First Comes Love, Then ...

At least there are no animals involved.

To note the obvious, if one buys the arguments underlying gay marriage, then marriage is to be based primarily of considerations of romantic love, not a state interest in stable family creation and maintenance, and furthermore should not be limited due to "arbitrary" and "capricious" considerations often present in non-prohibited "normal' marriages, and thus, yes, the couple should be left alone to their "love" which "doesn't affect anyone else."

Comments

[BobInStamford]

That was Germany? I was sure it was going to be a Red state.

[Zifnab]

Last I checked you could still marry your cousin in the good old US of A. Why haven't the Christian Conservatives gotten a head start on that?

Also, what's to stop people from marrying their box turtles?

[scarshapedstar]

Who freakin' cares if they DO marry a box turtle? It's pretty clear that they're not going to be reproducing of their own volition. If you ban man-turtle marriage, they're not going to say "Well, shucks, if I can't marry a turtle, I guess I have no choice but to marry a woman, then." They'll just have an unmarried sexual relationship with said box turtle.

I just don't get why you guys think being homosexual is a choice even though every homosexual on earth will tell you it isn't. (except for the creepy "ex-gay converts" who invariably get caught in bed with a little boy a few years later, I wonder why that always happens?) I mean, does anyone choose to be heterosexual? I sure don't. In fact, there's been many times in my life when I wished that I could just be done with women entirely. But it doesn't work that way. I'm constantly perplexed by the fundies who rant and rave about how Satan is constantly tempting all of us to be gay and live a life of limitless pleasure, etc etc, but they resist the devil's charms, and it's a terrible burden, and that's why they're so much better than all those fallen men who gave in and started buggering each other. Sorry, Ted. I, personally, have never been tempted to turn gay, by Satan or anyone else.

It's enough to make one wonder if that voice in their heads urging them to hit on men isn't really Satan's at all.

[Purple Avenger]

"Who freakin' cares if they DO marry a box turtle?"

European socialists apparently. Stodgy pricks.

[Jeff]

"I just don't get why you guys think being homosexual is a choice even though every homosexual on earth will tell you it isn't."

Right... I guess if I murder someone I can say "it wasn't a choice," and if scar were my judge he would say, "it's not a choice... hmmm... all the other murderers said that too. Shucks, well I guess you can get a second or third chance."

So scar, if everyone doing the act says it is natural, it must be?

[seekeronos]

"Last I checked you could still marry your cousin in the good old US of A. Why haven't the Christian Conservatives gotten a head start on that?"

---- Probably because incest, and marriages of first cousins, is illegal in most states. Not to mention a ___very____ widely held taboo against it even into this incredibly enlightned modern age, as opposed to homosexuality, polyamory, and kiddie-touchers who are scrambling like madmen to tear down the last vestiges of Christian-derived morality in this nation.

For the current legality of incestous marriages in the USA, I refer you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Forms_of_incest

..........................................................................

"Who freakin' cares if they DO marry a box turtle?"

---- Can't imagine the box turtle would agree to a coupling. In fact, she might turn about and bite off the offending member.

.............................................................................

"In fact, there's been many times in my life when I wished that I could just be done with women entirely."

---- Sounds like a personal issue there. Or maybe you said something to the womyns/hu-person-beings in your life that makes them rather uncomfortable?

.............................................................................

"I just don't get why you guys think being homosexual is a choice even though every homosexual on earth will tell you it isn't."

---- well, it's really your choice whether or not you choose to bugger another man, or be buggered. Not really that difficult; some people just have a difference in personal inhibition on buggery.

"It's enough to make one wonder if that voice in their heads urging them to hit on men isn't really Satan's at all."

---- Although Satan does factor into it, the MSM and the LGBT rights movement have a lot of input into it. And the porn "industry" as well... they gotta make a buck too, y'know.

[Zifnab]

"---- Probably because incest, and marriages of first cousins, is illegal in most states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_USA_with_Incest_Legality.svg

And yet, strangely enough, it seems so many of the deep red states don't have such bans. Texas, for instance, where we've got about eight different laws against homosexual marriage is an incest-friendly zone. I'm just confused on the logic. Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennesse all saw fit to ban same-sex unions as recently as last November. Yet not a word concerning incest. Or beastiality for that matter. Strange, no? One might begin to question their priorities.

[Jeff]

So if you aren't gay, you have to marry your cousin. Well, I guess I'd prefer that than having to one in the rear... So Zifnab, meet BobInStamford. BobinStamford, meet ZifnabinBob.

[Phoenix]

Biological facts do not entail moral facts. Any lawmaker who dismisses the truths in biology for some fools who want to breed more fools should be thrown in a box of ravenous turtles. Damn, people are stupid.

[TheSpartan]

When was the last time someone chose to be a member of a persecuted minority?

[Jeff]

"Biological facts do not entail moral facts."

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are saying that homosexuality is a biological fact (which I read as natural, not controlable).

I think that the whole gay marriage thing is simple until you throw morality or religion in, then it gets complicated. But then again, the same could be said for drugs, violence, or theft.

