Same sex couples receive marriage applications in Massachusetts

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Sunday, May 16, 2004 | KEN MAGUIRE

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What do you mean by "biologically natural"? It occurs within biological life forms in nature, therefore it is natural. Or are you using a different definition of "natural" than the commonly accepted one?

Murder, rape, theft, incest, promiscuity, nudity, cannibalism...all occur within biological life forms in nature also. Shouldn't they receive public sanction too, according your theory?

[Dimensio]

Murder, rape, theft, incest, promiscuity, nudity, cannibalism...all occur within biological life forms in nature also. Shouldn't they receive public sanction too, according your theory?

No. My final comment was on what qualifies as "natural", not what qualifies for "public sanction". But thanks for changing the subject.

[IamConservative]

Provided other states are not forced to recognize these abominations, look at it positively; we know where they will all be. Right next door to Teddy and Mr. Kerry. If the invasion of same sex couples is intense enough, the remaining 49 states stand to gain some fine upstanding citizens and business.

I sure hope they enjoy seeing them hugging and kissing in public in front of their children.

[little jeremiah]

You just don't want to get it.

Just do a search on the articles about the death of marriage in countries in Europe that have legalized "gay marriage". Not that "gay marriage" is the sole cause - but it is certainly one of the final blows of the death of marriage and therefore the natural family as a stable foundation of society and the best place to raise children.

If you don't want to get it, you won't.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I didn't change the subject; you're just avoiding my uncomfortable point. Is murder and cannibalism natural? Are they wrong? Is it natural to have multiple partners? Is it wrong? If not, then why not sanction polygamy? Your only argument for gay marriage is "because I like it." That opens the door to anything.

Back to the "natural" issue, if it is so natural, why don't gays and lesbians have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires? Why can't lesbians have intercourse? Why do they ovulate? Menstruate? Why do gay men have sperm? There is nothing actually "natural" about their behavior. Some people beat their heads against walls, cut or mutilate themselves....all behavior does not fall into the "natural" category as the previous poster used the term.

By the way, should nudity be legal? It's certainly natural. Who does it offend. Or, WHAT does it offend other than the moral sense of the public?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

He gets it. He just doesn't care.

[Dimensio]

I didn't change the subject; you're just avoiding my uncomfortable point.

There is no uncomfortable point. That is my point.

Is murder and cannibalism natural?

Yes. Both occur within nature, therefore both are natural.

Are they wrong?

Yes.

Is it natural to have multiple partners?

Again, yes. Occurs within nature, therefore natural.

Is it wrong?

Matter of opinion, on that one. I personally don't understand the appeal of it -- I couldn't imagine trying to devote myself to more than one spouse -- but I cannot think of a reason to universally condemn it (I can find specific instances of it where it can be condemned, but that's not the same things).

If not, then why not sanction polygamy?

Why sanction polygamy? And in what way would it be sanctioned? What benefits, rights and obligations would be granted by such a sanctioning and how would they be granted?

Your only argument for gay marriage is "because I like it." That opens the door to anything.

No, that isn't my only argument for same-sex marriage.

I happen to like the TV series "Angel", but I'm not about to ask the government to step in and stop the WB from cancelling it.

Back to the "natural" issue, if it is so natural, why don't gays and lesbians have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires?

Er, without getting into any messy details, I'm pretty sure that most do have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires.

Why can't lesbians have intercourse?

You're really going to have to explain what you mean by this. If you don't want to go into the details of it, I will understand. It might actually be better for us all if you didn't.

Why do they ovulate? Menstruate?

That's a question for biology. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with human physiology.

Why do gay men have sperm?

Again, a matter of human biology, not sexual orientation.

There is nothing actually "natural" about their behavior.

Occurs within nature, therefore natural. You're apparently using a different definition of the word natural. Perhaps you could point out which definition of the word that you are using?

By the way, should nudity be legal?

It already is legal. There are restrictions on it, but I am certainly not required to wear clothing when I shower.

It's certainly natural.

Yes, it is. But I never said that natural = should be legal.

Who does it offend. Or, WHAT does it offend other than the moral sense of the public?

You tell me.

[libravoter]

I happen to like the TV series "Angel", but I'm not about to ask the government to step in and stop the WB from cancelling it.

Damn it! That was my last hope. Well, either that or kidnapping Rupert Murdoch and torturing him until he agrees to an extension.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So sexual orientation has nothing to do with biology and human physiology? It not, then it is not "natural."

[antaresequity]

People like you are the reason I don't recommend FR to everyone I know.

I am really saddened. What I am missing? A spirited debate on the 'merits homosexuality'?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So sexual orientation has nothing to do with biology and human physiology? IF not, then it is not "natural." You proved my point.

[Claud]

What do you mean by "biologically natural"? It occurs within biological life forms in nature, therefore it is natural. Or are you using a different definition of "natural" than the commonly accepted one?

Homosexuality does not occur in nature.

