Same-sex marriage adovcates bring their message to library (Gay marriage coming to CT)

I don't have a problem at all with legal contracts that allow for estates and bodies to go to a gay lover. However, I wish these people would stop trying to cheapen my marriage. My marriage is a union before God, and not just a stamp that says "these two are officially shacking up together."

bump

TACLE = Taskforce Advocating Couples Legal Equality

BUMBLE = Buggers Undermining Marriage By Lecherous Exertion

LOL!

If I lived in a state that sanctioned same sex marriage, I'd be a shame to tell anyone were I was from. I just wonder when the real people of this country say, we've had enough of these Cokesacker's, or socksucker's, or is it corksoaker's, oh well you know what I mean.

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The opponents cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions?

Giving a preferred status to couples does not give equal protection to individuals.

Why should some relationships be sanctioned by the government when we are supposed to have individual liberties?

Since we no longer have sheriffs in CT, I suggest we institute a Sex Gender Sheriff Department. A good use to all those old badges. The new SGSD would inspect the genders of all the partners in new marriages that will start taking place here. That way you are sure to be in the right line for your license at the town/city hall, a la the DMV.

I nominate RaceBannon as SGSD Commissioner because of his long standing affection for the gay/lesbian lifestyle. (Kidding RB, just kidding)

"We have to determine what types of compromises we're willing to take," said Stanback, who lives in Avon with her partner of 18 years. "I think the thing we all agree on is marriage is our ultimate goal."

No kidding. That's been 'the goal' for about two decades, once homosexuals awakened to the sad fact that they could actually sell this perversity to the public as 'normal', 'fair' and "Who does it hurt?" .

I'm not surprised at the attempt, but I'm saddened by the fact that it may pass in our liberal-Democrat state and if it fails this time, the homosexuals will just keep coming back, year after year until they get what they want. If only the moral opposition was as steadfast and determined, even lefty politicians like Jepsen and Lawlor wouldn't touch this nonsense with a ten-foot pole. Connecticut politics stink.

the recognition of same-sex marriage altogether, is the most appealing to members of the gay and lesbian community because their rights would carry from state to state

I thought the DOM Act took care of that. Am I wrong?

I couldn't agree with you more. I don't care what they want to do with what or where, but do not try to equate their abnormal unions with my marriage.