[Athens]

More incredable BS about gay Marriage, I can't believe the world I live in.


By Orson Scott Card February 15, 2004

Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization

A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that "day" shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as "night," but it might as well.

By declaring that homosexual couples are denied their constitutional rights by being forbidden to "marry," it is treading on the same ground.

Full Article here

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

[Mithras]

Orson Scott Card. Hmmmm. Enjoyed his books, back in middle school. Turns out he's a complete social neanderthal, though.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it...

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

If America becomes a place where the laws of the nation declare that marriage no longer exists -- which is what the Massachusetts decision actually does -- then our allegiance to America will become zero. We will transfer our allegiance to a society that does protect marriage.

[Mithras]

I'm going to play a little game with a couple of paragraphs from his piece. Can you figure it out?

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden mixed-race couples to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his whiteness in order to marry a white woman, or a black woman hers in order to marry a black man.

Any white man who can persuade a white woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many white men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with black women. Many have married black men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that mixed-race couples are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all mixed-race couples have to do is find someone of the same race willing to join each of them in marriage.

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

[dcolton]

Here we go...trying to justify same sex marriage by exploiting blacks.

I find it insulting. Absolutely insulting that same-sex marriage advocates have the audacity to use the plight of blacks in an effort to legitimize their version of values (or lack thereof).

There is no comparison between a race of people that were bound by slavery, racism and discrimination as well as a prejudice that has crippled the success of blacks even today. How can you compare the history of blacks and the institutionalized racism that existed to a faction who basis their classification on who they sleep with at night.

Absolutely insulting and boderline racist.

[Mithras]

Certainly the African-American experience in the United States is unparalleled in its violence, discrimination and indignity, so we shouldn�t make sloppy comparisons.

But the parallel in antimiscegenation laws -- which prohibited white people from marrying black people, or Asian people, or others -- is rather close. These were laws meant to preserve the dignity and purity of the white race. They did not, for example, prohibit marriages between black people, or between people of any two races other than white.

But if you're going to be a passionate defender of the plight of blacks in America, be my guest. Have any comments on the previous quotes from Card's piece?

[NYCFarmboy]

How does gay marriage stop straight people from getting married?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Certainly the African-American experience in the United States is unparalleled in its violence, discrimination and indignity, so we shouldn�t make sloppy comparisons.

But the parallel in antimiscegenation laws -- which prohibited white people from marrying black people, or Asian people, or others -- is rather close. These were laws meant to preserve the dignity and purity of the white race. They did not, for example, prohibit marriages between black people, or between people of any two races other than white.

But if you're going to be a passionate defender of the plight of blacks in America, be my guest. Have any comments on the previous quotes from Card's piece?

Pasionnate defender? No.
Outraged black man who hates the fact that gays exploit blacks to further their agenda? Absolutely.

The author is right for the most part. But it doesn't matter to the gay left because any opposition to same sex marriage is taken as a personal affront. The normal response is to cheapen his words by personally attacking him and referring to him as a 'social neanderthal'.

I wonder if the gay left ever considered the fact that trying to gain special rights by hijacking the courts and the constitution would be considered equally offensive by the majority of Americans (as seen on November 2nd). So perhaps, while the gay agenda requires same-sex marriage advocates to label anyone who disagrees with their agenda as bigots...pro-family advocates should refer to same-sex marriage advocates as enemies of the state, as they are trying to pervert law and the American way in effort to gain special rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
How does gay marriage stop straight people from getting married?

It doesn't. It redefines the age old institution and cheapens the value to the point where marriage as we know it no longer exists.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Pasionnate defender? No.
Outraged black man who hates the fact that gays exploit blacks to further their agenda? Absolutely.

The author is right for the most part. But it doesn't matter to the gay left because any opposition to same sex marriage is taken as a personal affront. The normal response is to cheapen his words by personally attacking him and referring to him as a 'social neanderthal'.

I wonder if the gay left ever considered the fact that trying to gain special rights by hijacking the courts and the constitution would be considered equally offensive by the majority of Americans (as seen on November 2nd). So perhaps, while the gay agenda requires same-sex marriage advocates to label anyone who disagrees with their agenda as bigots...pro-family advocates should refer to same-sex marriage advocates as enemies of the state, as they are trying to pervert law and the American way in effort to gain special rights.

Because Gay Americans are just wanting the same rights that Straight Americans have including tax, visitation & legal equality rights.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It doesn't. It redefines the age old institution and cheapens the value to the point where marriage as we know it no longer exists.

so straight marriage would no longer be allowed?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Because Gay Americans are just wanting the same rights that Straight Americans have including tax, visitation & legal equality rights.

I see it as an effort to redefine family...corrupt it if you will. I see it as an attempt to legetimize a lifestyle to our children. I see it as an affront to God and basic morality. Gays have the right to marry under the legal definition of marriage. No rights are abridged under the constitution.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
so straight marriage would no longer be allowed?

It would no longer be marriage. It wouldn't have the same meaning...it turns the age old institution into nothing more than a social contract afforded to a couple in order to recieve benefits. The value of marriage to society would be void.

Marriage is more than benefits. Love has to enter the picture at one time or another, but of course, love is never the main point of justification to the gay left...only benefits. Seems a bit suspect to me.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I see it as an effort to redefine family...corrupt it if you will. I see it as an attempt to legetimize a lifestyle to our children. I see it as an affront to God and basic morality. Gays have the right to marry under the legal definition of marriage. No rights are abridged under the constitution.

tell that to a partner who cannot visit his/her partner in a hospital because only straight couples are allowed full visitation rights.


1. it is not redefining anything. Straight marriage ... GASP...would still be legal.

2. This is not requiring straight men to marry gay men.... THUS..the "traditional" marriage will still continue. This point seems to be beyond the grasp of those opposed to gay marriage.

At one time it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you prefer to see that
"traditional-at-one-time" discrimination restored as well?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
so straight marriage would no longer be allowed?

No. There shouldn't be any state recognized "marriage". Only civil unions should be recognized by the state.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Here we go...trying to justify same sex marriage by exploiting blacks.

The race argument is not much different from trying claim that allowing same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to polygamy.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No. There shouldn't be any state recognized "marriage". Only civil unions should be recognized by the state.

I have a dream.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I have a dream.

Is it a man or a woman?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It doesn't. It redefines the age old institution and cheapens the value to the point where marriage as we know it no longer exists.

I think Hollywood marriages have already done more damage to the "age old institution" than any homosexual marriage ever could. Marriage as people knew it 100 years ago ALREADY no longer exists. As with all things tied to culture, it will continue to evolve with that culture whether you like it or not.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Is it a man or a woman?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think Hollywood marriages have already done more damage to the "age old institution" than any homosexual marriage ever could. Marriage as people knew it 100 years ago ALREADY no longer exists. As with all things tied to culture, it will continue to evolve with that culture whether you like it or not.

gasp... blasphemy...

Britney Spear's Traditional Marriage is/was a bulwark of our society.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
tell that to a partner who cannot visit his/her partner in a hospital because only straight couples are allowed full visitation rights.


1. it is not redefining anything. Straight marriage ... GASP...would still be legal.

Yes it does redefine marriage and it's legal definition. It voids the responsibilies and benefits a married couple offers to society and, IMO, threatens the benefits a family should recieve because of the selfishness of thise who choose to live an alternative lifestyle. Without family, there would be no reason for benefits. And the last time I checked, a homosexual couple is incapabable of producing offsrping.

Marriage isn't about benefits...it is about committment and creating a family.

2. This is not requiring straight men to marry gay men.... THUS..the "traditional" marriage will still continue. This point seems to be beyond the grasp of those opposed to gay marriage.

No, it isn't beyond anyones grasp. What is beyond the grasp of the gay left is the fact that the majority of America opposes same sex marriage because legitimizing poor behavior is not in the best interest of society.

Opposition is because marriage has a value and means more than benefits. We don;t want to be like france where you can walk into a magistrates office, sign a piece of paper and you or married or divorced. We want the institution that involves committment and is built on a desire to start a family and give back to the community.

At one time it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you prefer to see that
"traditional-at-one-time" discrimination restored as well?

Irrelevant. You are comparing apples to oranges and trying to exploit the black plight in order to further the gay agenda to destroy family.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No. There shouldn't be any state recognized "marriage". Only civil unions should be recognized by the state.

Agreed. This is the only reasonable solution. Marriage should be left to the domain of religion. Remember, though, that there are Christian churches (among others, I'm sure) that are willing to perform same-sex marriages.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The race argument is not much different from trying claim that allowing same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to polygamy.

Who mentioned polygamy?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
tell that to a partner who cannot visit his/her partner in a hospital because only straight couples are allowed full visitation rights.


1. it is not redefining anything. Straight marriage ... GASP...would still be legal.

2. This is not requiring straight men to marry gay men.... THUS..the "traditional" marriage will still continue. This point seems to be beyond the grasp of those opposed to gay marriage.

At one time it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. Would you prefer to see that
"traditional-at-one-time" discrimination restored as well?

Are you not opposed to same-sex marriage?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think Hollywood marriages have already done more damage to the "age old institution" than any homosexual marriage ever could. Marriage as people knew it 100 years ago ALREADY no longer exists. As with all things tied to culture, it will continue to evolve with that culture whether you like it or not.

The thing is...the culture evolution theory...the premise that we have evoloved to culturaly accept same sex marriage is a myth. The majority of Americans are againstsame sex marriages as seen on November 2nd.

Now we are entering into the grounds of the gay left trying to force same sex marriage and the homosexual lifestlye on the American people by hijacking the law and utilizing activist judges. There is no cultural evolution...it is simply an attempt to forceably change cultural values.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you not opposed to same-sex marriage?

No, I'm against discrimination.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
No, I'm against discrimination.

Is a vegetatian discriminated against if he goes to a dinner that doesn't have a vegetarian dish? Or would meat eaters be discriminated against if the menu was changed to cater to vegeterians (ie. no meat)?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Marriage isn't about benefits...it is about committment and creating a family.

so you're basically saying that 'infertile' couples, who beyond that choose not to have children, should be denied the same rights other married people have. hmmm. interesting.

a) homosexuality, besides being ALSO a personal choice, is completely natural and follows from a GENETC predisposition (scientifically proven).

b) giving same sex married people equal rights neither 'cheapens' 'regular marriages', nor does it IN ANY WAY push a lifestyle choice onto other people (or children).

c) what is so bad about a 'gay lifestyle' anyway? nobody is forced to participate, and socially speaking, - it only affects homosexuals. so why should this bother anybody who doesn't fit that definition?

d) just in case you thought homosexuality is a recent development, or a result of an acculturation process, - it has been found in EVERY group and society of modern hominids. but more than that, it is usually the same percentage compared to the entire number of individuals living together (also a result of comparative cultural anthropological and sociological studies)

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Is a vegetatian discriminated against if he goes to a dinner that doesn't have a vegetarian dish? ...

it would certainly be discrimination though, if vegetarians were barred from eating dinner, because somebody's morals included the necessity to have meat with every meal.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
so you're basically saying that 'infertile' couples, who beyond that choose not to have children, should be denied the same rights other married people have. hmmm. interesting.

Nope. I am saying that gays have the right to marry and there is absolutely no justification to redefine an institution to cater to someone who chooses to live an alternative lifestyle. I am not going to get into the infertile couple argument. I do find it interesting though...that one of the justifications for gay marriage by the gay left is to attack the institution in which they want to join.

a) homosexuality, besides being ALSO a personal choice, is completely natural and follows from a GENETC predisposition (scientifically proven).

Gay Left Agenda #1
Perpetuate a myth that it has been proven that homosexuality is genetic.

There is no evidence or scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. Good try though.

b) giving same sex married people equal rights neither 'cheapens' 'regular marriages', nor does it IN ANY WAY push a lifestyle choice onto other people (or children).

Sure it does. It legitimized poor choices that reduces ones life span considerably. This lifestyle is something we shouldn't expose to impressionable children.

c) what is so bad about a 'gay lifestyle' anyway? nobody is forced to participate, and socially speaking, - it only affects those who homosexuals. so why should this bother anybody who doesn't fit that definition?

Because they are trying to force it on mainstream America. Arguably, 2 - 5% of Americans choose this alternate lifestyle. Why is it over represented in America to the point we have gaycentric shows, gay comic book characters, gay puppets and so on. This is a part of the gay agenda to force Americans to accept a suspect lifestyle.

d) just in case you thought homosexuality is a recent development, or a result of an acculturation process, - it has been found in EVERY group and society of modern hominids. but more than that, it is usually the same percentage compared to the entire number of individuals living together (also a result of comparative cultural anthropological and sociological studies)

point? sex makes people do strange things. Absolutely universal and timeless aspect of human nature. In other words, there will always be a percentage of people who like to be sexually gratified while ignoring the idea of restraint anad morals.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No. There shouldn't be any state recognized "marriage". Only civil unions should be recognized by the state.

You keep your polygamist ass out of this

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
it would certainly be discrimination though, if vegetarians were barred from eating dinner, because somebody's morals included the necessity to have meat with every meal.

He is not barred from having dinner. The menu is meat. He chooses not to eat meat. We don't have to cater to choice...that is where the true discrimination exists.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by dcolton:
He is not barred from having dinner. The menu is meat. He chooses not to eat meat. We don't have to cater to choice...that is where the true discrimination exists.

That's hysterical. He's free to have dinner... as long as its meat!
Can you see the parallel to Card's declaration that gays are free to marry... just not to each other?
Or perhaps, even, though you find it terribly offensive, to the argument that mixed-race couples are free to marry... just not to each other?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mithras:
That's hysterical. He's free to have dinner... as long as its meat!
Can you see the parallel to Card's declaration that gays are free to marry... just not to each other?
Or perhaps, even, though you find it terribly offensive, to the argument that mixed-race couples are free to marry... just not to each other?

