Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:
“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”
I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.
Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1 in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.
I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.
When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:
The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.
And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.
So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?
Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?
1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.
2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.
@retire05:
“Do you think polygamy should be legal? How about consentual incest? Agree with that?”
Why are you still stuck on these questions? Is it the “slippery slope” argument still? Use Scalia’s “reduction to the absurd” method to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that argument: Life leads to death, so should we outlaw life? In the fight to give women the vote, the slippery slope reduction to the absurd might have been: If women are given the vote, who’s next? Dogs and cats? Each issue is separate. Don’t confuse them.
@Ilovebeezwarzone:
Thanks.
@George Wells:
The fact remains that the whole basis for Lawrence was the anger/jealousy of a rejected lover. John Lawrence was “hosting” two gay friends, Tyron Garner and Robert Eubanks. Garner and Eubanks had been lovers, and Lawrence and Eubanks had been friends for over two decades. All three had been drinking heavily, Eubanks left the apartment and upset because he thought Garner was interested in Lawrence, and not him, Eubanks called in a false police report telling dispatch that there was a “black male going crazy with a gun”
at Lawrence’s apartment. There is a name for what ensued; swatting.
When the police arrived at Lawrence’s apartment they found the door unlocked, and entered. It was at that time the HPD found Lawrence and Garner engaged in oral sex. And it might have ended there, but Lawrence went off on the police and accused the HPD of entering his apartment illegally (they did not as there was a report of an emminent threat by a man with a gun). The arresting officer then charged Lawrence and Garner under Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. It was Lawrence’s mouth that got him put in jail, in more ways that one.
When Lawrence and Garner went to court, they were simply fined $100 each plus small court costs. By then, the lawyers from LAMBDA had gotten involved. A fine of less than $125 was not subject to appeal, so Lawrence and Garner’s own lawyers requested the fine be increase, and the race was on to push LAMBDA’s agenda.
During all the appeals, LAMBDA argued that the court had gotten it wrong in Bowers that claimed there is no Constitutional right to privacy (Bowers got it right, by the way) and off to the SCOTUS they went. You see, Lawrence and Garner were charged with simply Class C misdeameanors, nothing less, nothing more. They could have paid the 100 bucks and learned a lesson that is always wise to lock your doors, especially when dealing with a jealous third party. But they, spurred on by LAMBDA, and an agenda, just as you do.
Now, if you really want to look at the sodomy cases brought before the Texas courts, you will find they were not for sodomy, per se, but for lude conduct in a public place (beer joints, Austin bath houses, etc).
You see, everything that is done by homosexual activists is agenda driven. Just on one wants to be honest what the agenda really is, and that includes you. It is NOT marriage “equality” or any such wordsmithing label you want to put on it. It is really much deeper than that, a system outlined by Antonio Gramsci in the 1800’s.
retire05
we see they are quick to use the law to their advantage if they can win ,
but they also have that bad habit to show exibitionist in public places, even on their PARADE,
yes not all of course, but those GAY who resent it, don’t try to use the law to have this public exposition to be stop by a law forbiding EXIBITIONIST, which would help the moderates who only do it in the hidden bedroom get a better image and credibility in their demand to be a UNION of two same sex law abiding one only couple demanding respect and getting it from the public at large,
because the public judge what is out there to see, not what is hidden and kept in the bedroom,
and what the public see is obnoxioust and disgusting and it result in a label on all the homosexuals,
another fact is the alcohol excess ingurgitate in bars changing them into beastial human,
It’s just the same as OBAMA who want to restrain all the GUN OWNERS,and put all of them on the
strickt measures he want to impose
while he has not been able to do it for the BLACKS in his home town CHICAGO which
are now PROVEN to be the most criminal and killing machine of the whole USA,
why pick on the other, when you cannot control your own fans who elected you.
can you see it now, how unfair it is for the law abiding citizens who don’t need to be label or threatened
@George Wells:
Why do you refuse to answer the questions? Do you not understand English? Are the questions too hard for you? Do you not have an opinion? Do you really think that I am so stupid that I am unaware that you are simply dodging those issues that you don’t want to address?
@retire05: Retire05 I think George made a partial answer in #69 above about incest when he said:
I agree a little bit with George on this, as he says:
Most people don’t have a clear frame of reference because it ‘usually’ doesn’t happen. But in the non-reproductive case of couples not very closely related, I can see cases happening without any bad effects. While the situation of Mother-son, Father-Daughter seems especially bad (to me) I’m not so sure that when it gets to cousins, etc, that it makes much difference. (I’m not advocating, but as George says, I have no real frame of reference) Polygamy, wrong.
As you know, I’m definitely a ‘slippery slope’ believer and there is no ‘real end game’, it won’t end.
@Redteam:
My questions were simple, requiring a basic “yes” or “no”, not some diatribe about penumbras.
I don’t object to anyone living their private lives as they see fit, harm to others being the exception to that rule, but it is just instances like this that make my blood boil:
Of God and Entitlement
GWU is a private, Catholic university. No one is forcing these two young men to darken the door of the Newman Center. They are free to find another faith, one that suits their personal views better (although in my view, you either accept the teachings of a particular faith and follow those teachings, or, in the more modern view, select a faith based on how well it caters to your personal political views), they are free to attend another university, they are free to just not attend the services conducted by the priest.
