]

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

Then you should be supportive of banning older couples from (re)marrying if they are no longer of childbearing age. Or individuals guilty of adultery – even of the mind since they can't be trusted to be faithful.

But lets be honest – your examples are cheap veneers trying to cover a blatant Bigotry – a Christian tradition for 2000 years..

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

Not anymore. As we all know, the act of heterosexual intercourse is no longer necessary to conceive a child -- science has taken care of that. Many lesbians go to the sperm bank and carry their own child. Sorry, Droop, foiled again!

[_Droopy]

1. There is no connection between homosexuality and "other sexual fetishes and predilections", whatever that means.

No, except for the fact that homosexuality is really little more than precisely that: a sexual festish raised to the infinite power.

We have a cousin who was only able to conceive with medical help. It matters not how many times they have relations, they can't have children like other people "have" children. We know many couples who have adopted because one of the partners is barren. They can't "have" children until after others have had them. What does that have to do with two gay men getting married?

Being barren is biological in nature. Homosexuality is a complex bio/psycho/social phenomena that is only peripherally related to biology (and in any number of cases, its very probably not related to biology at all).

Many one parent homes are stable and functional. Would you take away their children, because they can't provide the optimual two parent household?

One parent households are sub-optimum, if sometimes successful households, from the standpoint of child development, but they are still sexually normative and still well within Gospel boundries. Homosexuality is utterly and wholly outside them, as the term "abomination" as applied to such conduct implies.

Your argument has holes a mack truck could drive through. Why not just say you don't like the "ick" factor of homosexuality, and allow your prejudices full disclosure?

Prejudice means a prejudgment. My views of homosexuality are a result of an adult lifetime of thought and reflection on the subject, as well as a function of the normal, healthy moral imagination and sense that you and other similar liberals have allowed to atrophy because you wish to be invited by all the right people to all the right parties in the Great and Spacious Building.