The eternal queer
March 6th, 2008 6:18 pm · 20 comments
E-mail of the day, again in response to last week’s bit on gay marriage:
I have read that gay activists are arguing for experimentation with new family configurations involving sperm donation, open marriage, group marriage, and polygamy. Traditional marriage is the central institution of our society. If we don’t save it right here and right now, I believe the lives of America’s future children will be chaotic.
And this, I might add, from a pretty intelligent reader, and frequent correspondent.
But, what it is with this fear that the sybaritic gays are the barbarians at the gates of civilization, just itching to herd us all into the bathhouses, and that permitting them the right to, say, inherit property is somehow a foot in the door? I understand the cultural fear of undermining marriage, a legitimate pillar of society. But this idea of gays as “those people,” outsiders, uniquely nefarious others who act different and talk different and have insatiable sexual desires - that is the exact same trope that has been employed against blacks here and Jews in Europe.
Beyond this is the fact that if homosexuals are somehow more libertine than “normal” straights, you might make an argument that those who are seeking to make a long-term commitment to one another may in fact be the least libertine.
Yet all this is nonsense anyway. If you think that by standing against gay marriage you’re somehow taking a stand against group marriage, you’re spending a lot of time hanging around with straw men. And if you’re that upset over the things you’re “reading,” I’d say do us all a favor - and let the subscription to Der Sturmer lapse.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Gay marriage
There are currently 20 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogLernaean
3/6/08
7:50 PM | All the oponents of gay marriage have the same talking points. They claim it will undermine heterosexual marriages. How? They claim it should be left to churches, but there are churches who perform same sex marriages. They claim that it's illegal when in fact, it is not illegal at all and is actually supported by the 14th ammendment. They claim we shouldn't CHANGE our Constitutuion to allow these "gays" to marry, but they want a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. They contradict themselves in every argument they make and show themselves to be homophobic and hateful, not religous at all, regardless of what they may claim they are.
There is strong, strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There is extremely strong evidence that same sex marriage was practiced in early Christianity. There is even evidence that Christ himself attended one of these ceremonies. There is strong evidence that allowing gay marriage would REDUCE opportunistic sexual encounters, not increase them. There is no possible basis to the claim that heterosexual marriage would be harmed in any way. Allowing gays to marry would INCREASE the emphasis and strength of marriage because gays have fought for it for so long that they aren't as likely to file for divorce a few months or years later.
The ONE BIGGEST THREAT to heterosexual marriage is DIVORCE. Gay Marriage would do nothing but strengthen the institution and make it more meaningful, more expected as a norm, more commmonplace and would promote monogamy.
Wanting to ban gay marriage is somewhat akin to trying to ban fresh air and demand pollution in it's place. It makes no sense to want to deny a loving couple the right to marry one another in a legal, binding ceremony to promote commitment.
Brittany Spears is permitted to marry a man in Las Vegas and then have it annulled a few days later while a gay or lesbian couple who has been together for 20+ years isn't permitted. Where's the logic in this?
Don't worry about gay marriage. If we wish to protect the integrity of marriage, let's look at banning divorce, not at keeping more people from being able to marry when that's what they actually want.
|
pml
3/7/08
11:54 AM | I really like your posts Learnean. You get it. The problem with the majority here in good ole Lancaster is they think prayer can fix anything they consider wrong.Must be the Amish influence.
Look at how many want to send us back 50 years and ban abortion. Great more welfare kids and womens futures ruined. There are just some out there who think they can tell us all how to live. I hope they are in the minority but now I fear they may not be.
And good luck trying to get any of them to give you an intelligent explanation on how gay marriage effects any one other than the couple involved. I have been asking for two years and have got nothing except they believe a stem cell in a petry dish is a person and the bible says evolution is wrong. |
dpg123
3/7/08
1:45 PM |
Well Spoken pml. i couldnt have said it better myself:)
|
WinstonTheLastHuman
3/7/08
3:02 PM | QUOTE(Lernaean @ Mar 6 2008, 08:50 PM) [snapback]363690[/snapback]
All the oponents of gay marriage have the same talking points......
