Lop-sided Gay Marriage Battle in Massachusetts

I don't give a wit if the two women down the street get married or not. In fact, their marraige would be better than many of the others in our neighborhood.

I am sure we can greatly increase our chances for another 9/11, an Iraq flop, economic collapse, if we do everything we can to slap God and His natural order in the face.

If marriage is not just for a man and woman, what is a marriage? Why stop with two men? Why not several men? A woman and several men? A woman, several men and the backyard tree? Do they all have to be married together or can a woman have several husbands, who also have several wives who are not married to each other?

Unlike the last poster, I do care about the preservation of traditional marriage and it's attending benefits. Furthermore, I'd rather the lesbians down the street do what they will, without the societal sanction and financial support they keep demanding for their perversions.

Reference #2

Looks like all those conservative groups protesting Harry Potter should have been protesting this.

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: Polyandry, polygyny, open societal promiscuity versus societal sanctioning of monogamy for heterosexuals and homosexuals by establishing religion in the law with a creationist/moralist patent.

The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious 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.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

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? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.

The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.

This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.

An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.

Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." Your "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.

Social Darwinism would behoove us to be tolerant of gays, give them semi-marriage status if desired, so long as they can't legally adopt. The marriage would be like a legal partnership specifying terms of property distribution if there's a dissolution.
Better to get them out of the closet rather than being so socially coercive that they pretend to be straight, possibly resulting in passing on their defective genes to later generations.

Patience. I am an optimist. If it is right, in time, it will be done. Prejudice and emotion, even if a seemingly impereable berm, in the end will give way, first with a trickle, and then suddenly, a mudslide.

Ping.

LOFL!!!
Massachusetts? That place is long gone down the liberal toilet. If you're not there, don't go near the place. If you are there, get out now. They can have all the "teenage barnyard sex" they want in Massachusetts and I couldn't care less. There's certainly more important things to worry about than a lost cause like Massachusetts. Are they still teaching elementary schoolers about "fisting" there?

Still, I suppose it is nice to know there are still a few decent humans left in the place who care enough to fight.

I support gay marriages. All marriages should be an equal partnership between men and women who are happy to be married.

On the other hand, homosexual marriage is an obvious oxymoron pursued by cretatious fools who have only perversion in mind.

I agree.

I am reminded of a PSA for Recording Artists Against Driving Drunk, featuring Melissa Etheridge. I swear to God, she prefaced her comments with (paraphrasing), "Your lifestyle is your business."

The second I heard that, I snapped, "Then keep it out of my face."

First they'll normalize homosexual deviance, then they'll normalize pedophiliac deviance.

If marriage is not just for a man and woman, what is a marriage? Why stop with two men? Why not several men? A woman and several men? A woman, several men and the backyard tree? Do they all have to be married together or can a woman have several husbands, who also have several wives who are not married to each other?

You're right. Once you open the door it's gone. After the above then it will be adults and five and six year olds of the same or different gender. People and animals. Anything goes. If these perverts want to be together, then do it and do it in private. Just quit trying to get the rest of us to say it's okay. It ain't going to happen. At least where myself and a lot of others I know are concerned.

What they really want is validation. For society to pass a law saying that their sexual preference or perversion is perfectly normal and moral. That there is nothing wrong with a thirty or forty year old man to have sex with a six year old boy.

It is wrong for women to have sex with women and men to have sex with men. It is wrong for adults to have sex with kids. It is wrong for people to have sex with animals. It was wrong yesterday, is wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow. You can change all of man's laws that you want to and it is still going to be wrong.

Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

"The acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual marital love signifies the decline of Western civilization as surely as the rejection of homosexuality and other nonmarital sex made the creation of this civilization possible."

AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT AND/OR SIGN ON TO A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE CONTACT ME.

I most definitely would.
I've read the other responses here, and you folks are completely within your rights to disagree...unfortunately, I don't believe you've thought out the consequences of gay marriage being accepted.

I concur. God took a little extra time to single out homosexuality as an abomination, but of course not everyone believes in God, or maybe they disagree with God, or maybe they figure God didn't really mean it, or perhaps they're just simply more enlightened on the subject than God is.
But excuse my political incorrectness.
Some major corporations revised their benefits plans a few years ago to include "same-sex partners" and other ill-defined relationships -- apparently in the spirit of "diversity" and PC-ness. At least a few of those companies are now regretting that decision (for several reasons), but to remain PC, simply won't admit it publicly.
The "slippery slope" argument against recognizing gay marriage is fairly obvious. I'm sure NAMBLA would be happy to suggest the next step.

You really need to provide some evidence other than a cute quote and a reference.

I know that government approved marraiges have nothing to do with the quality of marraige or the good of society. The government approved marraiges fail at a high rate. The government does no screening and some of these marraiges are abominations. So if it's societal good you want, your rules don't work.

How can a secular government which must provide equal protection under the law stop two unrelated adults from getting married.

Why does government have any role in approving marraiges in the first place?

Last question. The two women down the street were married by their minister here in California. Are they married or not?