Tell me again why people who wallow in same-sex ‘love’ want to get married?
Oh yeah, it’s all about the money. Tax breaks, insurance, etc.
Uhhhhhhhhh . . .
I thought that maybe it was about
DEMANDING TO BE TREATED AND SEEN AS
THE SAME
while screaming through every pore and orifice possible
at the loudest volumes possible
ABOUT
HOW DIFFERENT
THEY WERE AND WERE DETERMINED TO STAY DIFFERENT, IF NOT BECOME *MORE* SO . . . of course . . . insisting on being
TREATED as THE SAME . . . by a long list of institutions
they have spent a lifetime demonstrating they mostly wanted no part of . . .
curious to the max . . .
until one recalls the origin, roots of such . . . silly notions.
I don't really believe that, because traditional marriage came about to protect children, women and property.
Gay couples can go to a lawyer and draw up a package that gives them all of the responsibilities and privileges of marriage.
Then they can put on any kind of ceremony they wish.
This is about co-opting an institution and forcing reluctant, discreet people to engage in a display of validating and celebrating something they have no desire to validate or celebrate. This is about power.
> Tell me again why people who wallow in same-sex ‘love’ want to get married?
Simple...first and foremost, to destroy the institution of marriage.
It’s all about destroying civilization. I have somewhere in my miserably disorganized files a list of quotes from “big” homosexual activists and spokesholes, why they really want to push homosexual marriage.
It’s all about destroying the natural family and society. They admit it.
It’s all about societal approval which is different than tolerance which thye already have.
from John Derbyshire:
I don’t think that the fact of a predilection’s being inborn should necessarily lead us to a morally neutral view of the acts it prompts. If you could prove to me that pyromania is inborn, I should not feel any better disposed towards arson. On the other hand, I should have a somewhat more sympathetic attitude towards arsonists than I had before. In that spirit, I favor a tolerant attitude towards homosexuals. I certainly do not believe, as around 40 percent of Americans say they do, that homosexual acts ought to be illegal.
I can’t even agree with the Roman Catholic church that homosexuals are “called to chastity.” While I have nothing against chastity per se — I think it can be an honorable choice for a person to make in some circumstances, and would even go so far as to say that I believe the very low status of chastity in popular culture is regrettable — it seems to me arrogant and unkind to tellpeople that they are “called to chastity” if they do not hear the call themselves.
Homosexual behavior is a social negative, suggesting as it does that normal heterosexual pairing, the bedrock institution of all societies, is merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, “lifestyles,” and thereby devaluing that pairing — perhaps, on the evidence from Scandinavia presented by our own Stanley Kurtz on this site, fatally. Male homosexuality is also the source of public-health problems (and was so even before the rise of AIDS).
Further, homosexuality is offensive to many believers in all three of the major Western religions, who form a large majority of the American population. I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don’t think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures.
Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are “called to chastity,” I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of “fairness.” Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students [and elementary], as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of “pride.” (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can’t help?)
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200502160748.asp