I agree that most arguments against gay marriage are flimsy at best. That is because most people who are against gay marriage don’t know why they should be against it. They have been given a straw man to defend, though many sincerely believe it to be true.
Note, that observationally, I agree with your points regarding homosexuality, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Here it goes…
There is currently a process in place by governments and NGOs worldwide to create ‘new normals.’ Whatever the ‘old normals’ were is irrelevant though many should, arguably, have been changed. The reason ‘they’ are changing the ‘old normals’ (and by normals I am referring to social mores, structures and values) is that when a generation cannot link itself to the past, then it becomes much easier to insert ‘your’ own pre-determined social values and mores (which will most likely be the offsprings of the ‘new normals'). This is the covert technique of social change preferred by Fabian socialists, as opposed to overt social change techniques used by fascists and other dictatorial leaders (most recently being Pol Pot). Remember, control the youth and control the future. Once complete control is gained over an entire generation, then they will teach all future generations your message!
Ok, so back to the topic. Our old normals would be defined along classic sex roles, lifestyles, technology (huge!), career paths, cultural/racial isolationism, lingo/slang, music etc, etc, plus you can include in this physical proximity to extended family, teaching at home, etc, etc. Over the past 100 years, inch-by-inch, all of these things have been eroded, in such a way that it seemed like a normal and natural evolution and other incidences we rightfully cried out for change-a technique known as the dialectical approach. Think about the disconnect of current teenagers from their grandparents (all your children excluded, of course), now think about that 15 years from now and the gap is bigger. Children have been isolated so they can more easily be influenced by ________ (insert your favorite scapegoat here).
So legally recognizing gay marriage is just one more piece in this puzzle-thats all. It will (only slightly) further isolate future generations from past generations. And how it will be done is through ridiculous, baseless arguments that will easily be trounced (note-the same technique is currently being used with the evolution/intelligent design debate). Any logical thinking person, based upon our collective acceptance of ‘normal,’ will have to support gay marriage based upon the argument put forth. The discussion is completely shaped without mentioning the true objective.
Unfortunately it becomes one more nail in the coffin for humanity-and that statement has nothing to do with disrespecting the rights of a gay couple to live as they wish (which I am all for)-because we are selling our future children up the river and (ironically) most believe they are actually doing what is best for their children and society.
If your initial reaction is to reject all I said, I encourage deep reflection before accepting that position. |
gsmart
3/7/08
3:29 PM | QUOTE(WinstonTheLastHuman @ Mar 7 2008, 04:02 PM) [snapback]363913[/snapback]
If your initial reaction is to reject all I said, I encourage deep reflection before accepting that position.
Interesting post. I'd look at it from the complete opposite end, though.
When you talk about "old normals" you're talking about tradition and traditionalism. Well, there are obvious reasons why traditions exist, obvious benefits to traditionalism.
But traditions also exist for other reasons. Fear, for example. The hatreds that have always burned in mankinds' collective breast for the other - the one who doesn't belong to our tribe, who is different.
At the same time, though, the promise of America, our founding documents in particular, is that this tribalism is irrelevant. That it doesn't matter who you are or where your came from, what your race or creed, all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
That is our creed - but it has not always been our history. But as I mentioned elsewhere this week, the history of our country is one of trying to live up to this creed - of trying to fulfill our national ideals.
Well, it's hard. It's hard to overcome ingrained predjudices; we've had wars over this, haven't we? And so we say these "new ways" are isolating us from the old ways, that there's a progressive march from the old order to the new; but that's inevitable, and the operative question is how does this manifest itself?
I've never been one to believe that the old ways are good merely because they're old; I've never been in favor of traditionalism for traditionalism's sake. Show me where tradition has been beneficial to society and how society would suffer if that tradition is eradicated, and then I'm on board, or might be on board; the gay marriage issue is one in which we're told that permitting gays to marry somehow undermines the institution or cheapens it, but I frankly don't see that, and don't see how gays could possibly undermine it more than straights already have.
