Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:52:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2693 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
|
| |
| |
The Ten Commandments say to honor thy father and mother, and not to
commit adultery. Now, I agree that those are great moral rules, and I’ll do
my best to abide by them-- but it’s not the government’s place to tell me to
behave morally.
|
Again, I agree. What consenting adults do isn’t my business (as long as it
is legal).
|
But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything
illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right?
| |
Not the unions, but the standardization of such unions. I am primarily
concerned with the education of our children. I think that such obfuscation
of gender would be damaging and unnecessarily destructive to their
development.
|
Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can’t know what the result
of making the changes that I advocate are. But how can you know? First, I
think that gender and sexual preference are not linked. I’ve known very
masculine homosexual men. I’ve also known lots (maybe 20?) people who were
clearly bisexual (I don’t mean someone who tried it once while drunk). Their
bisexuality in no way seemed to interfere with their gender portrayal. And in
any case, these people are a significant minority. It seems there will remain a
big majority of men who only want to screw women and women who only want to
screw men. What harm will fall on our children (mine are 2.5 and nearly 10, so
if you can cite something plausible, I’m genuinely interested) if those people
who fall outside that norm in sexual preference are granted equity in our
society?
| |
| |
I’d also point out that I have yet to see any evidence that same-sex
marriage (and relationships) actually WOULD harm anything.
|
If gay marriage became normative, say just another option, I see it as an
extremely confusing matter to young kids. “Billy, when you grow up, are you
going to marry a boy or a girl? Why a girl? What is wrong with a boy, Billy?
Perhaps you should try both before you decide.”
|
What’s so confusing about that? And bear in mind that kids raised in such a
world (as mine are!) have no trouble dealing with it. You are looking at it
from a perspective of having already been raised a different way. And frankly,
if the child has yearnings inside to experiment sexually with both other sexes,
then I think (s)he should try both before deciding...or maybe never decide
and instead continue to relate sexually to members of both sexes.
| |
| |
Certainly it might affect
the victorian sense of secrecy that’s surrounded the issue in years past,
|
With the advent of MTV and shows like “Loveline”, I think we can dispense
with any illusions that there is any secrecy left about sex for today’s
teens.
|
Thankfully! Sexual taboo is very destructive.
| |
| |
and
as such make it more socially acceptable to the mainstream. But how does
that actually negatively affect anything? I guess the only outcome that I
can see is that helps to increase sexual tolerances, hence breeding less
hatred between hetero- and homo-sexuals, which, to me, sounds like a Good
Thing (tm). Where’s the negativity?
|
Sex is a private matter to me. I don’t want to know your sexual preference
because it doesn’t matter to me.
|
Unless I want to get married...
| |
So why is it so important to some gays to
shove my nose into their sexuality?
|
For the same reason that black pride exists. Because those human beings chafe
under the rule of tyrany.
| |
Gay parades? Please. Rainbow stickers?
What is the point of that? There is something bizarre about defining oneself
WRT to one’s sexuality. There’s a little more to life than sex!
|
What about Irish parades on St. Patty’s day? What about hanging Norwegian flags
on your home? What about stickers on the car that advocate your stance on
abortion or your favorite popular musical performers? Is there something
bizarre about how all those people define themselves?
| |
| |
I’m curious-- I hear this time and again, that “Oh, that’s not what our
founding fathers intended!”. Does it actually matter what they intended?
Shouldn’t we do what’s right, and not what they wanted us to do? I mean,
aren’t these the same guys who allowed slavery? If tradition is unjust or
immoral, don’t we have a just or moral obligation to *change* that
tradition?
|
How is defining marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 women “immoral”? That’s
just crazy!
|
I’d actually like to hear your answer to Dave’s question.
(For the record, I agree that our founders almost certainly thought of marriage
as between one man and one woman -- that’s what it means under English common
law, in which it is a recognized right of the people. Though they purposely
wrote about free association in broad terms.)
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
