Posted on 06/30/2003 11:06:36 AM PDT by presidio9
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I differ with you here - this isn't about 'civil rights'. Gays, in their never ending quest for acceptance, are simply seeking equal social status with heteros by judicial fiat.
The court may succeed in establishing this purpose in a legal sense, but in a moral sense for the great majority of us it will never, ever happen.
,,, was your metrosexual self there?
,,, what a choice of words.
Spoken like a true Dem candidate! BTW, welcome to FreeRepublic.
Your right about that. Getting people to accept as normal something as repulsive to most as anal sex will probably be the toughest nut of all.
Yup, the give away is they always try to link homosexuality to the civil rights movement, which is totally bogus. Things must be slow on D.U. and bartcop to see him wandering around here.
Possibly, but they do not seek to IDENTIFY themselves, politically, socially, etc. by this practice.
Same gender anal sex is the sole defining attribute of gays. Many of us find it hard to take seriously a group who chooses to identify themselves soley by virtue of their abnormal sexual practices.
Note the differences among the following questions asked of a white, heterosexual woman:
"Can you imagine yourself marrying a Black man?"
"Can you imagine yourself marrying a short man?"
"Can you imagine yourself marrying an Asian man?"
"Can you imagine yourself marrying a gay man?"
One of these questions really is not like the others, except to maybe Liza Minelli.
Gays should be treated equally by the law, yes. The Texas law was useless and a waste of state resources. But a law that more usefully targets a specific behavior, say public sex in a public park, will have a disproportionate effect on groups (i.e. gays) that tend to engage in that behavior. Upon which result, the group in question claims discrimination and unequal treatment. This is quite exasperating.
And as far as marriage goes, it is tautologigally discriminatory. It discriminates against single people. That's the whole point. And I say this as a single person. If the institution of marriage cannot discriminate against gays, by what logic can its benefits be denied to single people? After all, single people ought to be treated equally by the law. That's all we're asking for! Marriage benefits for singles! If, of course, I get my way, marriage as an institution disappears entirely. A social institution that accepts all comers without discrimination cannot serve any useful social purpose.
Marriage as an institution is meant to protect women from the dark side of men. Men have a genetic incentive to impregnate as many women as possible, abandon menopausal women and court only nubile women. See Hollywood for this caveman principle in action. Women have a genetic incentive to domesticate a man, She can't hunt while she's pregnant, so her genes will more likely be passed on if the man helps her out with the pregnancy and the kids. The instiution of marriage formalizes the societal importance of favoring the woman's incentives. That's why marriage is a heterosexual institution. Marriage is meant to send a clear signal to a man: "think twice before walking away from your wife and kids, and we'll help you out if it gets a little rough." If all gay men walk away from their lovers, nothing much will happen to society. If all heterosexual men were to walk away from their women tomorrow, social chaos would ensue.
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.