|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "VoiceBox: Toward a More Perfect Union"
3 june 2004.
jnokgray@yahoo.com
Is the legalization of same -sex marriages a nullification of the unnatural sex crime laws such as may not take place in 49 states of 50, lawful sodomy? lawful Fellatio? lawful Cunnilingus? in Same sex marriages?
Mildly curious.
Jnokgray @yahoo.com
--jkg
06/04 |
DF -
Is Margaret Cho's thing fixed now? Let me know: bill@nerve.com, I'll try and fix it.
--WB
05/25 |
Common sense, SAI? That’s a sad name to give narrow prejudice. I guess we must exclude the infertile, the abstentious, and all who practice non-procreative sex from the definition of legal marriage as well. We should certainly distain the thousands of committed gay parents raising thoughtful, well-adjusted children. And long-term gay couples, who could give the straight world a lesson in steadfast fidelity, should be scorned and ridiculed. Of course, all marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the state, which cannot bless or sanctify, only register and certify. “I am not an agent of the state!” griped the Episcopal priest that married us 28 years ago. He hated having to file the paperwork. I still fail to see how gay marriage threatens our happy hetero couplehood. That could only be the case if we were white-knuckling our sexual orientation. Which, come to think of it, a lot of rabidly straight, gay-bashing people are… some of the same ones who are so terrified of gay people making public commitments. Hmmm…
The future of marriage is in the hands of people who are willing to commit to each other in the face of the unknown: for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health ‘til death do us part. Familiar yet scary words. Marriage doesn’t vote every morning whether to continue the relationship. Marriage will continue (and expand its definition) because two is better than one in a cold world, and the greatest honor is having someone in your corner, come what may.
--JGH
05/24 |
To SAI; I am a married woman who is unable to have children. I will not be "regenerating society", nor was that a concern for my husband and myself when we chose to marry. We did not form a civil union; but as hetereo's who married for love, not procreation, are we to be denied our right to marriage too?
--CLS
05/24 |
Why must Ames stereotype the midwest? I have lived here all my life, and all my friends got married when they were about 27 to 30, or are single. I wouln't be supprised if the average age of marriage is the same out here as it is in NYC. Did Ames bother to do any research? Doubt it. Worthless.
--afd
05/24 |
Hi... Margaret Cho's entry is cut off. Please fix! I'm very interested. :)
--DF
05/24 |
why the concern about the procreation of the species ? i don't see any evidence that it is slowing down. what is it, exactly, that is threatening about the idea of gay marriage? i am a breeder (hetero) and i don't see what gets everyone's panties up in a wad. on the other hand, its also not clear to me why gay people, or at least a subset of gay people, *want* their unions to be called marriage. it does seem to me that the real battle should be for full legal rights to all the tax benefits, etc. the consternation on both sides of this issue doesn't make full sense to me.
--sta
05/24 |
SAI - I have to say that I agree with you 110%, this whole idea of extending the dinifintion of marriage to include homosexuals is just plain crazy. I also have no problem with them having civil unions, but the idea that they have of marriage being a "right" is just plain wrong. Marriage is no more a "right" than is getting a driver's license. It is a privledge to those that meet the requirements, ie: age, not being related, male/female couple. As much as a blind person may want to drive and get his/her driver's license, they simply do not meed the requirements of the privledge. That is not to say they are not alowed in a car, just someone else needs to be driving! Homosexual couples should be extended the financial benefits as married couples, just don't call it marriage, it is not.
--ApB
05/24 |
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the politically correct responses by many of your (younger) panel members on the "Future of Marriage". The indoctrination centers of today's government schools have done their job. To draw a parallel between marriage and gay unions defers to the politically correct notion of gay rights.
I don't think marriage is a matter of rights but a matter of biology. Marriage is after all, the molecular unit of society. It is the preferred and traditional way to replenish society with future citizens. Have we evolved so far that the very idea of regeneration of society is obsolete? If one believes that a couple of men who insert their penises up the rectums of other men is the moral/biological equivalent to a heterosexual couple who produce and nurture children then I have some ocean front land in Arizona I would like to sell you.
I have no objection to civil unions for gay couples with all the legal benefits of a marital union, but to co-opt the marriage concept for political correctness is truly perverse and does not serve society. It is another step toward the ACLU ideal of a morally neutral culture, which will surely lead us down a path where far more difficult moral principles will be in jeopardy. Can we get some common sense about this?
--SAI
05/24 |
send feedback on "VoiceBox: Toward a More Perfect Union"
back to "VoiceBox: Toward a More Perfect Union" |
|
|