But if the practical function of marriage from a societal standpoint is building strong communities; if married couples are more likely to buy a home and take care of their property; if they are more likely as a result to give back to their community in terms of tax revenue as well as general upkeep of those communities; if married couples provide a more stable environment for children; all of these things are true regardless of the genders of the people in the bedroom
And so this is traditionalism - just with a different face. And we make, I think, a better word for our children when we actually mean what we say in terms of what America and Americanism is supposed to mean; we make a better world for them when we commit ourselves to the ideals for which so many people have died. I'm tired of this, "they're different so they're dangerous" mentality. I don't see the barbarians at the gates. I see people who want what is supposed to be their birthright, and I don't consider it audacious or somehow un-American that they should want it. I consider it un-American to suggest, in any way, that they don't deserve it. |
pml
3/7/08
3:57 PM | Yes many traditions have been set aside. It used to be completely abnormal for a woman especial a MOTHER to work outside her home. Not anymore thanks to a society that makes it almost impossible to make ends meet and especially raise children on one pay check especially when the parents covet THINGS like fancy cars and huge homes that would have been inconceivable years ago to spending time with their children or even eating a meal together.
Living together used to also be taboo and "abnormal" yet now almost everybody lives together before marriage completely disregarding their churches no no on this.
Years ago, you got pregnant, you married the father BEFORE the baby was born. Not anymore and more and more career women are forgoing a man altogehter and just buying some sperm to have injected at age 40 in order to at least be "normal"according to Little Dutch who thinks every woman should ahve a baby.
Years ago we did not depend on the government to get us out of a pickle because the government did not take all our money and one illness would not have bankrupted us. Not true anymor.
So what is a couple extra wedding gifts and hangovers each year as our gay friends celebrate their committment to one another. The times after all, they are a changin! 
|
WinstonTheLastHuman
3/7/08
4:05 PM | QUOTE(gsmart @ Mar 7 2008, 04:29 PM) [snapback]363920[/snapback]
I'd look at it from the complete opposite end, though.
I agree you did that.
We have fundamentally opposing positions on how we filter the tales of history. It makes discussions like this difficult because all finer points are based upon deep lying opposition. Because the opposing beliefs are hidden, they appear ‘invisible’ making the disagreement harder to comprehend. I once looked at the world more along your lines, so though, I don’t agree, I think I can see you point possibly clearer than you see mine. I say that because I think you missed my message. Regardless, I will try to clarify….
About fear, hatred, foolish past beliefs (like worshiping the sun-right?), I agree that change is fine – hence the statement regarding ‘rightfully crying out for change.’ But I was trying to put into context that what we are seeing is all jus t part of the same game which has always been around: the few keeping their control over the many.
You mention tribalism as if it were bad. It’s not. Nor is it good. It just is. Like a sex drive. And it has been exploited in the past by those controlling the few* but I am not suggesting that 1) we should ignore that part of us or 2) succumb to it allures.
I am suggesting that gay marriage is following the same model of elite manipulation which is lose/lose. On the surface I agree completely with all having the same rights. I just also see how the argument fits into a bigger picture.
*Here is a fun piece of trivia for you. You know how the bee hive has been seen as the symbol of a perfect society for all of civilization (if you didn’t, notice how it was used by the pharaohs, the ancient greeks, on royal coats of arms etc), right? Well it is bc the idea of an elite (queen bee) serviced by the masses (the hive) with a buffer zone to deal with the headaches (drone class) is awesome if you happen to be the queen bee. Well think of the word border. It is through borders our tribal urges first were exploited (hey, those guys on the other side of that line are bad, go kill them before they kill you, I don’t care if they are your cousins), what do you think that word means? Bee Order. When the ‘new english’ was introduced, many of the new words had many deeper meanings to those in on the game….some how I dont think this is the sort of history they are covering in your courses lol
QUOTE(pml @ Mar 7 2008, 04:57 PM) [snapback]363929[/snapback] So what is a couple extra wedding gifts and hangovers each year as our gay friends celebrate their committment to one another. The times after all, they are a changin!
And that, in a nutshell, is the paradox. |
wonderwoman
3/7/08
4:22 PM | QUOTE There is strong, strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
FALSE
Why start with a false premise? When you do that...then everything that comes after it is flawed. There is NO...absolutely NO evidence that homosexuality is genetic and strong evidence that it is chosen because of environmental lacks in nurturing. Now go on from there and bring on the logic.
