This is an opinion piece that appeared in The Tech, an M.I.T. newspaper.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
To: rightcoast
Bump.
A very well-articulated case against homosexual marriage that keeps religion out of it.
2 posted on
02/20/2004 11:33:56 AM PST by
Dalan
To: rightcoast
Superb article. Thanks for passing it along.
3 posted on
02/20/2004 11:37:18 AM PST by
Annie03
(donate at www.terrisfight.org)
To: rightcoast
This was published in paper funded by a public university? I'll be surprised they haven't aready strung this kid up the diversity flag pole.
4 posted on
02/20/2004 11:38:08 AM PST by
Callahan
To: rightcoast
Great find.
5 posted on
02/20/2004 11:38:39 AM PST by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: rightcoast
And why is sexual love more valuable than family or friendship love? Why should roommates who share expenses be barred from benefits simply because they do not have sex together? Why should adults caring for other adults -- family or friends -- be barred from all the benefits of marriage?
6 posted on
02/20/2004 11:42:22 AM PST by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: rightcoast
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. These benefits are already mostly available to homosexuals as "partner benefits". Unmarried heterosexuals are the ones mostly enjoying these benefits.
To: rightcoast; Admin Moderator
I found a source article link; it wasn't there previously.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Admin/Mod, feel free to edit this post's header to reflect this link, if you wish.
Also, The Tech requests the following notice when posting their content online:
This article originally appeared in The Tech, volume 124 number 5, February 17, 2004. It may be freely distributed electronically as long as it includes this notice but cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.
To: rightcoast
One of the best articles I've read on this subject.
To: little jeremiah
14 posted on
02/20/2004 11:56:08 AM PST by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
To: scripter; ArGee; lentulusgracchus; Bryan; MeekOneGOP
Ping
19 posted on
02/20/2004 12:05:27 PM PST by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
To: rightcoast
read later
To: rightcoast
Marriage exists because of children "and propagation of society is a compelling state interest." Yep.
22 posted on
02/20/2004 12:27:33 PM PST by
Varda
To: rightcoast
Luckily, (w sarcasm) science and tech helps them with those pesky reproduction issues. Thanks to surrogate mothers and adoption and, in the future, cloning, they feel this qualifies them for marriage the same as reproduction does for us 'breeders'. Using (except for cloning) most of the same reproduction methods as straight people, they feel they've leveled the playing field and 'corrected' for that 'reason' that straights throw at them as a reason to oppose gay 'marriage'. And let's not forget those who 'marry' and have kids with people of the opposite gender so they 'don't miss out', and then later divorce to be with their 'real' love, arguing for custody of their kids.
To: rightcoast
Thanks for posting this. It makes a lot of sense without getting into morals.
25 posted on
02/20/2004 12:31:33 PM PST by
heleny
(No on propositions 55, 56, 57, 58)
To: All
Cut to the chase. Homosexual marriage is about two (2) things and two things only...
(1) Acceptance in society. By heterosexuals having to accept gay marriage, they are forced to more openly accept gays in society or be seen as hypocrits.
(2) A depressed group (homosexuals) striking back at heterosexuals for years of finding disfavor with their life style. In short it is a way of striking back because they have been judged to be a lesser. A lesser person, a lesser of moral standards, a lesser of being accepted in society.
When heterosexuals become aware of this only then can we fight back effectively and say "We don't like it. We don't want it. We don't want it for our children. And nothing the homosexuals can do will change that."
Instead we are left to battle false arguments about homosexual just wanting to love each other, or about the benefits, or about legal justice.
It's not really about those things at all.
It's about acceptance and, to a lesser not, revenge.
You heard it here first.
27 posted on
02/20/2004 1:25:05 PM PST by
BFM
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homsosexual Agenda Ping.
Super busy again/still, haven't read this one yet, but it looks good.
Check out www.abidingtruth.com and wwwdefendthefamily.com - there are books and so on that also make the case against "gay" marriage and the "gay" life - many without reference to religion.
Let me know if you want on/off this list!
28 posted on
02/20/2004 1:38:46 PM PST by
little jeremiah
(everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
To: rightcoast
This is brilliant! This doctoral student in economics is saying what I have been unable to articulate.
To: rightcoast
The elaborate argument is based on one premise alone - the presumption of fertility.
The point is that marriage has not been *inevitably* tied to fertility for at least 70 years or more.
Nor is "natural reproduction" necessarily the default in marriage. Many couples where the wife is over 30 or 35 need artificial means to conceive, which to some people is morally the equivalent of homosexuality anyway.
To: rightcoast
MEGABUMP
44 posted on
02/20/2004 10:19:47 PM PST by
MegaSilver
(Coulter/Harris 2008)
To: rightcoast
Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.
Not to nit-pick but LEGAL marriage was developed to protect women and children from abandonment and to ensure that men lived up to their commitment to pass-on their name and estate to children that they sire! It's primary purpose was to keep men honorable. Procreating doesn't require a license just a drive-in theater and a back seat!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson