Posted on 11/06/2005 7:12:22 PM PST by Lorianne
Right on.
Read this post. We are talking about people with an incredibly distorted view of sex. Read little jeremiah's post 25. They are not interested in being "tamed" or "housebroken." They want to change the rules of the game.
The overwhelming majority are NOT in a "stable" relationship, and most of them are very unhappy. Maybe dance and the arts attract unhappy homosexuals, I don't know. The guys that my mom used to cite as an example of a "long-term relationship" parted company after 5 years . . . and it turned out that they had had a lot of issues all along.
I'm sure there are some long-term relationships somewhere, but I haven't seen them.
Well, I have seen them. I'm in academic circles, maybe people in that setting, including gays, are more into stability, more into building relationships. (It takes a real ability to delay gratification to complete a doctoral degree.) Actually, I've seen statistics to the effect that about 5% of the gay population is in long-term monogamous relationships. (A larger fraction are in long-term relationships that are "open"; gay men in such arrangements often negotiate rules, such as "no emotional attachments outside the relationship" and "only safer sex outside the relationship".) Anyway, I still think, regardless of the true numbers, that monogamous relationships should be supported. Perhaps this is in the spirit of Lot, who bargained with the Lord about the destruction of Sodom: If there are only 50 good men in Sodom, will you spare the city?
Not only the approval of their own lifestyle, but the power to change other people's lifestyles as well. Mine and yours, for example.
Why stop there? Why limiting the right to marriage to adults only? Why not allow two people to marry, regardless of their sex and age? And why being humanocentric? Why not allow two living beings to marry, regardless of their species? /sarcasm off Let me put it clear. I am not against establishing new type of legal union. Call it civil union, and leave it open to whomever want to use it (even consenting adult heterosexual couples). Then, make civil union equal with marriage in relation to legal obligations and privileges.
But leave marriage "union of one man and one woman, with exclusion of others". Everybody happy and equal before the law.
But methink, this is not the intent of "gay marriage" . The intent is to destroy marriage as a cornerstone of Western civilisation, not to seek equal rights.
If it's most homosexual men, then its a plurality. I've known lots of homosexual men and those that were in long term realtionships (measured in a handful of years) were not monogomaus. Check out little jeremiah's post again. Most homosexual men want to see the status quo change, not become part of it.
Marriage is too important an institution to turn it over to a crowd who thinks: Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.
Academia may be an exception . . . isn't it always? Folks in the "ivory tower" seem to play by their own rules.
Tell me about it! <laughing>
Bump
Later reading.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
It applies to homosexual marriage and is a precedent setting decision...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18). The term “gaystapo” is very accurate.
Marriage is a privileged practice that requires a statutory license. All adults have privelege to marry one consenting adult of the opposite gender, therefore, 14th Amendment arguments of “equal privileges and immunities” do not apply...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...
The link to this article has long been dead.
I did a search and found a reprint of it.
bttt
It’s nice you mentioned that, because Government has had the right to enforce provisions to uphold marriage licenses. In fact, regarding polygamy, they used to try and get someone charged with polygamy even if they had ZERO MARRIAGE LICENSES, but just had multiple women living in this house. But yeah, it’s true that the vehicle used for prosecuting polygamy is useful for prosecuting people who don’t agree with what the government calls “marriage”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.