I believe this is the last time I write on this rediculous topic. From now on maybe this thread will be by homosexuals....for homosexuals and supported only by homosexuals. Won't that be a hoot where logic is concerned? 
|
gsmart
3/7/08
4:42 PM | QUOTE(wonderwoman @ Mar 7 2008, 05:22 PM) [snapback]363936[/snapback]
FALSE
Why start with a false premise? When you do that...then everything that comes after it is flawed. There is NO...absolutely NO evidence that homosexuality is genetic and strong evidence that it is chosen because of environmental lacks in nurturing. Now go on from there and bring on the logic.
See, I'll agree that there's been no genetic link proven. But this argues, in effect, that people "choose" to be gay.
Why in the world would anyone "choose" to be gay?
Why in the world would anyone choose to be hated, to be discriminated against, to be legislated against. And the de facto answer tends to be that gays just want to be sybarites; they just want to revel in licentiousness. Which goes directly back to the sentiments expressed in the e-mail message that began this thread in the first place.
|
peddler
3/7/08
5:59 PM | QUOTE(gsmart @ Mar 7 2008, 04:42 PM) [snapback]363942[/snapback]
See, I'll agree that there's been no genetic link proven. But this argues, in effect, that people "choose" to be gay.
Why in the world would anyone "choose" to be gay?
Why in the world would anyone choose to be hated, to be discriminated against, to be legislated against. And the de facto answer tends to be that gays just want to be sybarites; they just want to revel in licentiousness. Which goes directly back to the sentiments expressed in the e-mail message that began this thread in the first place.
why do people rob banks, why do people choose to molest, so on and so forth.
The argument that "why would someone choose to be gay" doesnt hold water.
I personally dont really care either way but with all of the hate in the world i guess two adults that love one another is a good thing
|
dragonrider
3/7/08
7:02 PM | The statement that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality is again another of those antiscience statements we hear so often today. Denying evolution, global warming, homosexuality does not make it go away. Perhaps that is why the court has come down against homeschooling. Fearing a return to the dark ages when science was totally eschewed.
|
Typhon
3/7/08
7:28 PM | QUOTE(Lernaean @ Mar 6 2008, 08:50 PM) [snapback]363690[/snapback] All the oponents of gay marriage have the same talking points. They claim it will undermine heterosexual marriages. How? They claim it should be left to churches, but there are churches who perform same sex marriages. They claim that it's illegal when in fact, it is not illegal at all and is actually supported by the 14th ammendment. They claim we shouldn't CHANGE our Constitutuion to allow these "gays" to marry, but they want a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. They contradict themselves in every argument they make and show themselves to be homophobic and hateful, not religous at all, regardless of what they may claim they are.
There is strong, strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There is extremely strong evidence that same sex marriage was practiced in early Christianity. There is even evidence that Christ himself attended one of these ceremonies. There is strong evidence that allowing gay marriage would REDUCE opportunistic sexual encounters, not increase them. There is no possible basis to the claim that heterosexual marriage would be harmed in any way. Allowing gays to marry would INCREASE the emphasis and strength of marriage because gays have fought for it for so long that they aren't as likely to file for divorce a few months or years later.
The ONE BIGGEST THREAT to heterosexual marriage is DIVORCE. Gay Marriage would do nothing but strengthen the institution and make it more meaningful, more expected as a norm, more commmonplace and would promote monogamy.
Wanting to ban gay marriage is somewhat akin to trying to ban fresh air and demand pollution in it's place. It makes no sense to want to deny a loving couple the right to marry one another in a legal, binding ceremony to promote commitment.
Brittany Spears is permitted to marry a man in Las Vegas and then have it annulled a few days later while a gay or lesbian couple who has been together for 20+ years isn't permitted. Where's the logic in this?
Don't worry about gay marriage. If we wish to protect the integrity of marriage, let's look at banning divorce, not at keeping more people from being able to marry when that's what they actually want.
This is an excellent post and deserves to be addressed from those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals based on nothing more than what their own religous beliefs tell them.
