Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is my counter:
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
this cockeyed blog is so entertaining, i read every post myself at least ten times. it's all fun and no play...no dull boy...i write about no dull boy. DRY WINE!
Sights I Often See On Sites I Sometimes Cite
- Cooking for Assholes is a ridiculous recipe resource
- Alcademics
- Rachel's new site was almost named Legless Until I Have My Consciousness Transplanted Into the Brain of a Clone of Myself with Genetic Enhancements So I’m Like a Superhero
- Excessive Mastication
- Barack Obama's Facebook Site
- Tucker Max might have been my role model if I'd stayed in the States and never grew up (Warning: Very Sick)
- Merkley is a long lost blog that I couldn't remember how I got there till I saw a book by Merkys and knew it was something like that
- The Best Page in the Universe will keep your entertained for a while
My Top Five Favorite Books I"m Currently Reading
Other books I"m currently reading
- Doctor Sax
- We Are Not Alone
8 comments:
The link don't work:(
oh yes it does!
At first when i read that article, i thought it was totally crazy that poeple could never go so overboard in their pro-homosexuality. But when you think about the way things are headed, not only could they go that far, they almost certainly will.
Also in terms of the line between homosexuality/heterosexuality one of my profs at northwestern believed that all girls are midway between meaning they are equally homosexual/heterosexual.
I was actually taking this article seriously until he also claimed that young women will be discouraged from marriage due to allegations of it being heterosexist. So while he calls "those four judges" arrogant, he turns around and predicts the future in a gradually hysterical manner? Somewhat inconsistent.
Anyhow, definitely an interesting perspective, but in the end I don't believe the ruling in California forces churches into performing gay marriages, and that is what I believed to be the crux of the matter. I still believe that the churches have every right to define marriage in whatever way they want, but in the secular world? I still don't believe religious notions of marriage should dictate the rights of secular, taxpaying citizens.
Sure, our culture might be built on a Judaeo-Christian belief system, but times have changed.
It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction
Why? We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.
It is interesting, but in the end no one is forcing the churches to perform gay marriages, if it ever came to that I would strongly be against churches being forced to do so.
In the end Aras, your arguments against gay marriage are religious, and therefore ultimately faith based for which there is no empirical evidence to provide them support. That doesn't sound like the guy who introduced me to Ayn Rand and in turn objectivism.
On that note, I would be interested in reading an anti-gay marriage (I prefer the term civil union) argument that was not faith based. In all my research I haven't found a single one yet.
Anyway, you and I will probably never agree on this topic, so I just wasted 20 minutes arguing my point when I could have been drinking... damn.
Everything seems hysterical if it's spoken of long enough before it happens, Rachel.
Why is it up to the government to channel human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction?
Because, from another article I enjoyed by Rick Santorum, "Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won't have a dad around, but we can't let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?"
The point of government benefits conferred to married couples has nothing to do with love or respect: it's done to encourage stable families which makes for stable society. The evidence of Norway indicates that such stability is lost when marriage opens up it's boundaries.
There's nothing religious about that.
No one is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages? I beg to differ. Not only are church agencies being forced to oversee gay adoptions (which I'd say is almost the same), churches are losing certain nonprofit benefits for not performing same sex marriages. That is the same as forcing. From Santorum's article: "In Massachusetts, the first same-sex-marriage state, Catholic Charities, one of the state's largest adoption agencies, was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples. In New Jersey, a Methodist group lost part of its state real estate tax exemption because it refused to permit civil-union ceremonies on church-owned property."
Still say the courts' decisions aren't affecting anyone but the gay couples in question?
Also of concern to some people is the prospect of fake marriages. As in 2 roommates get legally married for tax purposes and or for health insurance purposes. Companies generally give health insurance to you and your spouse, and there is concern that companies will be less apt to do that if gay marriage is legalized. Of course it is already possible to have sham weddings between men and women, but the concern is that it will be more prevalent if gay marriage is legalized. you need to have a fairly high level of trust and friendship for a fake marriage, and it seems to me reasonable, that most people have people of the same sex they would be more comfortable marrying for financial purposes.
Companies already chaffing at the high cost of health insurance may stop paying for spouses/families of employees. I have no problem with that in theory, but with the already fragile state of health care in the US, it might not be the best time to upset the balance.
I am personally pro gay marriage, but only under the condition that other forms of marriage are legalized, such as polygamy and incestual marriages (under the condition of sterilization to avoid genetically diseased children.) I see no possible argument that gay marriage should be legalized but these other forms shouldn't be. Either the government has no place in dictating marriage or it does. You can't pick and choose the ones that aren't offensive to you.
you forgot to mention bestial marriages, loky, and marriages between a person and an inanimate object, such as a doll, sock puppet, laptop computer, or dildo.
and does anyone know the deal with hermaphrodites? can they marry either gender, or only other hermaphrodites?
Marriage to animals is different because they can't give consent to marriage. Although animal activists are trying to have some monkey declared a person. Even with monkeys that learn sign language i don't believe they have the mental facilities to consent to a marriage. As far as marriage to inanimate objects, that's i have no problem with restricting any benefits to such marriages as benefits are obviously only intended for human beings. As long as any financial benefits are with held i have no problem with someone marrying an inanimate carbon rod.
Post a Comment