Instead, they are demanding the release of a Catholic priest who teaches, and preaches, Catholic doctrine because their widdle feelings are hurt. Call this what it is; intolerance toward others who don’t agree with them, or, as I like to put it, shoving their views down the throats of others through intimidation. Just as the two lesbians sued the bed and breakfast owner in Hawaii (and won) and other gays sued a florist, both businesses run by people with Christian views, what the homosexuals cannot acheive through the ballot box they will force down our throats through the courts.
George will never be honest about the true goals of the homosexual agenda. He will obfuscate as much as he can, but there are those who know the reason he pushes so hard, and believe me, it has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with political clout. People like George, and Hlavac, are the reasons that I support school vouchers. If I want to send my children to a Christian school, where the teachers support my values, and the values I am trying to relay to my children, why should I be forced to send them to a school where those values are destroyed?
With most movements, there is an end goal in sight be it the end of discrimination toward people of color or women’s sufferage. With the homosexual movement, there is no end in sight until homosexuality is considered perfectly normal and accepted as a normal human condition, up to and including, indoctrinating children who are really only preys to be potentially caught in their snares.
@Redteam:
Justice Scalia’s dissenting comment – the one I quoted – was both prescient and self-contained. It was not qualified by his subsequent remarks (conditions were not placed upon the scope of the initial observation), so my use of it was not “out of context.” His later digression into “slippery slope” speculations was facetious, considering his own comments elsewhere on similar speculations, and not worthy of inclusion in the official record of the SCOTUS. (Recall his remarks to a Harvard student who had objected to his relating gay marriage to polygamy and ultimately, bestiality. He said that he thought that the student would have recognized that tactic of argument, which was called “reduction to the absurd.” In other words, relating gay marriage to bestiality is absurd. He said so himself. Justice Scalia has a curious habit of handing to his opponents from time to time the exact key to opening, i.e., to dismembering his argument – he did so several times during the two cases heard last month – as if he is testing his opponents to see if they are bright enough to take advantage of the opportunity.)
One other observation: You are obviously putting some effort into rebutting what I have to say, and I appreciate it. Given your position on the issue, I would expect no less. What I don’t understand is that you rarely bother to dispute retire05’s comments when he goes space-cadet. His account of details which he says are relevant to the Lawrence case borders on obsession. I certainly have no way of knowing or confirming those details, and in any event don’t care, as they are irrelevant to the consequences of the Lawrence decision and it’s bearing on the gay marriage issue. Same with his insistence that gay activists are all following some sort of script from a centuries-old guy named Gramsci. Are you with him on THAT conspiracy theory?
Not being honest about the “gay agenda?” He tried to contrast what gays are striving for against the blacks’ fight to end discrimination. (One being closed-ended while the other would go on forever.) For blacks, discrimination was and is not a single fight to be won and then it’s over. Racial animus is deep-rooted and wide-spread, and while great victories have been won, the “end game” is not at hand. Court battles continue. The fight to end discrimination against gays is equally complex and will similarly last a very long time. Just as confederate flags and the “n” word will remain popular in the South, the word “fag” will endure in its ugliest useage.
Thanks, by the way, for your remarks noting that I DID answer his question regarding incest. I was a career analytical and research chemist with a lot of biology thrown in. Science is the first context I resort to for answers, and my answer to retire05’s question was complete in the scientific context. As I assumed the question regarded legal considerations (the province of state as opposed to church) I did not address the moral side of the issue. Yes, I do respect the separation of church and state. For me, morality is a personal and private matter of faith, and although faith informs my political decision-making process, it is not something I attempt to impose on anyone else. So, yes, I choose not to answer his question in the morality/faith context. That’s how I express freedom of religion.
I think that if the Mormon faith believes in polygamy, the state should not interfere. As I am not empowered to issue marriage licenses one way or the other, my moral opinion on polygamy is of no consequence.
@George Wells:
Actually, you’re misrepresenting what Justice Scalia said. No, there is no similarity between sodomy and beastiality, but there is a core tenet between same sex marriage and polygamy.
How have I gone “space-cadet” in any way? Be specific as you are wont to use generalities. You know what they say about name calling, although you have accused me of using a term (sissies) that was used by your friend, Jim Hlavac.
So relaying facts, and events as they actually happened, are now considered “obsession” by you? I noticed you did not dispute the facts, just made a snarky comment.
Liar. You are the one who made that comparison initially, not me. You seem to think that you can equate discrimination based on skin color with discrimination against sodomists.
There is no “separation” clause in the U.S. Constitution. It didn’t exist when it was written, and it doesn’t exist now. If you want that to be part of the Constitution, it will require a Constitutional amendment, radified by a majority of the states.
Odd that you subscribe to a decision made by Justice Hugo Black, a rabid anti-Semite, KKK member who hated Catholics. Under Black, you would be jailed, yet you subscribe to his decisions. Ironic, isn’t it?
Now, perhaps you would like to review this thread, and answer all the questions I have posed to you that you try to ignore.
@George Wells: George:
Because I generally think that Retire05 is correct about many of his points of view. But on the two things you mention, the Lawrence Opinion, I don’t know anymore about it than what Retire05 has said. It seems as if that decision was forced just to get a foot in the door. In fact, I think that the fact that they petitioned to get an increase of the fine so that it qualified as a case that they could advance is a clear indication of their intent. As far as ” Gramsci” is concerned, I haven’t googled the word and wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I will google it just to see what it’s about. Ok, I just came back from reading about Gramsci and it seems that it would take a lot more reading to understand him, so I won’t comment.
