Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler The Vatican Dumpster

Well, I don't know what it is but it's not marriage.

The central institution of human society from literally time immemorial is the heterosexual family unit. It is the institution upon which all other institutions stand.

In all of human history, no society has ever condoned homosexual marriage. Marriage is a creature of the state, rooted in culture. I can understand why homosexual couples would want all of the economic and trust benefits of marriage. But why marriage?

Why adoption? Why the propagation of the homosexual lifestyle in everything from popular culture to grade school text books?

Personally, I don't think this is a good thing for civilization because it undermines the central institution of our culture.

Just my opinion.

Bob, that's my feeling about it, too. Everyone should be allowed the same choice, or chance, or crap shoot?

It doesn't undermine anything whatsoever that traditional marriage represents. Men and women will continue to marry. Many heterosexual married couples will continue procreating, raising children, and avoiding divorce.

Perhaps the "undermining" come from the fact that more and more families are passing on to their children the belief that discrimination in all its forms has no place in a democratic society.

Marriage wass about lineage and the rights of legitimate succession. It was power brokering. Ask a coulpe of dead Russian nobles why they were sent there from "civilized" Europe.

You know, Dave, I called out your predictable repsonse to someone at about 1 o'clock this afternoon. That puts it 6 whole hours ahead of your actual post. Surprise me sometime, why dontcha? "Rooted in culture" is meaningless, as culture is fluid, especially now, globally.

Slavery was rooted in culture. Women and children as possessions to do with as a man pleased was (is) rooted in culture. Xenophobia is rooted in culture. Forced genital mutilation is rooted in culture. It's a very long list. Hell, one could call Nazism "rooted in culture." Culture is an explanation for why/how things are in a given place and time. It is based neither in fact, nor in the immutably physical. The only thing that it does for certain is change.

Propagation of a homosexual lifestyle? I'm afraid you'll have to own that fearful and misinformed belief. Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. You probably engage in more of a lifestyle than I do. I don't even know what that means. And if you think gay people who adopt or become parents in some other way are raising gay kids, then you're beyond ill-informed. I know of not one person raised by a same sex couple who is gay. You can't inculcate gender proclivity.

Rooted in Culture...let's see; rape, murder, incest, bigotry, intolerance, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, violence. You know, you're right. I think we should keep it all just the way it is. Just don't call any of us for assistance when they come for you. What? That will never happen to you because you're just like everyone else? Congratulations! Liar!

In case you're looking for a new career position, I hear that Reverend Phelps is looking for a new PR person.

Some marriage trivia: The wedding band used to be worn by the woman alone and was a sign of ownership.

Bob, having gone through the ringer on this, I agree with you about the institution of marriage, but... Seems to me that it is about having access to all the same things that straight people do, regardless of how good or bad said things might be.

Bingo, Fred!!! Like so much other stuff in life, I don't ever wanna do it, but I want for people who do to have nothing standing in their way, except of course, for my scowling disapproval, which counts for shit, but makes me feel better.

There seem to be an awful lot of people that think this way right now.

My mother got to see some non-Jewish neighbours dragged off by the Nazis (I think it was actually the SS) for some perceived offense.

Be careful what you wish for...

Well said, bud. I too saw an ignorant response like this coming from him the moment I read your post. I also suspect that most of those whom withhold comment are of the same ilk.

Regarding no society has embraced homosexual marriage - I've read that there's historical evidence that gay marriage was common as far back as medieval times.

"Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women's right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I'm now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a revolutionary." Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

........

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say "insecurities," I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms "fa**ot" and "punk" should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as [Richard] Nixon or [Attorney General John] Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people." ~ Huey P. Newton

One thing that Huey mentions is how he has no problems with female homosexuality, and this is virtually always the case with men against gay marriage. If they were asked to be in a threesome with two very attractive ladies, the guy wouldn't turn it down if they were married or not...

Or you could be a homophobe that's a self-loathing gay person..... linky.

My goodness, Liar? BobK, really? I am a liar for expressing my opinion? That's not very rational, of you, you know.

FredK, compares taking the position that although homosexuals should be afforded all communal property and other rights which are incident to marriage (except adoption), that marriage as an institution should be reserved to men and women, to the Nazis and their European friends rounding up Jewish families and exterminating them. Forgive me for saying, but don't you think that comparison is ... not to put too fine a point on it, but ... moronic?

BobK argues that suggesting that the institution of marriage if limited to men and women, is akin to such institutions as slavery, rape, murder, incest, bigotry, intolerance, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, violence and those of the National Socialist abomination. I'm sorry, BobK, but your argument is bereft of any rational or moral force. But, I must say, your spewing is pretty emotionally charged, though intellectually ... well, lacking.

FredK, may I assume your mom watched her Jewish neighbors carted off before she observed "non-Jewish neighbors dragged off by the Nazis ..."? Was living as a citizen of the Third Reich good in the beginning but tough on the family toward the end?

You all might examine the reasons you are reacting with such venom, emotion and ignorance to the suggestion that although I think gays should enjoy all the incidents of marriage, except adoption, I nevertheless believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for men and women. Why would any rational person compare the holding of that opinion to Nazism, murder, incest, or slavery? I'll help you all here. No rational person would make such an odious comparison.

Have you all been taking drugs?? Are you feeling intellectually impaired today?

That's my opinion. BobK, it is churlish to suggest that holding an opinion make one a liar.

Just my opinion ... in a country where holding an opinion has not yet been made a crime even though obviously there are many morons who would if they could.

BobKay was making a point to counter your "Marriage is a creature of the state, rooted in culture" assertion. Bringing Nazism into it was probably a bad call -- it never helps any argument, regardless of whether or not it fits (and I'm not saying it does here). Let's focus on the slavery comparison, instead.

Do you disagree that slavery was once a creature of the state? Do you disagree that it was rooted in culture? I doubt it. Bob's point was that these qualities of an institution like marriage are not sufficient cause to preserve it. Just because we've always done it that way doesn't mean it should not be revisited.