GAY MARRIAGE Conservatives should insist on same-sex vows (Barf Alert

New York Times ^ | David Brooks

[Holly_P]

Doing so would strengthen marriage as an institution and the culture of fidelity.

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to one another, and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.

Few of us work as hard at it as we should, but marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...How is fraud, two men or two women claiming to be gay but really not,
to obtain the benefits of marriage going to be prevented?...."

That has got to be the most stupid comment I've read on FR in a long time.

What in all hell is stopping a man and a woman from getting married
just to grab the "perks"?

What the hell has happened to the IQ on FR?

 

[Alouette]

Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond.

That is blatant discrimination! How dare they limit marriage to only two at a time, and only to humans!!! What about Muslims who want to have 4 wives at a time? What about a man who is in love with his dog? His car? His favorite sports team? Why should "gays" be allowed to participate in marriage but not the dog lovers, car aficionados and sports fans?

[Alouette]

There is no legal reason to deny any two people

Even if they are brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter...

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...Two day ago I posted the following to you....."

"...You responded with nothing but misdirection and misinformation....."

I responded to your comments numerous times on numerous threads, yet you
continue to post ridiculous rhetoric concerning homosexuals and homosexual
behavioral modification.

At this point, rather than continue to attempt to correct your apparent ignorant
and prejudiced beliefs; rather than attempt to correct the posts that contain
totally erroneous [likely fabricated] cases of "safe" reversals of homosexual
tendencies, I will simply ignore you.

I do suggest you attempt to "get educated" regarding the topic you are
so very interested in. You are misinformed; terribly misinformed.

 

[scripter]

I responded to your comments numerous times on numerous threads, yet you continue to post ridiculous rhetoric concerning homosexuals and homosexual behavioral modification.

The response you posted two days ago from your Deep_6 account was the first time you responded to me. If you have more than one account you're breaking the FR rules. Either that or you're confused.

[deleted]...I do suggest you attempt to "get educated" regarding the topic you are so very interested in. You are misinformed; terribly misinformed.

If I'm wrong you show me with something other than misdirection. You are supporting the homosexual agenda. Twice I've requested you support your statements and both times you declined via misdirection.

[scripter]

At this point, rather than continue to attempt to correct your apparent ignorant and prejudiced beliefs; rather than attempt to correct the posts that contain totally erroneous [likely fabricated] cases of "safe" reversals of homosexual tendencies, I will simply ignore you.

Apparently as you see it, the thousands of homosexuals who have left the homosexual lifestyle is all a fabrication. Then the very credentialed doctors I listed are all part of this fabrication as well. Please support your statements and stop supporting the homosexual agenda.

[scripter]

That has got to be the most stupid comment I've read on FR in a long time.

Perhaps you should slow down and see who said what. So what's to stop two male criminals from marrying each other and claiming spousal privilege? I hope that's not what you defend.

[pinz-n-needlez]

>>Why should they be denied the benefits of divorce, spousal support, alimony, community property and all the other restraints imposed on heterosexuals?>>

And why should trial lawyers be denied all of the monetary fallout from arguing in court the above details surrounding the dissolution of such marriages?

I think this movement is as much about full employment of lawyers as it is about undersutting traditional conventions in our society.

Pinz

[Snuffington]

Doing so would strengthen marriage as an institution and the culture of fidelity.

Blech. Such drivel.

Wow! How enlightened we've become. Suddenly we've discovered "male" and "female" are artificial, culturally constructed institutions. Now we can do away with them and join anyone at all in Holy Matrimony.

To accept this is to assume all previous generations were foolish bigots for opposing the same. I'm egotistical in my own way, but not to THAT great an extent.

Stanley Kurtz is a far better conservative thinker on the topic. He gets it in a way that may seem odd to the David Brooks' of the world, but would be common sense to scores of preceding generations.

