D.C. Council Votes Yes on Marriage Equality

 

Thanks GE. I agree with some of what you said but I'm gay. Arguing that gay marriage is good for the state with the likes of NOM is useless. Convince me that, even if gay people were model citizens, ideally situated to be changed by marriage (and not try to change it as you say) that NOM, and those who follow, would listen and be convinced. They don't WANT to be convinced. I don't think that it's that our opponents are 'for marriage'. I think it's that the idea of 2 people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is profoundly disturbing to them. Giving legal recognition to it is dangerous, however pious we might be. Children are, and always have been, used in the argument against gay men and women. In their eyes we have a disease and invisibility is the prevention. It's no secret gay men have more sexual partners than straight. But little of what you described can be attribuated to heterosexual marriages anymore either. These are minds I don't think we can change.

Part 2 CONT'D: ... But you see the problem is that many gays do not want marriage or the consequences thereof. Many want open relationship, bigamy, polygamous relationships, have wide-eyed in your face expose of sexual depravity (a la Lambert). I think that most gay activists seek to destroy wha they don't have for themselves, in this case marriage. They don't fight for it, nor your rights (in fact you lose more rights than you gain in the long run in marriage), they have this pseudo-self fulfilling endeavor to just want to be "accepted as is" without knowing that marriage is supposed to change you, not the other way around. so then they tell you that you need rights... without ever telling you why need them, or which actual rights have been taken from you once your sexuality has been revealed (you will find that none have). Most if not all of these entitlements (SS, Medicare, etc) are going bankrupt, and if they go under would you then scream that your "rights have been violated?"

"We have no argument that gay marriage is beneficial to the state. Doubt we ever will. " Clay, I have through various posts contributed many points on this issue why there is a compelling state interest, if you cannot understand why there is a compelling state interest to recognize same sex marriage than there is no reason to fight for it. Marriage ties (socially, and legally) two parents for the welfare of children. Gay couples can still rear children and this is enough of a compelling state interest alone. There is also health, encouraging monogamy leading to lower hiv infections, socially and legally forcing couples to be responsible for each other, encourage straight couples to marry as well and procreate - traditionally or otherwise. And besides most if not all straight people do not like to see gays runabout and sleep around in parks, and have anonymous sex; to discourage gay adultery, marriage will encourage gays to act more mature and responsibly towards each other.

@GE 'In order to win this debate, we must move away from this type of discussion and move to what is beneficial to the state and society who have constructed marriage as it is.' I'm not sure I quite follow your comments about evolution at all. As I understand it as long as there have been homo-sapiens there have been homo-sexuals. Gay sex is not a 'new' alternative. I'm not sure our fight for rights--and marriage is just one--can be described as a debate. We have no argument that gay marriage is beneficial to the state. Doubt we ever will. I'd be interested to hear yours. Society--maybe. In the interest of justice and separation of church and state--absolutely. The truth is we don't have the numbers to really impact society at all. Even if every last homo under the sun got married and and adopted five children. But the banter with Nick is not really debate. It's just fun. And I think it's good for the soul.

All sexual contact does not lead to procreation (meaning a baby being born alive) so in that regard we all know that. Biologically sex was meant to be pleasurable so we can reproduce, however due to some evolutionary traits (and social, psychological references) homosexuality has now officially become an acceptable alternative. However this whole one sided *we must procreate* dictatorship is not practical (though in biologically it is prescribed) because it will only work if there even number of men and women in a given population, so that at least each and every person will have a mate to procreate with. Marriage is a product of that biological ideal model of procreation. In order to win this debate, we must move away from this type of discussion and move to what is beneficial to the state and society who have constructed marriage as it is. We have to move from biology (personal) to law (societal) to be able to win over Americans.

Nothing in what I said made the statement that people are ignorant of how children are brought into the world. Though I sometimes wonder. The point I was making is that, more often than not, sex is more an expression of intimacy rather than a planned attempt to bring kids into the world. And sex, for that reason, is a valid and important part of human life. Gay people share that intimacy with members of the same sex. And that is just as valid and important and real to them (us) as it is to the straight couple who gets out a condom and has a romp in the hay. Nick argues that the sole purpose of sex is procreation. And, therefore, our marriages to one another should have no legal backing. He's wrong. Do you think otherwise?

"I would bet my paycheck that most straight people, when they're getting ready to have sex, are not thinking about children" Really? How do you know that? So all those straight couples had no idea that having vaginal sex would lead to procreation. Insane.

GAY MARRIAGE IN THE NATIONS CAPITAL! Awesome! @Nick. Arguing with you is just a step above watching paint dry. But I have a few hours to pass so here goes: If human sexuality were meant for procreation soley, and had nothing to do with human expression and intimacy, then a woman would probably not have a clitoris. Because this particular 'part' of a person has absolutely nothing to do with conception. I would bet my paycheck that most straight people, when they're getting ready to have sex, are not thinking about children. I'm thinking right now that your concern for where gay people put their 'parts', is because you have limited knowledge about what to do with your own.

Nick: Thanks so much for the website referral. I'm sure all on here will use it's services when they decide they want to leave the perverted gay lifestyle behind! Til then, hold your breath. Go troll someone elses magazine and frequent a restroom where you can find a "friend". I have a website for you, too. Gofuckyourself.org

Nick, most gays are not fighting for pregnancy rights (though I can see why you might be confused if not make pointless and radical generalizations). What is at stake is the children of our society and if irresponsible straight parents abuse their "right to get pregnant" and leave children to state's care, it is for the best interest of the state to encourage adoption even by gay and infertile straight couples, and marriage will hold these couples accountable. In the final end result these couples will no doubt encourage the rest of the population to procreate and rear children since of course many of them can, well you know what I mean, since that is what you are bragging about so unnecessarily.