[rightcoast]

This is an opinion piece that appeared in The Tech, an M.I.T. newspaper.

[Dalan]

Bump.

A very well-articulated case against homosexual marriage that keeps religion out of it.

[Annie03]

Superb article. Thanks for passing it along.

[Callahan]

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.

[King Black Robe]

Great find.

[King Black Robe]

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?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

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.

[rightcoast]

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.

[somedaysoon]

One of the best articles I've read on this subject.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[EdReform]

Ping

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Varda]

Marriage exists because of children "and propagation of society is a compelling state interest." Yep.

[fortunecookie]

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.

[heleny]

Thanks for posting this. It makes a lot of sense without getting into morals.

[BFM]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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!

[AmishDude]

This is brilliant! This doctoral student in economics is saying what I have been unable to articulate.

[valkyrieanne]

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.

[MegaSilver]

MEGABUMP

[cartoonistx]

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!