I do believe as Retire05 does that what is going on now with respect to gay rights is only the first step onto the slippery slope, I don’t think the end will ever get here. I believe that if the gays get their way, we, the 97%, will be living much more of the gay life than they will be ours. Reverse discrimination, so to speak. You said:
I also would equate the gay agenda with the black agenda. Most of the racism existing in the US today is the racism that blacks perpetrate. I don’t feel as if ‘whites’ owe the ‘blacks’ anything. If some were slaves 150 years ago, I don’t owe them anything for that. I wasn’t here then and it was not my ‘fault’. I was born and grew up in the South and what is wrong with the confederate flag? It was the symbol of a country that existed at the time to uphold the US constitution and the rights that those states had within that constitution and the rights that Abraham Lincoln did all he could to destroy. Just because some black person might not like how I feel about it does not change my right to own and display that flag. I have never benefited from affirmative action. Why am I not as qualified as anyone for affirmative action? Because I’m not black. That racism, from the black side, will never end. If I am forced to live my life with respect to whether I have to like the fact that two gay people live next door, then a lot of people are going to be disappointed. I won’t try to stop them and I will not treat them any differently from any other neighbor, but if the schools have to teach my children that gay children are normal, then I should have the right to decide if my child has to listen to that.
If they could pass a law that says that gays should be treated no different than other people I could support that, but that’s not what is wanted. They want me to have to listen to their agenda and agree with it. I’m probably not gonna do that.
@Redteam:
I’m sure you noticed that Brother Bob asked specifically “Where does it all end?” and got no reponse from either Hlavac or George. That is because to admit where it all ends, would destroy their agenda for most of America.
Please, spend some time researching, and reading about, Gramsci. You will be enlightened and will understand where I am coming from.
Redteam
it is very strange to think the AMERICAN INDIANS one who where really mistreated where not a burden to society, you never hear them complain and stick the blame to the white, they do their thing, and we don’t hear the blame
their society endure, they keep to their own, they believe in the GREAT SPIRIT, and walk tall,
compare to the many BLACKS consume with revenge on the WHITE, which render them fix
in a state of mind of sadness and anger preventing them to excel in life, not all as we see and those who have excaped are so great and smart as we meet them AT FOX in talk debate or as actor and singer,
their gift show they are freed their soul from that anger and thirst for revenge,
the INDIANS are never asking, they are a proud NATION separated in many bands,
the only thing we see some times is those who drink and it’s not good for them they loose it,
and get in trouble, specially in the NORTHEN town where there is nothing to work at, and the cold never leave,
and they are poor, no place to go,
and frustration get in, the WHITES took so much from them there also, it is sad to see,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, of course, you are speaking of in the past. I don’t particularly agree with the concept that Indians were mistreated. That’s the way it was back then. Had I been making the decisions, I hope I would have dealt with them with more humanity, but I wasn’t there and I share no blame or fault for what people did 200 years ago. Many people feel as if the land were taken from them. I’m not sure I agree. My ancestors may have owned land that they got screwed out of, it doesn’t mean that I’m now entitled because of it. It’s certainly not my fault that persons in Africa got captured by rival tribes and sold them as slaves. Had there not been a slave market, they most likely would have just been slaughtered, so a case could be made that the ones that got sold were the lucky ones.
@retire05: Retire05 of course they can’t answer what they see as the ‘end’ because they hopefully see no end. As I said to Bees above, we are at a point now where no one should/does owe anyone anything. It’s not my fault if someone is born gay and I shouldn’t be penalized because they are. It’s not my fault that some people are born black, and I shouldn’t be penalized because some people are. It’s not my fault that some people are born murderers, but if I get in his way, I may have to pay. I see the other cases the same way, as if I’m expected to pay in some way for their ‘misfortune’. It’s not my fault if someone is born ugly and needs a facelift. I don’t think they should expect me to pay for their facelift.
I will read up on Gramsci, but I’ll first have to go back and see where you referred to him and the context.
Redteam
I agree, my point is exactly what you said about the blame the BLACK well some who are taught to hate the white even in school by teachers we learned it, on some of the black teachers, not all of course,
and they blame to revenge and make the white pay for their anger,
you cannot join this hate and get the feeling of owning the blame , it won’t fix their hate,
my point about the INDIANS was
the difference of behavior between them two
that they never gave the blame, but they had more cause to do it,
they rise above it and survived without accusing and blaming,and you cannot blame youself
of course for HISTORY, which brought some FANATICS in CHRISTIANITY who where taught to destroy the INDIANS because they where told , they where not human,
quite an excuse to kill their fear of another human
who scare them,
and the story continue to theses day with other COUNTRIES who are FANATICS and are taught to kill whoever doesn’t join them, same killing instinct for fear of who is not like them,, which come from CAIN AND the good ABEL.
we carried the guilt but we don’t feel we are responsible of our ancient FANATICS GREEDY HUMAN.
but why do we accept them here to mix with the most tolerant law abiding CITIZENS of this AMERICA, why
if the leader like them he can visit them, but he should not bring that crowd to mix with AMERICANS,
because they will never become AMERICANS in their core, they are MUSLIM period, no room in their core for AMERICA.
we have seen it many times, how much more should die,
before we close the door on them.
@Redteam:
Actually, they were, Redteam. Read the history of Sand Creek. Young Native Americans were forced into the white man’s schools where the girls were sterilized so that they could not have children. The buffalo, the main source of food for the Plains Indians, were slaughtered in an effort to starve the Plains Indians to death. Native Americans were the last to be allowed to vote, long after blacks and women had been given that right. Our reservation system is a disgrace, where alcoholism, crime such as rape, are frequent due to the dispair of no jobs. Some reservation children have to travel 90 miles to the nearest public school. Can you imagine if we treated blacks that way? Our treatment of Native Americans, to this day, is a national disgrace.
