Replies

You said:

"Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage but then I'm obviously biased. I'd rather see that than promiscuity, to be honest, and men in general, gay or straight, seem to have such a propensity to towards that."

Right, once moral absolutes are rejected and sex becomes an orgiastic free for all, with abandoned children, deserted wives, cuckolded husbands, people deciding they are "gay" after years of marriage and children, sexual predators looking for young victims to rape or seduce [keep in mind that roughly one third of all child molestation is same sex], countless promiscuous homosexuals having anonymous sex in public establishments - yes, I would say that issues relating to sex have become VERY complex.

It's important to note that the promiscuity rates for homosexuals are drastically, wildly higher than those for heterosexual people. They can't even be compared. The reason homosexual activists want "gay" marriage has zero, nothing to do with the desire to promote monogamy. How do I know? I accept what these homosexual spokespeople say about it:

From LA Times of March 12, 2004...
"Divided over gay marriage"
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

little jeremiah wrote: Right, once moral absolutes are rejected and sex becomes an orgiastic free for all, with abandoned children, deserted wives, cuckolded husbands, people deciding they are "gay" after years of marriage and children, sexual predators looking for young victims to rape or seduce [keep in mind that roughly one third of all child molestation is same sex], countless promiscuous homosexuals having anonymous sex in public establishments - yes, I would say that issues relating to sex have become VERY complex. It's important to note that the promiscuity rates for homosexuals are drastically, wildly higher than those for heterosexual people. They can't even be compared. The reason homosexual activists want "gay" marriage has zero, nothing to do with the desire to promote monogamy. How do I know? I accept what these homosexual spokespeople say about it:

Um, when you accept the Reverend Fred Phelps as the spokesperson for Christianity, then these people can become mine. Until then, nobody is my spokesperson. I didn't vote for these people to speak for me. And I can go out there and dig up just as many quotes to the contrary and would have just as much [or, in fact, as little] legitimacy as the people you cite. Hell, I've gone on enough media (CNN, VH1, Travel Channel, and hundreds of others) where I've spoken as the Witches of Salem. Do I speak for all of them? No. Do they all think I speak for them? No. The reality is, in this day and age, it's just a matter of getting out there and you can speak for anyone and I take advantage of that loophole in the system the same way that these sources you cite do. The difference is that I don't expect the truly intelligent people to buy it. *snicker*. I could declare myself a Christian tomorrow and can almost guarantee you, with my media contacts, I could be speaking for most of you. But the fact is, it's all smoke and mirrors just as these people you cite. They don't represent my views in every respect.

I am attending a reception for two of my best friends in the world who are, like me, homosexual (I figure you like that word better and I like controversy, so what the heck, I'll indulge you). I personally don't care if I ever get married so the issue isn't *that* important to me, though neither am I promiscuous, just very focussed on my career. What I can say, however, is that these two friends of mine take their marriage *very* seriously. They aren't doing it because of some silly agenda. They are doing it because they've been together for many years and they love each other. I've never met a couple, gay or straight, who gets along better, who treat people better, and who are more liked, by a rather broad cross-section of people to boot. If anything, I support the issue for them and I'm happy to see them fulfill such a long goal.

Furthermore, I'm always seeing you on here trying to link up gay people with child molestation as if somehow we're all that way. I resent it. Heck, when I do deign to date someone, they're usually older than me. Anyone can take some wacko and try to paint a picture of a whole bunch of other folks with that one reject, but those kinds of generalizations will almost always marginalize the people who do it in the end because smart people know that this is just crap. It's like my personal favorite, something done on BOTH the left and the right ... comparing anyone you don't like to Nazi's. It has to be one of the most intellectually weak tactics I've ever seen and people on both ends of the political spectrum do it including, I might add, you.

I will end by saying ... thank you for your vitriol. It makes my job of convincing decent, rational people that much easier when I have this kind of filth to compare my statements to.

As a homosexual conservative, living in Massachusetts, who has been happily partnered for nearly four years, I would like to share with you my position on this issue.

The government should not be issuing marriage certificates to anyone, heterosexual or homosexual or otherwise. No government has business mingling itself in the matters of two (or more) people who have chosen to live a life together some fashion. At most, the states should offer civil unions to any people wishing to share the rights and benefits of commercial transaction that we currently accord to marriage. People have been living together in cohesive groups long before laws and nations ever existed.

Marriage, has been the province of religion and should remain such. If one religion won't marry you, find one that will, if you are willing to follow it. Marriage is a spiritual union determined by the tenets of each religion.

I know this is not the system we currently live under, nor are we ever likely to be, but I think it's the correct one.

A proper conservative would resist any attempts to amend The Constitution unless they are absolutely necessary. This issue just doesn't merit that level of attention.