[Purple Avenger]

Beastiality seems to be a liberal pacific northwest specialty. No laws against getting your freak on with a stallion in Washington.

[seekeronos]

I think that some folk may be more prone to turning to homosex behaviour for a variety of factors - both environmental (prenatal hormone levels, maternal use/abuse of alcohol and/or drugs, prenatal trauma, to name but a few) or psychological (bad parenting, social inputs, bad childhood experiences/molestation) as well as social conditioning ("the ghey is okay" indoctrination) and the blurring of gender roles.

There may even be a genetic component to it; but when the pushing comes to shoving.... it comes down to a choice of whether or not to copulate with someone of one's own gender or the opposite one.

Despite whatever is ultimately the mechanical cause for someone having an affection for the members of their own gender, it is still a byproduct of our sinful nature which can only be corrected through surrending one's self to Christ.

"His blood made the foulest sinner clean", as the old hymn goes.

[Phoenix]

Jeff,

Biology doesn't dictate morality. People dictate morality. Cultural mores embrace the behaviors they want and eliminate those they don't want. Plenty smacks of social Darwinism, but biology speaks the truth whether we like it or not.

Anything gets complicated when you throw religion or morality into the picture. There should be a simple metric: Does it hurt others?

I believe people are born homosexual. Who would choose it? It may even be a latent proclivity in all men. We proudly claim the Greco/Roman Empire as our foundation for western civilization and quietly overlook the fact that noblemen had young male lovers. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates all had young boys. Plebeian mothers groomed their sons to be attractive to the upperclass in the hopes they would be picked as this offered a higher station in life for them. Noblemen treated them well. They didn't even think about it. It was just done. Now look at us. We can't even have a civilized discussion about homosexuality.

Who are we to tell someone else how to live? As long as an action is not harmful to others, we should mind our own business.

[Buzzy]

Since only about 1.5% of all Americans define themselves as gay or bisexual I really could not care less. Actually some gay rights sites put the percentage closer to 1.2% of the total US population. That is a tiny minority and I don't blame the Democrats a bit for dumping gays from the party platform.

[Jeff]

You know Phoenix there was a time not too long that I agreed with you. but here's the hangup with me.

Gays focus nearly solely on sex, I went to San francisco is 2001 and I went through a neighborhood that I didn't know was one of the most gay (we asked the taxi driver to brng us to a nice place to eat supper). And there were sex shops all over the place, with front window displays that were extremely inappropriate for anyone, of any age.

The reason why the focus on sex disturbs me so much, is because in straight couples, the focus isn't nearly that high, at least it isn't so "out there." You don't see people in straight neighborhoods grabbing each other in public (rarely anyway), and this happens all the time in gay areas. I am originally from Montreal, and gay couples have no problem with this.

If they are so unnatural in this way, to me it is just indicative of the unnaturalness of the whole thing.

[seekeronos]

"Anything gets complicated when you throw religion or morality into the picture."

Actually, God made a pretty simply metric as well, one that could well include Phoenix's metric of "Does it hurt others":

"Do(es) my action(s) glorify Him, or run contrary to His will?

Marriage glorifies God in that it is the direct reflection of the relationship of Himself to His believers; more directly, it opens the door for one of God's precious gifts - children - as well as promotes a far more stable family environment (especially if both parents belong to Christ).

As for the ephebophilic relations (men with post-pubescent boys) of Roman and Greek times, these were not attempts to create a mockery of the family. Most of this was purely for economic advantage, and to a lesser degree, initiating the youth into the power structures of those societies.

Except that the incidence of Venereal Disease (or STDs) was amazingly high - much of the Roman Senate as well as many emperors were _insane_ on account of the syphillis they carried and received from their mentors in due course.

Add to this the dramatically higher amount of intrigues and jealousies over who had which young man, and this tends to destabilize any societty (and particularly their governments, which were only governed by these weathly ephebophile patricians).

The practice and promotion Homosexuality as a "valid" expression of love was just as lascivious and deadly to society as it is now; it just takes a differnet form as ephebohilia is illegal in most Western societies, if not otherwise discouraged.

Jeff's example of the gay district with the over-abundance of sex shops and men grabbing each other's rear ends does not seem appropriate to rear children in.

[Phoenix]

Jeff,

I'm with you on the flagrant public displays of the gay community. But consider the place. In my mind, I'm thinking of the average gay couple acting like the average heterosexual couple - just wanting to live their lives without bothering anyone. Whatever libertarian leanings I have stop with allowing that kind of crass behavior and commercialism something we *have* to see. No one wants to take their kids out and witness that. In the same vein, I don't like witnessing heterosexual couples making out in parks. Public displays of sex are classless. Who knows why some gays go for the public exposure - a sort of rebellious in-your-face reaction to what they know most people condemn. No place to raise a family for sure.

Seek,

Good analysis as usual. I don't agree with your implication that homosexuality is an assault on traditional marriage, though. A gay person can't 'force' a straight guy to leave his family. Homosexuality just exists and it seems to me acceptance of it is the best way for harmony all the way around. Maybe if we ever get to that point, the urge for those who want to flaunt it will disappear. With the exception of San Francisco, that is....