My ancestors land in Tennessee was stolen from them, but not by you; by Andrew Jackson. Do I blame anyone living now for the horrors that the Cherokee suffered due to their ancestors? Most certainly not. I do not believe in blood liable. So you are right; it was/is not your fault or your responsibility.
Are you familiar with Slate, the far left website? Let me reprint Slate’s opinion for you:
“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage amoung three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority–a tiny minority, in fact–freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality unti it extends to same-sex couples in the United States–and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html
Is there now any doubt in your mind that there is no goal to just end with same-sex marriage? At least Slate is honest about it; George is not.
@George Wells: #21 you said:
So, the ‘end game’ would be a level playing field of equal rights for everyone…..”kind of like what the Miss America contestants wish for” So you think everyone should be allowed as contestants in the Miss America contest? Children, Old people, men, women, single, married, one legged people, etc, etc,?
They shouldn’t be allowed to limit it to single females, 18-22,? I think there should be allowances,based on what you are trying to achieve. If you want Miss America to be 18-22 single, and it is your contest, you should be allowed to set the entrance standards that would allow you to achieve that. Just because a guy ‘feels and acts’ like a girl doesn’t mean the owner of the contest should be required to let him enter.
What society is attempting to do with marriage is create stable home situations where children can be conceived and raised in a nurturing situation. A homosexual ‘marriage’ wouldn’t achieve that, would it? So figure out what it is that a homosexual couple want to achieve and create a union that would accomplish that. Don’t call it a marriage because the stable situation for conceiving and nurturing children is not there. Bestiality already exists, it is not a state to strive for, but it also shouldn’t be made legal or condoned. (but that’s my feeling, everyone is entitled to have their own)
Anyhow, I just fail to see how the playing field is not level. Every person in the US is allowed to do the same things. Everyone can grow up, get married, stay single, have children, not have children, kiss men, kiss women, just what areas do you know of that the playing field is not level?
retire05
thank you for this history fact,
it was the same in CANADA by the BRITISH,
the FRENCH where in good terms with the INDIANS, they where trading much things,
in those time they where trappers for fur as the INDIANS who taught them,
in 1634, my ancestor arrive from FRANCE, he got a boat and where of and on on the SAINT LAURENT RIVER, NORTH AND SOUTH trading all kind of exchange,
he later got him a farm he had 10 sons and 4 daughters, and time went by and generation came and many children arrive, my grandfather got a GENERAL STORE, he got rich with it,
and time went by till now,
at the farm which stayed in the family they had grapes and made whine, that was my favorite vacations
as a young person, much land close to the river a big wood, the house was built in the previous generation it had 14 bedroom plus the other room, a real castel look build by great great grandfather
they had some princess hidden during the war from different countries
bye
Retire05, read up on Gramsci and it seems complicated. But he is a marxist and believes in deception to achieve goals. Is that the perspective that you use him and his philosophy? It seems that his objective was solely to do away with capitalism (which I wouldn’t support) and creeping end game socialism. Seems like it might take reading that is not available on Google to really understand him.
@Redteam:
Yes, Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist. But it is his philosophy on how to acheive total Marxism that is interesting, and much of it has come to fuition here in the U.S. Gramsci believe in the destruction of the family unit, and moral standards, as part of his plan to acheive Marxism and one of the ways to accomplish that was to “normalize” homosexuality. His plan in that area was also adopted by the Frankfurt School of Marxism that gave us cultural Marxism, now known as “political correctness.”
Google is not a trustworthy search engine. Use Bing or Yahoo. They are not agenda (Democrat) driven like Google.
@retire05: I’ve always favored Google, but just for the heck of it. All three had exactly the same one- wikipedia listed first. Same write up. I believe all 10 of first ones listed were same on all three search engines. Close to it, anyhow.
About Gramsci, yeah, that’s about the way I read him. That he was an incremental socialist. I didn’t see where he said anything about homosexuality, but I didn’t read a lot about him. Other than ‘know thy enemy’ I don’t know how much he had to offer. I’ll read some more of him.
@retire05:
As you are obsessed with “end game” issues, just what is your “end game” for homosexuals? The Old Testament seems to mete out the death penalty with fair liberality, surely the abomination of homosexuality would qualify. And the Good Book IS the inspired word of God, right? The death penalty is both the simplist and the most logically consistent way of dealing with a class of morally repugnant criminals, which is what you seem to think they are. Why let them remain in your midst? What is the point of allowing them to live quarantined in a second-class where they can hold hairdressing or flower-arranging jobs and from which they can endlessly advocate for “gay agenda” rights? Some countries mandate the death penalty for homosexuality, and we do have the death penalty here. I’m sure that there’s nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the imposition of capital punishment for homosexuality. You think it’s a capital crime, say so! Don’t be timid – go ahead and tell us all what YOU really want.
