I just left this comment over at HotAir Headlines after reading this article and some of the comments at HotAir: Gay Marriage is Killing America
Sexual “License” isn’t the same as lying to your broker. (Unless you’re committing adultery… but then he should say THAT)
It also has 0 to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.
You can get married and not have sex. (Happens all the time anyway…)
Skywise on April 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
This is the point that many people try to make. Government benefits for marriage are not about sex nor are they about “love”. They are about promoting stable relationships and, more times than not, a stable mother-father family environment for children.
It has nothing to do with “love” or sex, as far as the government is concerned.
Now, if the homosexual movement wants to say that they want to promote stable relationships for homosexuals, that’s fine. They should use that argument. But that’s not really the argument I hear from their side. I hear/read them ridiculing traditional stable relationships as well as traditional mother-father families.
The homosexual movement can get people such as myself to have sympathy for their cause if they focused on the goal of the government promoting stable homosexual relationships, however they will drive me further and further away from their cause the more they demonize religion, demonize the idea that a child’s ideal upbringing comes from a mother and father and demonize anyone who disagrees with their motives as “homophobes”.
Michael in MI on April 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM
This is exactly my point. Completely agree here:
I truth, if marriage in the gay community actually meant that they would stop having dozens of other partners, I might see some social value in it. But it does not. Here is an interesting read:
In truth, the gay community does not think of marriage as straight couples do. It is not about a committed monogamous relationship at all. The evidence in the gay communities own web sites is overwhelming.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Another good comment:
Exactly. For the most part, these activists don’t want gay marriage, they want to hurt straight marriage as an institution.
jgapinoy on April 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Your supposition is backed up by the experiences in Sweden and the Netherlands. In Sweden it is estimated that only 2% of gay couples have registered their partnership despite having this option since 1995. The Netherlands actually has a longer history and allows full marriage but only about 2.8% of same-sex Dutch coupled have formalized their union.
Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
And another good one with which I agree:
I would imagine that the majority of gay/lesbian people want the same kind of relationship most of the rest of us seek – loving, monogamous, and lasting.
The difficulty I have with gay marriage is this: The creation of a mechanism by which gay Americans can have something legally identical to marriage, civil unions, will not satisfy them. The actual legal parameters seem not to matter – they will not feel victorious until they have changed the definition of the word, and stuck it to Christians, Jews, and Muslims (not to mention others) who do not recognize gay unions as being identical in every possible way to their own.
It’s an attack on religion. It’s as simple as that. And if you think it stops there, you’re dreaming.
capitalist piglet on April 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM
More that I have contributed to the comments section there:
…and yet most gays don’t engage in the gay behavior you’re referring to. You’re looking at the activists and think they represent the bulk of the community, and they don’t.
MadisonConservative on April 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM
This tells me then that the bulk of the homosexual community then does not want homosexual marriage. Good.
That aside, the bulk of the homosexual community does not matter in the same way that the bulk of the Muslim community does not matter. The homosexual activists are the ones pushing changes in policy in the same way that radical Muslims are pushing policy in Western nations to get laws changed and special privileges for Muslims.
Sure we can make ourselves feel better and say that majority of Muslims don’t believe like the radicals who want shari’a laws in Western nations, but that’s just being naive. Whether the activist homosexuals represent the bulk of the community or not, does not matter. What matters is that the activists have the ear of and the influence from government members (legislators, judges, etc) and are influencing this change in our society, whether the bulk of the homosexual community wants it or not.
Michael in MI on April 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM
And yet more thoughts…
State legislatures should be the deal. Not courts.
blatantblue on April 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I don’t see how this can be left to the States. If this is truly a “civil rights” issue, then it needs to be federal. There needs to be a Congressional and Senate vote on homosexual marriage. Without that, we’re left with some States recognizing homosexual marriage and some States not? How is that going to work? That is basically saying that homosexuals who want to get married and have their marriage recognized legally can only live in certain States.
I’m not in favor of creating homosexual marriage at all, but this ‘compromise’ is pretty ridiculous. This has to be an all or nothing thing. We can’t have say 20 States where homosexuals have their marriages recognized and 30 States where they are not recognized. That forces homosexuals to live in certain States. That’s a whole other huge mess.
The way I see it, if people agree that homosexual marriage should be created at all, then it must be a Federal issue. It must be voted upon by all State Legislatures and both Houses of Congress in the Federal government. I don’t see any way this can be done half-way. I don’t see how there can be some “compromise” position. Homosexual marriage either is created everywhere or it is nowhere.
Michael in MI on April 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Makes some pretty good points here:
This is stupid. Gay people being married has ZERO effect on anyone around them.
Then you would agree that my smoking has ZERO effect on anyone around me. . . so we need to cut out the laws against smoking.
Why is it that no paramedic will touch someone without gloves? Why is it that the homosexual community wants to teach ’sex education’ putting homosexuality on the same level as hetero. . . without acknowledging the increased risk in AIDS?
In California it is against the law for a health insurance company to ask if someone has AIDS (asking if they are gay is out of the question). However, other questions involve. . . do you smoke, do you race cars, do you sky dive, do you ski, do you ride horses? Why? UNDERWRITING.
Just like the community reinvestment act did not allow underwriting and caused the subprime loans, the homosexual community is a ticking time bomb.
If you are gay, your risk for AIDS goes up higher than your risk for cancer if you smoke. THAT needs to be taught right along side of ’sexual orientation class’.
Gay people don’t care about society, they only care about them. The guy in this article is right. But gay people don’t want you to tell people that gay people are more likely to get AIDS than straight people. . . that would be gay bashing.
It reminds me of tobacco companies insisting that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Hey we have these truth.com advertisements about smoking. We should have another series concerning AIDS and homosexuality.
Of course the AIDS awareness campaign would be called ‘homophobic’ even as facts back up the claims.
ThackerAgency on April 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM