Gay marriage is a conservative idea

Oregonlive ^ | 3/20/04 | Mark MacDougall

[qam1]

Sorry I forgot the Barf alert

[goldstategop]

If it kept gay men from being promiscuous, gay marriage might create responsible and lasting relationships. All of which would demand a change in male nature which craves variety and is never quite satisfied for long with the status quo.

[dirtboy]

My partner and I unfortunately know all too well the cost of these drugs. We believe one or the other contracted HIV shortly before we met in 1982. One can only guess whether, if gay marriage was available and valued back then, our earlier sexual behavior would have been different and years of heartbreak avoided...One closing note, my partner and I registered as Domestic Partners on March 25, 1985 in the city of West Hollywood, CA.

We've had a virtual onslaught of advertising about the dangeres of unprotected gay sex for twenty years. Yet plenty of young gays engage in such. Don't blame opposition to gay marriage for sexual recklessness.

[K1avg]

Good points (although perhaps hopelessly optimistic), but the fact is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil right. In my opinion, the government is overstepping its bounds in offering marriages by justice of the peace, or whatever.

Religion defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The thing is, a man cannot count as a woman, or a woman as a man. It's not that gay marriage is utterly offensive, but it doesn't play with my moral and religious convictions. Gay marriage is a sin, and I'll be damned if I see it legalized in my country.

[goldstategop]

I don't blame gays who live a life of love and complete fidelity. It should be a lesson to heterosexuals to strengthen their own marriages and not head for the divorce court when there's the first sign of difficulty in a marital relationship.

[Gabz]

All of which would demand a change in male nature which craves variety and is never quite satisfied for long with the status quo.

Oh really?

Maybe you meant this sarcastically, and I hope you did, because if you didn't I find it to be an extremely offensive comment........and I'm female.

[SpyGuy]

One can only guess whether, if gay marriage was available and valued back then, our earlier sexual behavior would have been different and years of heartbreak avoided.

Yeah right: just like the availability of true (heterosexual) marriage limits promiscuity of unmarried men and women. Even marriage itself does not prevent people from being promiscuous and committing adultery.

What *DOES* limit promiscuity is a society that holds common traditional moral values, one of which is that promiscuity is wrong. Of course, the Left and the Liberals have been tearing down these moral values for almost fifty years. Homosexual "marriage" is just one more step towards destroying any and all societal limits on human depravity.

[wagglebee]

It's horrible what AIDS victims endure, but marraige hasn't really promoted fidelity in heterosexuals, and it won't in gays. This whole thing is just a leftist attempt to destroy the morality of western civilization.

[Fiddlstix]

"Sorry I forgot the Barf alert"

Presented as a Public Service
Certain FReepers may need this

Click the Pic

Here ya go.

[goldstategop]

I do agree its a sin. Which is precisely why marriage should be a religious ritual. Now of course there are pagans masquerading as the devout who grant fake legitimacy to sinful unions but it shouldn't bother us for their first duty is to Man not to God.

[ICE-FLYER]

If one is able to separate one's religious beliefs from gay marriage and look at it at it without bias, its conservative values and benefits become apparent.

This is too funny....heres the translation:

If on would only sell their soul as so many have done in churches throughout America and just give in to our lifestyle choice and set it up next to Male/Female marriage as so-called commanded by God then they could easily be a left leaning politically-correct Hillary Supporter like me and my Boyfriend.

So typical of a liberal, starting out with a "Feel bad for me" story so as to guilt you in to seeing it his way. he wants you to sell your soul, and denounce your faith but then call yourself a conservative.

[VRWC_minion]

If one assumes that God wants what is best for each of us and we acknowledge that God forbid sexual immorality in both the old and new testament, then its logical to assume that God knows homosexuals will be happiest if they remain celibate.

[bogdanPolska12]

Ok.  Let somebody hit me crow bar.  This is utter nonsense.  Let me break this down by some lines here.

 

“In contemplating these benefits, it has occurred to me that gay marriage really is a socially conservative concept”.

Sorry dude but you are wrong on this.  Hell will freeze before true family oriented conservatives will allow you to muck what true marriage is all about – Between man and woman!

“If one is able to separate one's religious beliefs from gay marriage and look at it at it without bias, its conservative values and benefits become apparent.”

Here is a catch – religious beliefs – you got that right religious beliefs are still strong in people and they know what is right or wrong and will jeopardize their eternal salvation.

“The broader question to ask when changing civil laws is whether a change would benefit society overall”

It will not change society but will put a wrench and total slap at what marriage is all about – pro creation thus continuing human race being in existence.   

[SpyGuy]

the health care savings to the rest of society is substantial. Over a lifetime AIDS cocktails can literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The health care savings to the rest of society would be even *more* substantial if we stopped making society at large pay for the irresponsible, reckless, and perverted behavior of a tiny minority of deviant individuals.

Society may not be able to prevent people like the author from sticking his penis in other men's rectums, but we damn sure shouldn't have to pay for the medical consequences of his actions.

[bogdanPolska12]

will jeopardize = will not jeopardize

[VRWC_minion]

The gov't got involved because marriage creates the potential of children and widows who the state may have to support in the event the marriage fails or one dies.

The reason for state involvment isn't to provide rights its to impose burdens. The gays have it backwards.

[longtermmemmory]

How about we recruitment proof out children.

This article is further proof for the need of the FMA. This is no different than the Human Rights Campaigs faux conservative advertisements during the Rush Radio Show saying a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as one man and one woman. It is facinating how the left is suddenly all for states rights (as long as one state judge can impose homosexual marriage on the other 49).

This article is only happening because we have hearings comming up in congress. Homosexuals are on the loosing end of the argument..

[goldstategop]

Its hardly offensive. The truth is male nature needs to be controlled, especially its sexual outlets. Dennis Prager had some thoughts about the dark side of men's looking for variety and stimulation:

When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic.

[K1avg]

The gov't got involved because marriage creates the potential of children and widows who the state may have to support in the event the marriage fails or one dies. Wait a minute...Marriage is a religious institution... Doesn't this violate some sort of leftist separation of church and state thing? Liberals and their double (or triple) standards. It's a wonder anyone can even seriously believe this crap.