Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Storebought]

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.

[Storebought]

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.

Yeah, allowing courts to uphold people's rights is really liberal. Man, if we could just allow some majority oppression...why allow property rights and free speech for instance?

In order that you may know what marriage is, and what it isn't, I quote a paragraph from a CHILDREN's encyclopedia on the subject:

"In one form or another marriage has existed as long as civilization itself. Marriage is a universal institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. This union is regulated by society, and society's laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes about the rights and responsibilities of man and woman"


You can't define marriage any simpler than that. And, nowhere in that definition will you find "homosexal". Marriage isn't about homosexuals--it doesn't discriminate against them, it doesn't exclude them, it's not defined by them. Marriage isn't about homosexuals, period!

[Storebought]

"..men and women are joined..."

Adding "to each other" to that phrase could imply men among men and women among women, which has never been recognized in any society throughout time.

I attach particular meaning to words, even if I misspell them occasionally. One's words bear witness to one's soul. And I would never let my words betray me and my soul condemned to dust by implying that relationships among members of the same sex could ever pretend to be marriage.

And comparing modern marriage to 1940s era eugencs is race baiting of the worst sort (and I live in Louisiana, 1/3 black). You're above that.

[Storebought]

"..men and women are joined..."

Adding "to each other" to that phrase could imply men among men and women among women, which has never been recognized in any society throughout time.

I attach particular meaning to words, even if I misspell them occasionally. One's words bear witness to one's soul. And I would never let my words betray me and my soul condemned to dust by implying that relationships among members of the same sex could ever pretend to be marriage.

And comparing modern marriage to 1940s era eugencs is race baiting of the worst sort (and I live in Louisiana, 1/3 black). You're above that.

Well, I am a godless European so I'm not above anything (perhaps a Greek maybe). Homosexuality was tolerated, even viewed as refined in Greece (probably explains their rottenness?) in the Classic era. Have you seen Troy? Ever wondered why Achilles gets so upset when Patroklos dies? Yep, that's why...

My point remains. WE define words. Once upon a time Earth was defined as something flat. Now it isn't. Once upon a time whites were defined as better than blacks. And so on.

Ancient greek aristocracy  regarded homosexuality the same way upper-class Victorian gentlemen did. Get it out of your system as a young kid, then settle down with some bosomy woman named "George" and rear proper children by her. Of course, those upper-class men who remained homosexual past youth were immediately marked for social destruction ('toff', 'fairycake', 'bugger', 'old sod' etc.)

The ancient Greek population, much like the rest of 19th century English society, never conceived of such a thing as a homosexual. Read John Derbyshire, National Review, for a good idea.

And, still no: words have definite meanings, even if they do mutate over time (Ex: network once actually meant the interstices among the interconnections of a net)

[Storebought]

I love it when people bring up Greece on this issue because it makes my point fairly well.  In ancient Greece, even if a man was gay, he still married a woman and fathered her children.  Marriage was even then about child raising.  Despite being gay, the man would be with a woman in marriage.

For the record:

A gay person doesn't have the right to marry another man, but neither does a straight person.  The only difference is that the gay person wants that right and a straight person doesn't.  There is no disparity; a gay man can still, as in ancient Greece, marry a woman and sire children.

On a similar note:
After the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, former slave owners lost their rights to own slaves.  However, at the same time abolitionists too lost THEIR slave owning rights.  The only difference was that the slave owners wanted that right and the abolitionists did not.

But that leads to an interesting question: In ancient Greece, women had no choice of whom they wanted to marry. Daddy could, and usually did, marry his daughter to the town's gay guy if Daddy wanted to gain entrance to the gay guy's (rich) family.

Nowadays, parents don't lease their children for advantageous business relationships anymore. Women are free to marry any guy they wish, within limits. So, what woman would consider marrying a used homosexual?

[Storebought]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

I just glad you read such a long post.  The passage is 1Kings 1:1-5...

1   Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2   Wherefore his servants said unto him, "Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat."
3   So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4   And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
5   Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, "I will be king!"

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)