George Wells
you’re pushing the subject toward your desire to incriminate another normal person
to tell you the raw truth,
according to the law of NATURE, the ANIMALS kill those they find a defect of NATURE,
but HUMAN has decided to the opposit, because of their own greed and selfish wish to keep them trapped under their power using every tricks since the time they where enlighten with the KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG,
the HOMOSEXUALS where used in so many way unimagine, unknown by most people,
and also for the will to understand what and why it happen, they also where used in sexual
actions by the normal people to get their forbidden pleasure, many human holding power
where incline to feed their curiosity and experience the sexual actions, some adopted it
as their normal behaviors, and provide security , it even was done by some religious humans in ROME
the highest place for influencing the followers,
so time went on and now , you are here in a protected AMERICA where FREEDOM is the ultimate goal for all
at a highest price of lives and blood, for the CITIZENS of this unique BEAUTIFULL NATION, as the WISH to do the same in the WORLD
which come from the FRAMERS who wrote the laws of the land,
THE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHT AND COMMERCE LAW,
made all equal, on their search for happiness, that’s help you to multiply,
you are benefiting from it as other, now you want other rights,
are you sure that you are not demanding too much,
do you know it would create a concern a disturbance on other, do you see the consequences of your demands could render you guilty of trying to change not only your life style
but render the other to be in a position of having their freedom breach because of being compelled to accept your demand wich will affect all the other than you,
do you know it would bring a negative on top of an already negative feeling toward all of you.
which you really cannot afford to be in and looked at the instrument of an imposition law
one more law for OBAMA to play with to minimize more the freedom of AMERICANS
all because of you.
@ilovebeeswaxwarzone:
I’m afraid you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve written, or else you have mistaken me for someone else. (Not surprising – retire05 mistakes me for some Gramsci dude who is actually long dead and gone…) There appears nowhere in anything I’ve written the word “demand” or the words “you must”. I am not telling anyone how to feel about homosexuality. I have been suggesting arguments that support what I hope will eventually happen, but that’s how arguments work. At least when they are conducted in a civil manner.
The question I did ask regarding what retire05 thinks should be the “end game” from his perspective is a fair and legitimate one. He has asked me the same question, and I’ve given him my answer. Through the action of some extra-sensory ability to know my mind better than I do, he has proclaimed my answer to be a lie, but I gave him what he asked for, and he should return the favor.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, excellent response. Some things you point out from a different perspective. I do believe the homosexuals have been forced in other times and places into doing acts that they would not have done except for the prevention of exposure or harm. No one should be taken ‘advantage’ of in such a manner. But now in the US, they don’t have those concerns.
George, homosexuals have all of the same rights in the US as heterosexuals. When you insist on changes in the laws to increase their rights, it comes at the expense of someone else. It’s like taxes. If the government gives someone money, it is money that has been confiscated from someone else. The US Constitution was written to give everyone equality of opportunity and rights. If a law is written that gives someone more than ‘equal’ rights, as I said, it is at the expense of someone else’s rights.
So, as you demand ‘rights’, answer the question as to ‘who will have to give up a right for me to obtain this right’? In the US, any person can get married, any person can enter into a civil union, any person can sign a ‘power of attorney’.
All:
Most gay people believe that they were “born that way,” and there are a few churches that agree with them. I believe that in the “nature vs. nurture” debate, both sides have sound supporting evidence, suggesting that every case of homosexuality does not have the same cause. Consequently, I doubt that most gays were” born that way.” (I do think that some were.) Conversely, I have found no evidence that suggests that homosexuality is a “choice” in the sense that one decides to call “heads” as opposed to “tails” when a coin is to be tossed. Nobody wakes up one day and thinks “ Well, today is the day that I decide if I like penises or vaginas.” Sexual orientation doesn’t happen that way.
The matter of “choice” is an important one because the question of punishment turns on the question of volition. Harsh punishment is more conscionable if sociopathic intent is present. The overwhelming evidence suggests that whether by nature or nurture, the homosexual orientation is firmly established by puberty, and on a subject as complex as human sexuality, it is difficult to credit children with criminal intent.
It might be helpful to consider hermaphroditism at this point. Occasionally a child is born with both male and female genitalia. You might say that God made them, but you might also wonder for what purpose. God also pops out a few babies from time to time that have no functioning genitalia and who are consequently not reproductive. Perhaps He has purposes other than reproduction for these individuals. Or perhaps they are simply natural mistakes.
It is my opinion (and there is some supporting evidence) that in at least a fair percentage of cases, homosexuality is the result of natural mistakes made in the womb. When the fetus communicates its gender to the mother (this is done hormonally), the mother SHOULD answer by supplying her own cocktail of hormones that are tailored to the reported gender. But if the gender reporting is garbled or confused, or if the mother responds incorrectly, the result is a fetus that is being supplied with the wrong hormonal environment for its gender. Shortly after birth, these babies begin showing atypical gender identity behaviors. Many cases of remarkable gender confusion by age five have been thoroughly studied, and the individuals in question usually become homosexual when they reach sexual maturity. They often describe themselves as “a woman in a man’s body” or vise-versa.
These individuals are naturally occurring mistakes of nature. Because the number of such mistakes represents a small fraction of the total population, homosexuals are not considered to be “normal.” “Normal” is a statistical term that refers to the portion of a population that resides under the middle of the bell curve. The individuals that are represented by the extremities of the bell curve are “abnormal,” again a statistical term that should carry no judgmental context.
Historically, homosexuality was often associated with effeminate men or with masculine women. While a masculine man may behave effeminately, more often the effeminate characteristics noted were both phenotypical AND behavioral. As the individuals in question usually have no apparent genetic cause for gender ambiguity, it is reasonable to conclude that their androgyny is a result of hormonal influences during gestation. Again, not a case of sociopathic rebellion but rather a natural consequence of the variety of individuals born under God.
I make these points to demonstate an alternative perspective to those who want to criminalize homosexuality, as I think that they are often mistaken in their understanding of its causes. I am not implying that a society lacks the right to criminalize homosexuality. It does have that right. But if it chooses to do so, the choice should be an informed one, not one based upon millennia old misconceptions.