QUOTE(wonderwoman @ Mar 7 2008, 05:22 PM) [snapback]363936[/snapback] FALSE Why start with a false premise? When you do that...then everything that comes after it is flawed. There is NO...absolutely NO evidence that homosexuality is genetic and strong evidence that it is chosen because of environmental lacks in nurturing. Now go on from there and bring on the logic. I believe this is the last time I write on this rediculous topic. From now on maybe this thread will be by homosexuals....for homosexuals and supported only by homosexuals. Won't that be a hoot where logic is concerned?
Can you please explain, with all the scientific research out there that is contrary to your statement, how you can say that there is no evidence it is genetic when it has been proven that it is? Your refusal to see the sun does not void it's existance.
There is nothing false about the premise he started with, it is scientifically accurate.
|
dragonrider
3/7/08
7:53 PM | There have been numerous identical twin studies which show that 50% of twins where one is gay the other is gay as well. Thus scientific proof that being gay is not just social but also genetic. |
gsmart
3/7/08
11:38 PM | QUOTE(peddler @ Mar 7 2008, 06:59 PM) [snapback]363955[/snapback]
why do people rob banks, why do people choose to molest, so on and so forth.
So... homosexuality is on par with bank robbery and molestation?
|
hahaha
3/8/08
9:47 AM | QUOTE The statement that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality is again another of those antiscience statements we hear so often today. Denying evolution, global warming, homosexuality does not make it go away. Perhaps that is why the court has come down against homeschooling. Fearing a return to the dark ages when science was totally eschewed.
Actually it is bad science and there is A LOT OF IT going around these days.
Did you know that the computer models which have predicted global warming have been found in error in a peer reviewed study? That doesn't make the news!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...warming-debate/
QUOTE The latest paper is by four scientists from the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the University of Virginia. Senior author David Douglass has written about the disparity between surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends in the past, and he has dared to conclude that model simulations are not consistent with observed patterns.
This is one tiny example but the same things plays out over and over. Atheists hell bent on proving evolution have drawn conclusions that later science builds upon and when disproven, often goes uncorrected. Same thing for homosexual research. Many homosexual scientists have desired to prove theories and have faulty research or incomplete research. A great example of this is the 10% of the population is homosexual when in reality it has been proven to be around 1% to 3%. Yet the band plays on. |
pml
3/8/08
9:59 AM | QUOTE(peddler @ Mar 7 2008, 05:59 PM) [snapback]363955[/snapback]
why do people rob banks, why do people choose to molest, so on and so forth.
The argument that "why would someone choose to be gay" doesnt hold water.
I personally dont really care either way but with all of the hate in the world i guess two adults that love one another is a good thing
People choose to rob banks for MONEY.
However, most pedophiles have an illness, at least it is treated as an illness and many say they can not stop which is why we have the Meagan law where they must register when leaving prison because it is expected they are incurable and WILL offend again.
Now when you look at homosexuality and say genetic, well it is not genetis as I don;t believe there is any proof it runs in families however, I know my gay friends knew they were different at a very early age. One man played with dolls and did needlepoint as a child which in itself does not equal homosexuality but he knew and he cried about it and thought of suicide because he knew he would never be excepted by his family, his church and by society.
He also cried over the fact he would never be married or have children yet he could not change this about himself and only after becoming a man and leaving Lancaster did he find others like him and realize he wasn;t "sick". Society was just intolerant. He is a wonderful person and should not have to change because of people like WW
|
dragonrider
3/8/08
11:25 AM | People refuse to accept scientifi evidence of genetic origin or homosexuality and proof of evolution.
If homosexuality is genetic and not choice then you can't say that people just need to change their choice.
The evolution deniers are of the same bent becuase to accept evolution would be to accept that the bible is not inerrant. But becuase they lack grounding in science they fail to understand that to deny evolution is not to just deny evolution but to deny geology which is now based on plate tectonics, to deny archaeology becuase of the fossil record, to deny astronomy becuase the stars are older than a few thousand years, deny physics becuase if the stars are only a few thousand years old then the light from those stars could not reach earth without the failure of the theory of relativity , deny biology which is based on genetics etc.
But then facts are irrelevant when talking about irational decision making processes.
