Obviously “marriage” is a big deal, or straight people wouldn’t be guarding it with the force and venom they are. There’s only so much “marriage” to go around, and why should they let gays have any of it?

I guess this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Sarcastically snide, too. It’s time to close this thread anyway. See the latest post update to continue the discussion elsewhere. – Admin

Choice A came from your comment, and Choice B from mine. So to say it’s “nothing like either” is both disingenuous, and a misapplication of the SAT instructions. But no matter. I expect at this point neither of us wants to waste the other’s time, right?

Enjoy your “lifestyle.” I certainly won’t interfere.

All you said is true. I’m saying that IF they civil union could give the rights then we shouldn’t quibble about the term “marriage”. Furthermore, if marriage is so sacred, then just provide the rights to gay folks in another form, just don’t call it marriage.

To me, it’s always gonna seem like too much work for something that isn’t that big a deal, but i’ve never thought marriage to be all that important and frankly, antiquated.

Being gay is more like
a) being alcoholic, or
b) having green eyes.”

Homosexuality is nothing like either and making that comparison is dumbing down the subject. If you’re asking me if I believe homosexuality is immoral, my honest answer is yes. However, that doesn’t mean I wish to offend or for bad things to happen to those practicinng that lifestyle.

First, thanks for your comments. But I have some things to say about civil unions.

A “civil union” isn’t the same as marriage, at least in the ways it’s been applied up to now. “Separate but equal” is wrong, and rarely equal. And if a “civil union” and a “civil marriage” are exactly the same, why do we have to invent a new term to avoid offending people who think being gay is icky?

Marriage is a civil contract delineated by the government, no more, no less. That’s why you get a “marriage license.” I don’t want any religion to be forced to marry two men or two women if they don’t want to. Because it’s called “marriage,” though, there’s all this blurring between secular and religious concepts. Personally I’d like to get rid of “marriage” as a secular government concept, and allow anyone to get a “civil union” or whatever. Leave the “marriages” to the churches. But that’ll never happen, will it? People like the benefits they get with civil marriage (and legitimacy, frankly), and they see no reason why gay people, whose very existence is an abomination, should get the same as they do.

Blanko:

Take this quiz. Imagine you’re filling out the SATs.

Being gay is more like
a) being alcoholic, or
b) having green eyes.

I did not equate homosexuality with being violent, alcoholic, nor promiscuous, I simply chose traits that could be argued to be hereditary and followed the argument to its logical conclusion. My point is that even if you were born with certain characteristic (which I don’t believe is the case with homosexuality) that doesn’t automatically make that characteristic healthy for you or society. I chose characteristics that I could argue I was born with, but do not act on by choice.

And who is this “they” that you keep saying didn’t like lefties and why are you equating them to me?

“I also love how people like you say “no offense intended” in the middle of comments they know are patently offensive. It’s humorous, really.” – Adam

I’m happy my post humored you, but I really have no desire or reason to offend anyone, but I often find it’s difficult to walk on egg shells, while discussing a somewhat controversial topic. My sincere apology is given to anyone offended by my post.

Adam, when a person says they had just as soon move to Mars than do something, I think that can be interpreted as a resounding “No.”

Is it okay for heterosexuals to have sex that isn’t for pro-creation – birth control, other types of sexual activity?

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/08/17/memento/

All of what you said is flat out incorrect. First, what special rights…the rights to give half their stuff away once they divorce? the rights to get tax breaks because they live and love with someone exclusively? the rights to have society recognize a union? These are not special. You don’t really get to argue that, the sex doesn’t change the way we love. This is not about rights for people to engage in freaky sex clubs, S&M and get tax breaks, this is about monogamous lovers who want to be able to have their union blessed with the same arbitrary benefits of society that heterosexuals get. No one has a right to those tax breaks, it’s just the way it’s been set up.

Secondly, the institution of marriage has been changed throughout history…hmmm, like in the fact that it was, and IS, about money. It’s always been an economic institution. Religion got involved in Western society to control the flow of money, particularly to the Catholic Church which was the most powerful institution in the Western world. That fact is always obscured because folks wanna act like marriage is inherently religious and moral, when that is not the case.

On the flip side, however, if the gay movement is really all about the rights and privileges of marriage they shouldn’t quibble about the term. If it’s called a civil union, who cares that it’s not “marriage” if you get the same rights. Then, it does become about religion and wanting to get acceptance from an religion itself — an institution that chronically misconstrues, misreads, and misapplies the Bible, ripping it from it’s historical context to suit whatever ridiculous need one can think of.

Lastly, how does homosexuality destructive? No one can adequately answer that question. Mostly, because any of the things you can name are not exclusive to homosexuals (for instance, straight men love anal sex too…just a different anus).

It’s all fine to dislike whatever you like, but if you can’t back it up with any kind of legitimacy, then be prepared to be told so. What you’ve said is nothing more than hate filled ignorance. Nothing you’ve said is remotely true or moral. Again and again, Jesus tells us to love and respect one another and not to cast the first stone. How come we never seem to listen to that?

Re: brainy’s point

You really hit this one on the head, man. You’re explanation of the “gay gene” really makes this question a non-issue as it is presented. Kudos!

Ducked the question, didn’t you? Yep. Because I think you fear the “no” answer.

Blanko:

You equate being gay with being promiscuous, violent and alcoholic. OK. Common thoughts. They thought that about being left-handed, too, not that long ago. How do you feel about lefties? They’ve got The Devil in ‘em, after all. Those left-handed shops with those damn scissors and notebooks are just examples of the “special rights” they demand of good right-handed people like me.

I also love how people like you say “no offense intended” in the middle of comments they know are patently offensive. It’s humorous, really.

It’s intellectually lazy to just accept them. I answered the question through my discussion of the framing of it.

This kind of stuff is purposely divisive instead of trying to be in anyway illuminative of the complexities of personal morality.

But to answer your question more directly. Most people are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. There is a difference, essentially that abortion should be a personal choice left up to each woman to make. Furthermore, pushing abortion underground by making it illegal endangers the very babies pro-lifers supposedly care about.

Furthermore, your question doesn’t really juxtapose abortion and homosexuality and liberalism because your question isn’t really about abortion, it’s about selecting “perfection” — if you could create the child you want, eradicate genes in a fetus that are potentially threatening to an “easy, happy” life.

Not the same thing as abortion.

That comment wasn’t directed toward you, so why you responded as though it were, I don’t know. Whether the questions are divisive or not, you are free to move along if you don’t like them or the discussion. You’re obviously new to LBC, so I suggest you look around and educate yourself about how I run this blog. – Admin

Brian B and La Shawn Barber pose some interesting and related questions. As Brian points out, the fundamental question is “What do you do when two values you hold highly conflict with each other?” Brian’s original question was to anti-war…