[R. Scott]

Lawyers will make money from it no matter which way it goes. If marriage is not allowed, they make money trying to sue for discrimination.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"Now we can do away with them and join anyone at all in Holy Matrimony"

The gay community is not attempting to make the Religious institutions
comply, they are attempting to garner the same legal rights of being
married that are afforded to all others that the Government provides
through it's licensing of marriage.

This is an issue of Government licensing of the union of two people
that consequently affords certain rights and benefits to those two people
and the family of those two people.

 

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...And why should trial lawyers be denied all of the monetary fallout
from arguing in court the above details surrounding the dissolution of such marriages?

I think this movement is as much about full employment of lawyers as it is
about undersutting traditional conventions in our society......."

Of course, we wouldn't need lawyers or court actions if Constitutional rights
weren't being denied in the first place, would we.

Divorce is on the rise among male/female unions, as it has been for several
centuries. Divorce erodes the family structure and undermines the entire
aspect of "the sanctity of marriage" as espoused by all those fighting against
the legalization of same-sex marriage. Why aren't these same people
fighting against the ease of which the Government provides divorces, if
they are so concerned about "the sanctity of marriage"?

The answer is evident.

 

[truthandjustice1]

Well, I think we've found the spokesman for the homosexual community, haven't we?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN cannot and will never be able to do 
the same thing as a man and a woman...have REAL sexual intercourse 
and have children without intevention from a third party...."

I trust you sent a letter to Christopher Reeves, mentioning the voiding
of his marital contract?

According to your thinking, no paraplegic can marry? No male in
finding himself medically impotent will be able to marry? And all
those couples that have lost the ability to reproduce due to various
medical reasons, will not be able to make use of an artificial insemination
proceedure?

All the reasons for not allowing all the legal, government provided
benefits of marriage to any two individuals that are willing to make the
same life-long commitment, are totally invalid. There is no legal
argument that can provide reason they should be denied.

It does not destroy "the sanctity of marriage"; the simple and quick
divorce procedure, does.

 

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...Well, I think we've found the spokesman for the homosexual community, haven't we?...."

It's called equal [Constitutional] rights. If you find that difficult to understand due to
personal prejudices, you have my sympathy.

Being a "spokesman" and fighting for another's legal rights whether you agree
or disagree with the moral, personal or religious aspects, is what this Nation was
intended to be about; Denying rights at whim, was not.

I may not like to see a known rapist get a fair trial, but I will fight to my
dying day, his right to one.

 

[truthandjustice1]

"Denying rights at whim, was not."

We deny rights all the time for good reason. We don't allow brothers and sisters to marry, do we? Denying same sex marriages is the same thing.

Tell me, deep, do you believe homosexuality is normal? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Snuffington]

The gay community is not attempting to make the Religious institutions comply, they are attempting to garner the same legal rights of being married that are afforded to all others that the Government provides through it's licensing of marriage.

Hogwash. They're attacking the institution of marriage on all fronts. I don't know of a single denomination that doesn't have a "gay lobby" clamoring for the religion to bless, accept, and perform gay marriages. Some have caved in. It's tearing other denominations (witness the Episcopalians) apart.

This is an issue of Government licensing of the union of two people that consequently affords certain rights and benefits to those two people and the family of those two people.

Which came first, marriage, or the state license of it? Marriage is an age old institution that only the most arrogant social engineers would attempt to redefine on the basis of getting at the goodies (aka "benefits") inside. The law of unintended consequences will apply painfully here. (And they're not unintended by everyone - there are some very influential "gay marriage" advocates who have openly stated that they want to use the "gay marriage" issue to abolish the institution of marriage altogether.)

There is nothing remotely conservative about advocating gay marriage. Those who try to rationalize the issue to cast it as a positive conservative good are putting lipstick on a pig.

[scripter]

It's called equal [Constitutional] rights.

You want to give folks rights based on their behavior. You claim the information I post is totally erroneous but you can't provide any links to support your statements. Here's what you need to discredit:

Homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.

Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here. If the above is totally erroneous you shouldn't have any problem showing us where.

Your move.