[demlosers]

David Andrew, a 41-year-old federal government employee..."Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships.

Why David? Will it cramp your multi-queer lifestyle?

[Paul Atreides]

"When I said to the pharmacist, `I'll sign for it because we're married,' he laughed his head off," she said. "I said, `Dude, I hope you are laughing at something else.' He didn't know what to do, but I got the prescription," she said with a triumphant laugh.

That pharmacist doesn't know how close he came to losing everything. And, I don't mean from Ms. Beaver Dam.

[Aracelis]

"Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships. My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms."

Excuse me, but isn't this exactly what they've been carping for???

[45Auto]

"Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?"

Promiscuity is the crux of gayness; these clowns are beginning to see what a can of worms has been opened. Marriage is far from the panacea that some of these morons thinks it is. Wait until they get a load of "gay divorce court"!

[Between the Lines]

"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.

Many hetros also want this, we call it shacking up.

It would seem the gays only wanted marriage so long as they didn't have it. It was all fun and games before. Now that it is serious, they are afraid to deal with it.

I think that maybe gays didn't want marriage for themselves so much as they want to f--k things up for us. If they drag us down to their level then they won't feel so bad.

[nothingnew]

But they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in.

Evidently, they don't care who's poop is passed on into their sphincters while they're doing the bone dance with "their" Mr. Sphincter, as long as they have above equal rights.

Truly barfing appalling.

FMCDH

[I still care]

Very interesting. I wonder how many gays are dreading any instituting of gay marriage, because the majority are NOT monogamous?

Many contacts is part of the gay lifestyle - that's why gays have bathhouses, and get arrested for fooling around in toilets. They LIKE it that way.

Could it be that the great push towards gay marriage is a lie propagated by the media, like the "huge" antiwar movement?

[Mears]

This is all so strange to me,maybe because of my age.

I just hope I'm long gone before the first lawsuit is filed for marriage for the guy that falls in love with his Rottweiler or the gal that falls in love with her French Poodle.

[swarthyguy]

What're they gonna do when the sex stops after they're married?

[Cathryn Crawford]

not buy into the traditional meaning of `till death do us part' and monogamy forever.

Well, what in the bloody hell is marriage for, then?

[hemogoblin]

many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.

This reveals that they're not so much interested in having homo marriage as in tearing down hetero marriage.

[Mike Darancette]

he broke into a sweat. "I was dreading the conversation," he said, fearing that his partner would feel jilted when he told him that he did not believe in the institution.

How many rich chicken hawks and old queens will be pressured into marriage by their latest boy toys? Pretty soon they'll be savin' it for after the wedding.

[weegee]

Put a ban on heterosexual intercourse for homosexuals and they will be clamoring to do that too.

A lot of the arguing seems to be about breaking down obstacles, not about enriching their lives.

[SuziQ]

"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

In other words, they want all the privileges of marriage, but none of the responsibilities. Why am I not surprised?

[Zeroisanumber]

I know what I'm writing isn't popular around here but, as conservatives I don't see why we should care if gays can marry, divorce, or tear the floorboards out of their houses and swing from the rafters. They're not hurting anyone, and if they marry, settle down, buy houses, and don't face blatant bashing from our side of the fence, they might one day (gasp) find that they have a vested interest in low taxes and social responsibility.

Look, they've already won the right to marry in Canada, it's inevitable that they'll win the right to marry in the US. To exclude them 'till the bitter end is only going to hurt us in the long run. Better to drop this stupid "ick factor" bias before they end up in the liberal camp for the rest of time.

[EdReform]

Bump and ping

Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.

[Salman]

And so? It turns out that being "gay" isn't about marriage. (Slap self on forehead) Duh, yeah!

[Salman]

... not buy into the traditional meaning of `till death do us part' and monogamy forever.

It's a great time to be a lawyer.

[Billthedrill]

I've long been ambivalent on this issue, because the other edge of the gay marriage sword is that it forces gay couples to play by the same set of rules as heterosexual ones, which heretofore they have not had to do. That's what they're screaming about here - many of them don't want to. It used to be a sweet deal - they could force companies (and to a degree, states) to pay partner benefits to non-married gay couples, and not to non-married heterosexual couples, because marriage was not available to the former and was to the latter. Not now.

I know several gay couples who are perfectly happy with the monogamy, "till-death-do-us-part" commitments. These are not gay activists. The activists are starting to see how this cramps their style. Their response is to attempt to airily redefine marriage so they get only the good parts, and it just isn't going to happen. This is one of those "be careful what you ask for" situations, and now that they have what they've been asking for it turns out not to be what they wanted.