@ redeteam:
I keep hearing that everyone has the same right to get married. My Mom, who at age 86 is no longer reproductive, has the right to marry her 87-year-old boyfriend. She could have married him the day after she met him if she wanted. In the state of Virginia I cannot marry the man I have loved for 38 years. And when I do marry him in Maryland next month, the Federal Government won’t recognize the union unless the SCOTUS decides that in consideration of states’ rights it must do so.
The suggestion that I have an equal right to marry a woman is absurd. Marriage is a commitment of sacred trust between two individuals who indivisibly love one another. A gay man cannot love a woman in this manner, whether she is a party to the truth or not. He would always be distracted by his true orientation. Even worse is when a gay man marries an unsuspecting woman. Her trust has been violated, their conjugal relations are acts of rape, their children conceived are abominations. These are true crimes with real victims. I know a few, and each case is tragic. To suggest that a right to commit such crimes exists is ridiculous. No one has such a right.
@George Wells:
There has been no substantiated research done to support that hypothesis that has not been debunked. There is no gay gene. But it would be interesting to see what happens if a gay gene was discovered and women started aborting their babies because they didn’t want a “queer” kid. I imagine we would see multiple marches by homosexuals demanding that abortion be made illegal.
I have already told you, I think the court got Lawrence right, although there is no Consitutional right to privacy, as exhibited in America’s airports on a daily basis, although I think the TSA violates our 4th Amendment rights.
Lawrence should have been the “end game.” If you choose to use the organ nature gave you for the purpose of reproduction, and insert it into the orifice that nature designed for another man to be able to evacuate his bowels, and you do that in the privacy of your own home and not some beer joint, dirty movie/book store or some bath house, or any other public place where the general public has access, that is your business.
But that is not enough for you. You are a sodomite that wants to force the rest of the nation to accept sodomy as a normal human action. You want to change the laws, not to allow you the right to vote or have a job or buy a home/car/TV, but to isolate you as a “protected” class where the laws are designed to fit you specifically. Instead of accepting the will of the voters, as in Prop 8, you, and your ilk, seek out activist judges who will defy the will of the people to fit your agenda.
@George Wells:
George, so you’re boiling the ‘rights’ argument down to semantics? Marrying your male lover is not what you want. You want a legal union with him, but you want heterosexual’s to treat you equal and give up their right to the name ‘marriage’. Let’s face it, marriage is between a man and a woman, you are entitled to marry whomever you please, but for it to be a ‘marriage’ it has to be a woman. If you don’t want a marriage, but a legal union, you are entitled to that. But for you to have that legal right you want hetero’s to have to ‘give up something’ to your benefit, Their right to the word marriage. Maybe it would be acceptable that all ‘unions’ be just that, but if it is a man and a woman, it is a marriage and if it is a man and a man, it is a mirage (or some other word).
In any case, I don’t think you should expect someone to give up something just for the sake of you gaining something.
I’ve got a question for anyone that cares to answer it. If nature is ‘in balance’ and 3% of the population are homosexual, what is the 3% on the other end that balances that out? Just curious if there is an answer to that.
@Redteam:
Per your 3% question, Kinsey devised a scale, a “sexuality rating scale” from the data he collected as part of his research. On the one extreme he positioned those individuals who he found to be exclusively, 100% homosexual and on the other extreme he positioned exclusive, 100% heterosexuals. His research suggested that there are rather large numbers of individuals who fall somewhere in between the two extremes. He suggested the bell curve. More recent research places the precentage of exclusively homosexual males at around 2.5% of the population, with another 1.5% being exclusively homosexual females. His scale was intended to be used to qualify degrees of sexual preference and to make the point that such degrees exist in the first place. It was not meant to suggest that there was an inherent symetry in the distribution of individuals across the scale – bell curves are only symetrical when the determining factors are identical at each extreme. But to answer your question of what is positioned opposite homosexuality (as in 100% homosexual) that would be heterosexuality (as in 100% heterosexual.) Sort of common sense, isn’t it?
All:
No rebutal to my explanation of why gay men cannot marry a woman? Just wondering…
@Redteam:
Personally, I’m not “wed” to the idea that the legal union I want has to be called a “marriage.” I understand the arguments in favor of calling it that, but if the legal rights were the same either way, it would not be a case of, as Ginsberg called it “marriage lite.” What I don’t like are civil unions which are the same as “commitment ceremonies” which are the same as giving someone a friendship ring. I don’t expect to gain a tax deduction for dependent children (unless somehow I got one – very unlikely) but I would like some of the 1100 other benefits of marriage. You can keep the word.
I do think that it is fair to ask to be treated as an equal, as that right seems to be granted in the constitution. I get that if rights are granted to a class which previously didn’t have them, someone will lose something. Much like the Southern landowners lost equity when their slaves were freed. But that isn’t an excuse for ignoring the constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment. Your “In any case, I don’t think you should expect someone to give up something just for the sake of you gaining something.” would seem to suggest that the slaves were wrong to want freedom… Did you mean that?
@retire05:
Thanks for supporting the Lawrence decision – I didn’t expect that. It makes me more sympathetic toward your slippery slope fears. I am Republican on fiscal conservatism (the one issue that is REALLY important to EVERYBODY). Same with guns, and taxes, and small government, and states’ rights. If the Republican Party wasn’t so obsessed with bedroom issues (I am reminded of dogs sniffing each other to find out what they’ve been up to…) I’d vote with you MOST of the time. (Sometimes you field some really bad candidates, just like we do.) I really do think that 50-state gay marriage is coming. I hope you all don’t suffer too much when it gets here.