You are absolutely right global warming doesn't exist, it is just my imagination that when I was a child we used to have snow on the ground and I could go sledding in my backyard. The glaciers melting = a left wing conspiracy. The melting of the north and south pole Gods punishment for acceptance of homosexuality by the world. God hates Fags and Lawrence King is in hell now becuase he was a fag who deserved to be shot in the head for choosing to be gay at the age of fifteen. Since I now know that I chose to be gay and that God hates Fags I guess I will have to spend the rest of my life asking Gods forgiveness for choosing to be gay hopefully he will forgive my sorry fag !profanity!.
|
littledutchboy
3/8/08
11:45 AM | QUOTE(Lernaean @ Mar 6 2008, 08:50 PM) [snapback]363690[/snapback] All the oponents of gay marriage have the same talking points. They claim it will undermine heterosexual marriages. How? They claim it should be left to churches, but there are churches who perform same sex marriages. They claim that it's illegal when in fact, it is not illegal at all and is actually supported by the 14th ammendment. They claim we shouldn't CHANGE our Constitutuion to allow these "gays" to marry, but they want a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. They contradict themselves in every argument they make and show themselves to be homophobic and hateful, not religous at all, regardless of what they may claim they are.
There is strong, strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There is extremely strong evidence that same sex marriage was practiced in early Christianity. There is even evidence that Christ himself attended one of these ceremonies. There is strong evidence that allowing gay marriage would REDUCE opportunistic sexual encounters, not increase them. There is no possible basis to the claim that heterosexual marriage would be harmed in any way. Allowing gays to marry would INCREASE the emphasis and strength of marriage because gays have fought for it for so long that they aren't as likely to file for divorce a few months or years later.
The ONE BIGGEST THREAT to heterosexual marriage is DIVORCE. Gay Marriage would do nothing but strengthen the institution and make it more meaningful, more expected as a norm, more commmonplace and would promote monogamy.
Wanting to ban gay marriage is somewhat akin to trying to ban fresh air and demand pollution in it's place. It makes no sense to want to deny a loving couple the right to marry one another in a legal, binding ceremony to promote commitment.
Brittany Spears is permitted to marry a man in Las Vegas and then have it annulled a few days later while a gay or lesbian couple who has been together for 20+ years isn't permitted. Where's the logic in this?
Don't worry about gay marriage. If we wish to protect the integrity of marriage, let's look at banning divorce, not at keeping more people from being able to marry when that's what they actually want.
You can make all the arguments you want, gay marriage is not legal (illegal) in PA. Change the law if you don’t like it, or stop a constitutional amendment if you can, this should be no problem if your arguments are so compelling.
I’m personally disgusted by the mere thought of 2 men or 2 women being allowed to marry, actually I find homosexuality by itself to be disgusting.
|
pml
3/8/08
11:59 AM | QUOTE(littledutchboy @ Mar 8 2008, 11:45 AM) [snapback]364096[/snapback]
You can make all the arguments you want, gay marriage is not legal (illegal) in PA. Change the law if you don't like it, or stop a constitutional amendment if you can, this should be no problem if your arguments are so compelling.
[/size]
[size="3"]I'm personally disgusted by the mere thought of 2 men or 2 women being allowed to marry, actually I find homosexuality by itself to be disgusting.
And that is why on a previous thread I said I am against home schooling if it turns out more people like you. There are many things in this country that disgust me but I am powerless to stop them from happening just as I am powerless to stop my tax dollars from supporting them.
You on the other hand want to disinfranchise an entire group of people based on your belief without any proof that their behavior harms you in any way. How will you even know if the two chicks walking past you are best friends or wife and wife?
|
hahaha
3/8/08
12:28 PM | QUOTE it is just my imagination that when I was a child we used to have snow on the ground and I could go sledding in my backyard
Yeah, there is no snow. Colorado had a record breaking 41 feet of snow on one of the mountains this season. Vermont also had a great snow and ski season. It is called weather cycles. Snowfalls cycle the same as hurricanes. Remember all those scientists telling us global warming was going to create record number of storms. At least they were correct 1 out of the 4 years. In school that would be 25% or a failure. |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