Homosexuality is more than the bare act of sodomy: what is it we are constantly told--it's a "lifestyle"? So drawing a parallel between it and, say, a male wolf mounting another male wolf, is a total perversion of the term.

Homosexuality is a pair-bond relationship between two men or women that includes sexual intercourse. Basically, it is supposedly everything that marriage is, just with same-sex partners.

So if you want to find a true animal equivalent of human homosexuality you have to find me a MATING pair-bond relationship between two male or two female animals. Where two male wolves, foxes, birds, or anything else, go off and live alone together AND mate while doing so. This occurs precisely nowhere in the animal kingdom that I know of.

[Eastbound]

"As a result, children will be more and more likely to grow up without a married mother and father."

Well, at least not married by the state, hopefully. If not married by the state, the state will have no future claim or title to the children. Without that claim, the government will be unable to pledge the future labor of those children to borrow money needed to run government today.

No money to run government means no money to continue its socialistic programs and the perps will have done nothing but subjugate itself to the state for no financial benefit after all. It could be said that by allowing the perps to hijack the word, 'marriage,' the government invested in the wrong 'stock' -- stock with no yield, no return. There is just no way that THAT stock could have a vested interest in the future.

From the perps point of view, it would make no difference because it really wasn't about tapping into financial benefits to begin with. It was about having government approve their sin, believing if the government approved and sanctioned the behavior, God would too, as governments are instituted of God. Well, I'm not pretending to speak for God, of course, but I now understand the psycho-genesis of the golden calf. The state has now become the golden calf, the lesser 'god' for the perp set. And sadly, the state has accepted the position.

I suspect the government will begin the process of self-regulation when its coffers run dry and it recognizes its error. It has just elected to become a closed system and its energy will dissipate quickly. Who knows? Maybe even self-implode.

In the meantime, men and women of good will (God's will) will continue to do what they've been doing before governments existed. And hopefully re-construct the framework for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. One that cannot be assailed or transformed by worshippers of the golden calf.

In case anyone is confused here, I am merely suggesting that it is time to refuse to register the birth of your children with the government of the golden calf. Birth certificates are like car titles. It's a contract which binds your children to the government and is used as surety for the continuing debt.

The least we can do is not pledge the future labor of our children (sell them into involuntary slavery through forced taxation) just for the purpose of having the calf-worshippers, those who do not have a vested interest in the future of our country (or in civilization itself) to enjoy some simple financial benefit today.

A railing accusation against you, Massachusettes. That state which deserves to have it's name mis-spelled and mis-pronounced. That state which I will be ashamed to say is the place of my birth. That state whose soil contains the blood of our founders and patriots. And perhaps the first state which shall be judged by that blood.

[jmc813]

I am really saddened. What I am missing? A spirited debate on the 'merits homosexuality'?

No. You can argue against homosexuality without spouting off terms like "faggots". It makes us look like a bunch of backwards idiots.

[HostileTerritory]

The same blood tests that every couple in Massachusetts has to take--I know syphillis is in the mix, I forget what else. I'm sure it's on the web even if it hasn't been updated to reflect the inclusion of same-sex couples.

[MEGoody]

Do you consider marriage to be a civil right?

If so, other than for being convicted of a felony, under what conditions is it okay to deny an American citizen a civil right?

[biblewonk]

"My Big Fat Greek Wedding"

[Antoninus]

Flyover country is gonna backlash big time.



Let's hope so...

[SirAllen]

"Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places in the world where gays can marry."

Glad we're in such good company.

[Dimensio]

Homosexuality does not occur in nature.

So homosexuals only exist on some supernatural paralell plane of existence?

Homosexuality is more than the bare act of sodomy:

I'm aware of that.

what is it we are constantly told--it's a "lifestyle"?

Who constantly tells you this? I've asked before what defines the "homosexual lifestyle" from those who assert that it is a lifestyle, and I've never really gotten a good answer.

So drawing a parallel between it and, say, a male wolf mounting another male wolf, is a total perversion of the term.

What about pair-bonded female seagulls? Or pair-bonded male penguins?

Homosexuality is a pair-bond relationship between two men or women that includes sexual intercourse.

No, homosexuality is the characteristic of exclusive sexual attraction toward persons of the same gender.

Basically, it is supposedly everything that marriage is, just with same-sex partners.

No, "pair-bonding" is another matter. There are homosexuals who never enter a relationship, instead seeking out sex from casual acquintences. To be fair, though, there are heterosexuals who behave in an equally stupid fashion. There are also homosexuals who never enter a sexual relationship of any kind whatsoever, just as there are celibate-for-life heterosexuals. I'm sure that some of them are even celibate by choice.

So if you want to find a true animal equivalent of human homosexuality you have to find me a MATING pair-bond relationship between two male or two female animals. Where two male wolves, foxes, birds, or anything else, go off and live alone together AND mate while doing so. This occurs precisely nowhere in the animal kingdom that I know of.

Lesbian seagulls and gay penguins. Those are just two stark examples that come to mind. If you need more, I can probably dig up more extensive references.