![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
protect me from marriage protection week
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
This is one of the most starkly emotionless, openly bigoted pieces of writing I have ever read. Ever. Marriage Protection Week is getting a lot of well-deserved intellectual criticism, which is completely just for an idea put forward by GWB in an effort to curry favour with the Pope (Who is the head of ONE of the religious movements out of hundreds in the US, let alone the world. So much for religious equality – just because GWB's buddy the Pope doesn't like gay marriage, nobody is allowed to like it. No matter what religion you are. Does this make sense to you?) and also to shove all of the more pressing issues like the economy and the environment onto the back burner.
We can't deal with the IMPORTANT issues, so we'll attack a minority group in the name of morality and try to take away their rights. That'll get us reelected, for sure.
Quotes and commentary:
To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here…
Oh, really? Well, gee, it appears that my definition of discrimination appears to differ slightly from yours. To tack "a person of the same sex" onto the end of a list of partnerships that are barred because they disobey the laws (both moral and legal) of fidelity, age of consent and consideration for the medical and genetic issues inherent in reproducing with a close relative is discrimination of the grossest kind. It's shameful that as the leaders of countries bound forward beaming when it comes to erasing racism but can use their power to publicly denounce and impinge on the basic human rights of homosexuals. And that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is being denounced all over the world, and gay/lesbian relationships are becoming more and more accepted – and somehow the legalities of the situation manage to drag 'society's' views on it back into the Dark Ages.
If pro is the opposite of con, then what's the opposite of progress?
It appears that many homosexuals want the right to "marry" only because marriage constitutes society's ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship--not because they actually want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has historically been understood.
Yep. Sure. Gays are all such selfish, pushy people that the sole reason they ask to be recognised as "married" is to show the world that they CAN. They don't think at all about the fact that they're in love, and that their love has as much right to be recognised as real as a heterosexual love. Most of this article, also, seems to revolve around the fact that marriage is an institution based on creating children. The fact that gays can't reproduce but CAN adopt is utterly unacceptable, apparently. Far better and more logical to let a couple marry that have no plans to have children whatsoever, the whole point being that the POTENTIAL is there. Which strikes me as an utterly ridiculous technicality with no grounding in the real world whatsoever.
Much of the reason for high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals lies in their higher rates of promiscuous sexual behavior.
Knock me back if I'm going down the wrong track here, but I thought marriage was about commitment? Perhaps it is true that homosexuals are more likely to have a diverse range of sexual partners, but I thought the subject here was those homosexuals who wish to have their relationship institutionalised? Are they really going to be as promiscuous if their relationship is considered legally binding? I'd suggest the reverse. Homosexuality does not warp your views on what is morally right – most of these couples would consider adultery as shameful as a hetero couple would. And if not – sexuality is becoming looser and more casual all over the world, and many married couples are open about "sharing" their partners. The writer of this article appears to be living in a stiff, perfect (in his eyes) world where no-one but gays would ever DREAM of having consensual sex outside marriage.
Lesbians, meanwhile, were found by one study to have twice as many lifetime male sexual partners as women in the heterosexual control group.
I think we need to revise our definition of 'lesbian'. Male partners? Then they were bisexual. Or alternatively, they had male partners before or after they became lesbians, in which case all you can say about that study group is that "they were lesbian at some stage in their life", which is shockingly vague and inaccurate for something that purports to be a scientific study.
Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Traditional gender norms"? Shock! Horror! They might actually question their gender/sexual orientation! The way these points are written is completely derogatory of them, when all it is really saying is that children brought up by a lesbian couple are more likely to have an open mind and an accepting attitude towards both themselves and others, which I can only see as a very good thing. By condemning the rights of gay couples to bring up children and pass on their tolerant ethics, society does nothing but paint itself into a corner, and start up a vicious cycle of unacceptance and narrow thinking.
Don't let the lesbian get their hands on kids. We might end up with MORE lesbians.
That appears to be the basic message, which upon examination with logic collapses into a little ball. We don't like lesbians. Why not? They could adopt kids. Why is that bad? We'll get more lesbians. Why is that bad? We don't like lesbians…
~
Please spread. Please comment. There's nothing we can do except let our voices be heard.
