[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]It's not about equality, it's like trying to say a man has an equal right to give birth to a baby.[/citation]
Which they do, if they could.
[citation] This is NEVER about "equality," but only about gays trying to use the legal system to put a big "Normal" stamp on their relationships and force us to accept it. [/citation]
So making things equal isn't about equality? Two adults consensually loving each other? That's normal. And force you to accept it? How would you not accept what other people are doing in a way that doesn't affect you? Persecute them? Well, this is America so we can and do force you to treat people equally if you wish to live here. You know, the whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." principle that motivated the founding of our nation.
[citation] Marriage is only between a man and a woman,[/citation]
Says who? Why are the people with the strongest opinions about an issue that doesn't concern them also the most ignorant of the subject? For thousands of years marriage was a property transaction. You know the whole "dowry" tradition? Women weren't allowed to have jobs or incomes so they were viewed as a liability to a family essentially paid someone to take them off their hands. Marriage was also used to unite clans, etc.
In 1691 in America marriage was restricted to whites only.
In 1724 black people could get married with the permission of the slave owner.
In 1769 the wife was considered property.
In 1899 polygamy was outlawed.
In 1900 wives were allowed to own their own property.
In 1955 contraception became legal.
In 1967 interracial marriage was made legal nationally.
In 1975 it was ruled that wives could have credit in their own name.
In 1981 it was finally struck down that the husband was the owner of all property.
In 1993 laws that said rape could not occur between a married couple were struck down.
"Traditional" marriage not only has changed alot, it also appears to have been quite oppressive and unpalatable for quite some time, doesn't it?
And in regards to marriage being only between a man and a woman? Again, you're ill-informed. In many places and times same-sex couples were joined together, and even the Roman Catholic Church had same-sex ceremonies, as the late historian Boswell discovered! There's a newspaper article about Boswell's research at
http
/libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
An excerpt....
-------
...A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
---------------
[citation] if gays want to make a partnership to get health/retirement benefits--which is what this supposedly all about--then who cares. But they only will accept "marriage" and scream about.[/citation]
I don't know how old you are, but there was this time in American history when black people weren't content to just ride on the bus, they wanted to be able to sit where they wanted! They even weren't happy with their own schools, restaurants and bathrooms... they wanted to use the same ones as white people! Isn't that crazy? People not wanted to be treated as something less than a full citizen or even a full human being? As something "different" that needs to be shuttled off to some place where the majority doesn't have to see them, whether that be an all-black school or a closet?
[citation] Look at the states where gay marriage is allowed--hardly any of them are getting married.[/citation]
You know how many gay people there are and how many are in permanent relationships in order to assess the figure as "hardly any"? If they don't care about it, why are they fighting so hard for it? With neighbors and bosses and family like you, and a society that doesn't have the support net for homosexual relationships that it has for heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships are harder to maintain, which makes their fight for marriage equality all the more inspiring.
[citation] Now that that can serve openly in the military why aren't they lining up to enlist? [/citation]
Again, you must have amazing sources for your numbers? Since the military doesn't inquire about sexual orientation, how do you know how many gay people are enlisting? And for the record... they're already there, and fighting for a country that doesn't treat them as full citizens, just like the Tuskegee Airmen.
[citation] Because they don't want to get married or be in the military, [/citation]
I see what's going on here. Just like every gay person (and straight person!) will tell you they didn't choose their sexuality and certain people insist they did anyway (because otherwise it would make them, and their Bible, evil and horrible), even though gay people and lovers of freedom of all orientations fought and are fighting to serve and to marry, they don't
really want it because then again it would make your stance horrible and bigoted and evil so you need to deny reality once again.
[citation]and no matter what accommodation they're given they still won't be happy because they can't accept the rest of the world is straight.[/citation]
Oh the irony. But I am intellectually curious as to how someone's views get as funhouse-mirror warped and twisted as this.
I assure you if the population drops there will be some yokel who will help do his part to bring it back up.
Facebook
Twitter