@George Wells: well, not really. If the norm is heterosexuality and one extreme is homosexuality, then the other ‘extreme’ is not heterosexuality, that is the norm. Actually I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure the other extreme is not the normal.
You may not be hung up on homosexual unions being called a marriage, but your statements don’t agree with you: ” I really do think that 50-state gay marriage” It seems clear that your intent is that heterosexual persons will have to give up their exclusive right to the word, sacrifice so that others will feel equal. So, do they have the right to live with whoever they please in a union, yes. Do they have the right to call that union a marriage, no, to do so would demean the meaning of the word and make it only colloquial. You have equality now, you just want to rights to take away something from someone else to call it your own. Murderers are a class of their own also, but not too many are anxious to take their name away from them. Leave the word marriage to the men and women that are entitled to it.
@George Wells:
Then find a person that is qualified to perform a union between two homosexuals and perform that ceremony and call it whatever you please, as long as that word is not already taken, such as marriage. You have all the same rights to have any kind of ceremony you wish as long as it doesn’t infringe on others rights. But the word marriage is taken, find something else.
George, obviously we’re talking apples and oranges. A slave does not have equality, if a person owns a slave legally, and the laws are changed or begun to be enforced, then the slave owner should be compensated by the government that has taken his ‘previous right’ away. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, therefore no compensation is owed and they don’t have the right to commandeer the word marriage from those that already own it.
@ Redteam:
How did you get that “I really do think that 50-state gay marriage is coming.” is anything more than a prediction??????? (What, you don’t see it coming? I’ve good some disturbing news for you: The next generation of voters are a WHOLE lot more liberal about homosexuality than I am, and if you CAN’T see 50-state gay marriage (and by no other word) coming, you need to clean your glasses.
Why don’t you point out to me where I said I wanted you to give up something? (I did think that maybe we could “share,” but I guess I was wrong.) More to the point: I explain what I want, and you guys hear something else. Who are you listening to? It’s not me. I said: “I’m not “wed” to the idea that the legal union I want has to be called a “marriage.” ” Isn’t that enough of a disclaimer? Go back further. I’m talking about rights, complaining about Virginia’s bizarre laws. I’m NOT fighting over the word “marriage.” That was somebody else. Yes, I’ve used the term “marriage equality” – I would like that. But I called it a few other things too, because I was getting blow-back over labels from you-know-who. I’ll concede that some of you are particularly sensitive about the word “marriage” and the religious history of it, and that even if MY church is willing to “marry” me, you’re gonna be pissed about it, and that to me is a petty problem that a different word (for the same benefits otherwise) would easily solve. I’m ready to compromise – you know, each side gives a little to get some of what they want? So I’ll give you that one. I said so. Period!
@ Redteam:
Again: The suggestion that I have an equal right as you to marry a woman is absurd. Marriage is a commitment of sacred trust between two individuals who indivisibly love one another. A gay man cannot love a woman in this manner, whether she is a party to the truth or not. He would always be distracted by his true orientation. Even worse is when a gay man marries an unsuspecting woman. Her trust has been violated, their conjugal relations are acts of rape, their children conceived are abominations. These are true crimes with real victims. I know a few, and each case is tragic. To suggest that a right to commit such crimes exists is ridiculous. No one has such a right.
@Redteam:
The courts have ruled over and over again that words are not owned – they are in the public domain and cannot be patented nor can their use be franchised. And the conventions of etymology recognize the fluid nature of word meaning, so that over time, definitions are adjusted to reflect the current (as opposed to the archaic) usage of those words. The word “marriage” is not in a separate class of “exempt” words and will be no different – its usage will evolve, a process we are already witnessing. (Again, this is an observational comment, not a “demand,” as some of you accuse.)
@George Wells: but again, very convincing that you will not be happy or content until the word marriage is corrupted to include homo’s.
@Redteam:
My condolences for your loss of hearing.
Your refusal to accept my word when it is given is insulting. Your failure to acknowledge when you are wrong:
(“The suggestion that I have an equal right as you to marry a woman is absurd. Marriage is a commitment of sacred trust between two individuals who indivisibly love one another. A gay man cannot love a woman in this manner, whether she is a party to the truth or not. He would always be distracted by his true orientation. Even worse is when a gay man marries an unsuspecting woman. Her trust has been violated, their conjugal relations are acts of rape, their children conceived are abominations. These are true crimes with real victims. I know a few, and each case is tragic. To suggest that a right to commit such crimes exists is ridiculous. No one has such a right.”)
lacks dignity. I had hoped that your site would afford an opportunity for individuals of opposing views to share opinions honestly and to critically evaluate each other’s salient points. But your choice (and retire05’s) to resort to accusations of lying when my comments don’t support the conclusions you’ve reached suggests an entrenched bigotry (look up the word and read the definition carefully) that I have no hope of influencing. Sorry I wasted your time.