This is one of the most starkly emotionless, openly bigoted pieces of writing I have ever read. Ever. Marriage Protection Week is getting a lot of well-deserved intellectual criticism, which is completely just for an idea put forward by GWB in an effort to curry favour with the Pope (Who is the head of ONE of the religious movements out of hundreds in the US, let alone the world. So much for religious equality – just because GWB's buddy the Pope doesn't like gay marriage, nobody is allowed to like it. No matter what religion you are. Does this make sense to you?) and also to shove all of the more pressing issues like the economy and the environment onto the back burner.
We can't deal with the IMPORTANT issues, so we'll attack a minority group in the name of morality and try to take away their rights. That'll get us reelected, for sure.
Quotes and commentary:
To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here…
Oh, really? Well, gee, it appears that my definition of discrimination appears to differ slightly from yours. To tack "a person of the same sex" onto the end of a list of partnerships that are barred because they disobey the laws (both moral and legal) of fidelity, age of consent and consideration for the medical and genetic issues inherent in reproducing with a close relative is discrimination of the grossest kind. It's shameful that as the leaders of countries bound forward beaming when it comes to erasing racism but can use their power to publicly denounce and impinge on the basic human rights of homosexuals. And that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is being denounced all over the world, and gay/lesbian relationships are becoming more and more accepted – and somehow the legalities of the situation manage to drag 'society's' views on it back into the Dark Ages.
If pro is the opposite of con, then what's the opposite of progress?
It appears that many homosexuals want the right to "marry" only because marriage constitutes society's ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship--not because they actually want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has historically been understood.
Yep. Sure. Gays are all such selfish, pushy people that the sole reason they ask to be recognised as "married" is to show the world that they CAN. They don't think at all about the fact that they're in love, and that their love has as much right to be recognised as real as a heterosexual love. Most of this article, also, seems to revolve around the fact that marriage is an institution based on creating children. The fact that gays can't reproduce but CAN adopt is utterly unacceptable, apparently. Far better and more logical to let a couple marry that have no plans to have children whatsoever, the whole point being that the POTENTIAL is there. Which strikes me as an utterly ridiculous technicality with no grounding in the real world whatsoever.
Much of the reason for high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals lies in their higher rates of promiscuous sexual behavior.
Knock me back if I'm going down the wrong track here, but I thought marriage was about commitment? Perhaps it is true that homosexuals are more likely to have a diverse range of sexual partners, but I thought the subject here was those homosexuals who wish to have their relationship institutionalised? Are they really going to be as promiscuous if their relationship is considered legally binding? I'd suggest the reverse. Homosexuality does not warp your views on what is morally right – most of these couples would consider adultery as shameful as a hetero couple would. And if not – sexuality is becoming looser and more casual all over the world, and many married couples are open about "sharing" their partners. The writer of this article appears to be living in a stiff, perfect (in his eyes) world where no-one but gays would ever DREAM of having consensual sex outside marriage.
Lesbians, meanwhile, were found by one study to have twice as many lifetime male sexual partners as women in the heterosexual control group.
I think we need to revise our definition of 'lesbian'. Male partners? Then they were bisexual. Or alternatively, they had male partners before or after they became lesbians, in which case all you can say about that study group is that "they were lesbian at some stage in their life", which is shockingly vague and inaccurate for something that purports to be a scientific study.
Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Traditional gender norms"? Shock! Horror! They might actually question their gender/sexual orientation! The way these points are written is completely derogatory of them, when all it is really saying is that children brought up by a lesbian couple are more likely to have an open mind and an accepting attitude towards both themselves and others, which I can only see as a very good thing. By condemning the rights of gay couples to bring up children and pass on their tolerant ethics, society does nothing but paint itself into a corner, and start up a vicious cycle of unacceptance and narrow thinking.
Don't let the lesbian get their hands on kids. We might end up with MORE lesbians.
That appears to be the basic message, which upon examination with logic collapses into a little ball. We don't like lesbians. Why not? They could adopt kids. Why is that bad? We'll get more lesbians. Why is that bad? We don't like lesbians…
~
Please spread. Please comment. There's nothing we can do except let our voices be heard.
no subject
To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here…
Well, it is saying that even if you're gay you STILL can't enter into a same-sex marriage. Everyone, even heterosexual people, should still have the option of marrying within their gender if they so wish. Obviously, hetero people wouldn't. But everyone should have the same rights - and those rights should include same-sex marriage.