I see some variation of this statement on almost all threads on this subject. I'm bewildered that anyone could think this is a legitimate and convincing argument. It's truly one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I've ever seen.
I guess some people are so completely enveloped in fundamentalist groupthink that they can't recognize how risible this argument is to anyone but other fundamentalists.
The truth is often not convincing to some.
Let's ignore the "fundamentalist groupthink" as you call it (pssst: I'm an atheist) and look at it from a completely secular standard...
Monogamy is a sectarian religious establishment.
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 Holy 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 discriminatory 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 (and is a lesbian).
The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' 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 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...
But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
(SARCASM ON) The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. (SARCASM OFF)
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.
It is my secular and logical contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.
If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and/or is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage or the secular, biological reality of human reproduction. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.
Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.
I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established for the purposes of secular law. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...
Marriage certificate = birth certificate.
Problem solved.
Assertions are fine, but useless as refutation.
The moon is made of blue cheese. Anyone who can't see it is risible.
See the nonsense in those statements?
How about some reasoned arguments as to why you think the statement is absurd.
You don't believe words can have fixed definitions? What?