George Wells
rest assure that you did not waste your and other times,
you gave very good exchanges in a manner of dignity and a purpose of knowing the views of other, with a self restraint which contribute in streching the multiple comments back and forth,
all where educative for botht sides,
one thing I find is as long as we debate the better each side get to the core of the subject,
and the more understand is the subject,
but take note that you where left alone in that debate ,
meaning you are one of the few who stand for your own rights,
they don’t seem to be shared so honestly and so stringent by other ,which might be more decadent,
you only spoke for your thoughts which are on a higher level than
other who share the same state of mind,
there for we must face the fact that this POST
from Brother Bob is a success because we both learned from each other,
thank you Brother Bob
best to you
@George Wells: George, if you want to be specific, quote just one place where I said you are lying. I’ve never said that. I have said that you continue to say you are not hung up on using the word ‘marriage’ for gay people but that everything you say refers to gay marriage. The word marriage belongs to men and women couples. If you want to have a ‘similar’ relationship, you have to use a different word, marriage is already taken. A really ironic situation is that ‘gay’ women do not like to be referred to as ‘gay’, they prefer lesbian. To me, the word ‘gay’ means men, lesbians means women and marriage means a man and a woman. The word you want to use to apply is not that word, you have to find one that is not taken.
I thought you wanted to keep the discussion on a civil basis, but accusing me of calling you a liar is out of bounds.
@George Wells:George,
Let me adjust you definition slightly: Marriage is a commitment of sacred trust between two individuals, a man and a woman, who indivisibly love one another.
Why do you insist that you do not have the right to get married? What law prohibits you from getting married?
@Redteam:
GOD’s Law.
Ephesians 5:25, 26,28
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, (Not: “Husbands, lay with your wife as you would with a man and despoil her with your lies.”) 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies….
A homosexual man cannot thus love a woman.
“He would always be distracted by his true orientation. Even worse is when a gay man marries an unsuspecting woman. Her trust has been violated, their conjugal relations are acts of rape, their children conceived are abominations. These are true crimes with real victims.”
There is a measure of common decency contained in the above phrase that you seem oblivious to. Perhaps you hold no respect for women, but I do.
I don’t like using Biblical justifications of anything, but you asked. And while there is clearly no secular “law” I know of that forbids a gay man to marry a woman, the courts have time and again ruled that the homosexuality of one partner is grounds for divorce. It’s common sense for dummies. There is no reason to expressly forbid it, as such a marriage would be so glaring a violation of exactly what marriage seeks to establish between the two being married that it very rarely occurs. But I suppose that there SHOULD be a law against it, since the absence of a law against it suggests to you that it is OK. Have you no sense that this is wrong? Is not what I described a crime?
@George Wells:
Have you ever told your mother this? That a homosexual man can’t love a woman? But you can thus love a man, but you can’t marry him.
I didn’t say a homosexual man should marry a woman, I only said he has a right to marry a woman. He does not have a right to marry a man, only a woman has that right.
We’ve gone around the same circle many times and you have not convinced me (and don’t need to) that a man should ‘marry’ a man. I have no problem with them living together and calling it something other than a marriage. (which is only between a man and a woman)
You said:
I find it strange that you feel that if you have sex with a woman that it is rape and that if you had children they would be abominations and then say that you respect women. Would you tell a woman that was married to a gay man that she was being raped and that her children were abominations? Just wondering.
No, it is still obvious that you are hung up on the fact that the word ‘marriage’ is the only acceptable word to use for gay guys living in a union. You will not be satisfied until you have corrupted it to mean something unintended and historical.
I notice you didn’t point out where I had called you a liar.
@George Wells:
Adultry, of any nature, is certain states is grounds for a divorce. It does not matter if the adultry was committed with the opposite sex, or the same sex. But the point is moot, as most states have adopted a “no-fault” divorce system, another mistake made by liberals who cheapened marriage.
Oh, and I think you should look up the legal definition of “rape.” If a gay man has sexual intercourse with his wife, who is straight, and that sex is consentual, and they are both of legal age, there is no rape.
Where the hell do you come up with such crap?
@Redteam #147:
OK, here is where you call me a liar:
Every time I explain exactly what I am asking for, and you respond that I will not be satisfied until I get something OTHER than what I have asked for, you are in effect accusing me of lying in the first instance.
Other gays insist on the word “marriage,” I don’t. I’ve explained why that word doesn’t mean to me what it means to others, in the context of the rights I want. I’M HAPPY TO GIVE UP SOMETHING I CONSIDER TRIVIAL IN ORDER TO GAIN WHAT I BELIEVE IS OF MORE IMPORTANT SUBSTANCE.
Yes, I’m getting “married” in Maryland, but not in a church. The marriage COULD be in a church, but as I’m non-denominational in my faith, City Hall will be fine. It will ALWAYS be fine. I want legal protections for my relationship – like the inheritance rights heterosexual couples have. Not a word. My discussion of the word “marriage” and my contention that the word cannot be “owned” nor can an evolution of its meaning be prevented was based upon my understanding of how copyright law and etymology work, and it should not be inferred that because of that discussion the word has some magical significance to me. I’m too old to get giddy over “marriage” or any other word.
Your insistence that the word “marriage” is what I really want, after all I have explained otherwise, amounts to calling me a liar.
@George Wells:
If I said: “You’re a liar”. That’s calling you a liar.
is your description, not mine. I’m only disagreeing with what you say your end game is, not that you’re lying about it. I’m not sure you recognize the difference. I think that you believe what you want has to be called a ‘marriage’ for you to feel as if you achieved what you think you want to achieve. Therefore I’m saying that your ulterior motive is to make others accept your living arrangements by applying their word to it rather than some other word. What you should want to achieve is a feeling that you have a secure loving relationship with whomever you desire, not whether someone else ‘likes’ it or not.
Your continued use of the word ‘married’ or ‘marriage’ while claiming it is ‘not important’ is proof that you may not be in touch with reality. You might want to check in.(with reality)