Replies

"There is no benefit being denied"

I disagree - our society has recognized marriage as a legal relationship, and conferred certain privileges and benefits on that relationship, in the belief that the institution of marriage returns certain benefits to society as a whole. However, most if not all of the benefits provided to society are not gender specific - arguments in favor of marriage apply equally well to gay marriages as well as straight ones. Accordingly, there is no valid reason for our society to privilege one type of relationship over another.

you will say that homosexuality is immoral - I don't agree and it doesn't matter anyway; our legal structure should not be in the business of decreeing morality and our legal code should not be based on what a segment of society (even a majority) believes is or is not moral. The only valid reason I could see for opposing gay marriage is if gay relationships caused a positive harm to our society (they don't) or if gay relationships provided none of the societal benefits of straight ones (they do).

When I boil it all down I find that all objections to homosexuality and gay marriage are of two types: 'that's yucky' and 'it's against my religion'. Neither of those carries any weight with me, and neither should be the basis for government action. Call it morally devoid if you like, but I consider equal and fair treatment of all citizens to be a high moral imperative.

Call it morally devoid if you like, but I consider equal and fair treatment of all citizens to be a high moral imperative.

Whatever -lipstick on a pig still leaves a pig...

AG: It IS just yucky and it DOES offend against the principles of Judaeo-Christian society: Western Civilization and the Roman Catholic religion (watch for liberal anti-Catholic yak about sinner/bishops who real Catholics would burn at the stake! The libertoonianleft slur that substitutes for argument on moral principles).

Actually, yucky is far too mild a term for these sick perversions.

Judaeo-Christian civilization will prevail whether you agree or not. We are in no danger of your being elected to formalize these evils. We pray that you are not a judge. We are not returning to the slime of paganism voluntarily.

Needless to say, anal intercourse is not likely to produce future generations of humans anytime soon. Nor is lesbian passion. It is for this reason primarily that Truman (whatever his many deficiencies) saw to it that Congress (whatever its many deficiencies) gave to parents (without a thought of fudge-packers posing as parents) a tax exemption PER CHILD equal to $20,000 per year in today's money. No one suggested subsidizing the sickening perversions of the lavender kind. AND, no, there is no "moral equivalence" between honest bank proprietors and John Dillinger and no equal results under the law, either. Nor ought there to be.

"Fair" is the juvenile and liberal overused to the max four-letter "f" word. Equal is in a similar category. Honest bankers and John Dillinger both made money from banking. Isn't it just fair to treat them equally? After all: Thou shalt not steal is just one of those old religious hangups, isn't it? Pass the bong! Property rights, too! Good dope, man! Gives jump the shark a new and more final meaning! Oh, wow! And, hey, pooch ####ing, I mean, like wow, whatever turns ya on! Ever try a goldfish???? Pass the bong!!!! Brain cells are a terrible thing to waste.

Your post eloquently demonstrates why there is NO PLACE for libertoonianism within the conservative movement. In my misspent youth I actually served as a Libertarian State Party officer. Then I grew up.

Grow up!

Equal is not always same. And homosexual marriage most certainly does destroy society. As with any number of other issues of morality, if you dumb down one, the rest are as well. And further, I doubt the good people of MA who have taken their kids out of public school, some at great expense, or those who have fled this deviant sewer pit with a stench that is nauseating, would agree with you!

When I boil it all down I find that all objections to homosexuality and gay marriage are of two types: 'that's yucky' and 'it's against my religion'. Neither of those carries any weight with me, and neither should be the basis for government action.

The sodomarriage issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil or legal rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.

"Same sex Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize homosexual behavior in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school aged children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and forced acceptance of homosexuality, kowtow to the gaystoppo or else be hauled of to the gulag to be reeducated.