If he doesn't like it, he can move to canada. I am sure if the person tries hard enough, they can manipulate the canadians into offereing refugee status.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There is no evidence or scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic.

i was talking about a specific 'genetic predisposition'. there are tons of studies that point to this.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Sure it does. It legitimized poor choices that reduces ones life span considerably.

there is a correlation between homosexuality and a short life span? first time i've ever heard about it. any link to back up that claim? (the CAUSALITY would be very important here)

Originally posted by dcolton:
Because they are trying to force it on mainstream America. Arguably, 2 - 5% of Americans choose this alternate lifestyle.

yup, that sounds about right. and why shouldn't they? it's only natural.

Originally posted by dcolton:
point? sex makes people do strange things.

LOL. yeah, like getting spanked by midgets in tutus to the sound of queen's 'fat bottom girls'...

but honestly, most tribal and ancient cultures didn't consider homosexuality to be 'strange'. quite the opposite actually. in places like ancient greece for example, it was an integral part of culture.

/heh. i can't believe it's almost 2005 and we are still having this discussion.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i was talking about a specific 'genetic predisposition'. there are tons of studies that point to this.

Studies, no scientific eveidence or proof. For every study pointing to a genetic disposition, there is one that points to choice.

there is a correlation between homosexuality and a short life span? first time i've ever heard about it. any link to back up that claim. (the CAUSALITY would be very important here)

"CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. " [International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661}

There are a lot more studies available. I just don't have the desire to look them up right now. If you do a search here...I think there is a thread where this is discussed a bit more.

LOL. yeah, like getting spanked by midgets in tutus to the sound of queen's 'fat bottom girls'...

but honestly, most tribal and ancient cultures didn't consider homosexuality to be 'strange'? quite the opposite actually. in places like ancient greece for example, it was an integral part of culture.

/heh. i can't believe it's almost 2005 and we are still having this discussion.

We are not Greek. Nor are we ancient.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mithras:
You keep your polygamist ass out of this

Just fighting for my own self-interest, like anyone else.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Studies, no scientific evidence or proof...

many more studies that point to the fact that there is a predisposition. they even located a gene that fits the pattern.

there is so much evidence that you could almost consider it proof.

Originally posted by dcolton:
"CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men...

fair enough.though i still haven't seen any causality between being gay and dying early (as in: what other factors might play a role)

Originally posted by dcolton:
We are not Greek. Nor are we ancient.

culturally you might not be ancient (or greek), - your morality most certainly is.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
many more studies that point to the fact that there is a predisposition. they even located a gene that fits the pattern.

Nope. It is a myth perpetrated by the gay left.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nope. It is a myth perpetrated by the gay left.

you are saying that the gay right is opposed to this?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Here we go...trying to justify same sex marriage by exploiting blacks.

I find it insulting. Absolutely insulting that same-sex marriage advocates have the audacity to use the plight of blacks in an effort to legitimize their version of values (or lack thereof).

There is no comparison between a race of people that were bound by slavery, racism and discrimination as well as a prejudice that has crippled the success of blacks even today. How can you compare the history of blacks and the institutionalized racism that existed to a faction who basis their classification on who they sleep with at night.

Absolutely insulting and boderline racist.

Well said,

[dcolton]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
you are saying that the gay right is opposed to this?

No, but the Christian right is.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well said,

Eklipse giving me a thumbs up?

it's me, dcolton! We don't agree on anything if I recall correctly.

[Mithras]

Interesting. Apparently eklipse shares your disregard for human rights on this issue?
I'd be interested to hear more, eklipse.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Eklipse giving me a thumbs up?

it's me, dcolton! We don't agree on anything if I recall correctly.

Hell, Logic sometimes agreed with me too. It's uncommon, but sometimes there are crossover issues.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Interesting. Apparently eklipse shares your disregard for human rights on this issue?
I'd be interested to hear more, eklipse.

No. He's probably just saying it's not on the same scale. Which it's not, not even close.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Hell, Logic sometimes agreed with me too. It's uncommon, but sometimes there are crossover issues.

That reminds me, is Logic still boycotting macnn?

And where is everyone, seems to have slowed down quite a bit here.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Eklipse giving me a thumbs up?

it's me, dcolton! We don't agree on anything if I recall correctly.

I know!

I've already booked an appointment with the psychiatrist!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Interesting. Apparently eklipse shares your disregard for human rights on this issue?
I'd be interested to hear more, eklipse.

I agree with dcolton that it is wrong for the 'pro-gay-lobby' to exploit the black struggle for equal rights to further their own agenda.

I don't see how the two issues share much in common.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I agree with dcolton that it is wrong for the 'pro-gay-lobby' to exploit the black struggle for equal rights to further their own agenda.

I don't see how the two issues share much in common.

The similarity is a Constitutional one. Principally under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the privileges and immunities clause. Both apply to all US citizens, and don't logically exclude US Citizens just because they happen to be gay. That's really all that is being pointed out.