Comments on: Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights For Gays

By: jakk

jakk — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:19:11 +0000

“”"Back to our main discussion, I still get the feeling that I have not conveyed my point well. In my ‘gay marriage is not a civil right‘ post I tried very hard to pick examples that do not convey any moral judgment, that are seen as ‘benign acts’, to prove my point. I used ‘writing with your left hand’, ‘masturbating’, ’sex outside of marriage’, all as examples to get across my point that regardless of your moral views regarding an act, whether one sees an act as benign or ‘morally wrong’, an act is still not a civil rights issue. They are fundamentally different. And since homosexuality implies an act, specifically because it is a behavioral attribute, in other words, because it is defined by its actions, the parallel with civil rights does not hold.”"”

HP Your logic is perfectly clear!! The gay argument has inhanced its presence in our social arena not through its amorality or ahumph,morality or especially social acceptance - you do well to make the clear distinction that gays are not being denied their civil rights. This civil rights horseshit has come to all of us in the United States through the courts! Socialized legalism. I “order you to recognize (in spite of the fact your manliness tells you differently) that homosexuality is acceptable and normal..sound of gavel BANG!! case closed! My ass! for me socialized legalism has reached its apex and the end of its life with this 2008 affirmative action, white house squatter, usurper media bought president hopenchange obahmah.
Sorry, we’ve left reality a bit too far behind lts time to return to what is healthy and that which works.
Plus the true impetus behind this gay marriage crap is not civil rights - that is the smoke and mirrors lie - the reality is the TAX WRITE OFF that married families get from IRS.

By: jakk

jakk — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:57:00 +0000

NO you are close but no cigar! Gays wish to have the same opportunity to marry for love of the TAX WRITE-OFFS that married couples have. PERIOD.
The problem with this is that gays begin to argue along the lines of “the right to marry anyone that they wish…” No - one has no right to marry. If this was so then why then the marriage license? one must be certified as healthy, mentally and physically, gainfully employed, capable of communicating and especially for those of you who are not married to define WHY it is you love your partner to differentiate this from puppy love AKA infatuation. Infatuation is what gay couples are famous for - bed hopping, fighting (the lesbians next door to my buddy’s house WOW!Do they fight)nor that either the male or the female house repressed emotional or mental quirks. And foremost,the responsibility upon married couples is to procreate - to help guarantee that they will unite, live in commitment (another gay issue) love, conceive, carry, birth and rear a mentally,emotionally, educated and otherwise fine generation of healthy offspring to again, provide assurance of a capable, healthy and strong, moral, intelligent “next generation” through biology - through the basic normal channels of conception through sex and intercourse - together as a family unit.
PERIOD — NO Adoption no bullshit and it doesnt take a geneticist or physiologist to tell you how children are conceived.
Place ten gay couples in ten gay households for two years and within that two there will be ZERO offspring. That is what this is about. Gays love their freedom and that they do not need the same family core as do the heterosexuals — Hence the term “Gay” you homosexuals coined that term yourselves!! So live with that fact - quietly. But please, do not attempt to convince; especially married couples with children; that your gay union is even remotely close to that of a normal couple. I haven’t been successful in helping others see the very distinct boundaries between marriage exist so I quit.
Instead, listen to Elton John himself so wisely describe his affair as a civil partnership and that union not being anywhere similar to heterosexuals marriage. Were one to make an effort, I am certain they would be gently laughed out of the room!
Gays live in an intense level of denial believing that somehow, for some reasons that they themselves have created, their homosexuality is fine. It is - within the boundaries of ones self and who they choose to tell and share that with and this is as far as that goes. However, biologically, physiologically and speaking with regard to social welfare - no two same sex partners cant possibly marry.

By: Spanglish Gringo » ‘Til death do us part.

Spanglish Gringo » ‘Til death do us part. — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:06:16 +0000

[…] ‘Til death do us part. A blogger that I read a lot (though not always in agreement), Hispanic Pundit has a very thought-provoking post on gay marriage. If you have a few lunch-time minutes to read it, the post & numerous follow-up comments are worth it. […]

By: oso

oso — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:38:12 +0000

Jesse, you’ve got it all wrong my friend. I was just talking to god last night and he told me that he purposely spared Mass of Hurricane Wilma cause he was so proud that they legalized gay marriage. Of course, not everyone gets to talk to god as often as I do, so I don’t blame you for your ignorance, but I just thought I’d let you know what the big guy is thinking.

BTW, Florida is supposed to keep getting hit by hurricanes as punishment for Jeb Bush helping out brother Georgie. God, is he clever or what?

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:36:27 +0000

Gay marriage is wrong, because God didn’t make humans to be like this. Most of us have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed that city because of its homesexual sins and abominations. Anyone who is gay should seek Jesus. He is the one who can satisfy and fullfill you.

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:48:47 +0000

Nope, nobody ever made the ‘choose’ argument, atleast not on this blog.

By: Roberto Diego

Roberto Diego — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:35:32 +0000

Consider this comparison -

When gays ask permission to marry, government officials suggest that gays don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits marriage, that they marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. The gays will say that since they are not straight, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the gay that they CHOOSE to be gay and that America won’t provide gays with “special rights” based on their lifestyle choices. What gays do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should American society, built on monogamy, have to change to accommodate gays’ chosen lifestyle? The gays may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits to straights while they are those same benefits. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be gay rather than marry an opposite sex partner.

In Saudi Arabia, Christians can’t build churches. I imagine that when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi Arabia won’t provide Christians with “special rights” based on their lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to accommodate Christians’ chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits to Muslims while they are denied those same benefits. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be Christians rather than being Muslims.

Sound familiar?

By: Sandra

Sandra — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:22:10 +0000

Throughout the centuries, marriage, at its core, has been predominantly oriented around the protection of women and children. Until very recently, romantic love was not necessarily part of the deal.

I am a single, heterosexual female, but there are millions of people out there that I cannot marry. I cannot marry my father; I cannot marry anyone who is already married (including my ex-husband). Any single, homosexual female out there is in the same situation; there is no discrimination towards her in this. Homosexual “marriage” is not the Holy Grail the homosexual communitity seems to think it is.

By: Jonathan D. McPike

Jonathan D. McPike — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:57:55 +0000

I have to agree with Hispanic Pundit on this one. I have made this same argue to liberals and it gets a sigh or a roll of the eyes, so I am glad to see that someone else agrees.

The crux of the debate is the definition of marriage. Historically, it has always been between a man and a woman. Fine. Let us all have equal rights. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you waive your right to that, then you should not expect something above and beyond that right.

On a tangent, SCOTUS-watching blogs erupted when people found out that John G. Roberts did pro bono work for a gay rights lawsuit. Everyone thought that there was a disconnect, but there really is not. Mr. Roberts argued that people should not face hiring and housing discrimination based on sexuality. That is an issue of equal rights. The marriage issue is one of special rights.

Maybe if we can separate issues of equal rights and special rights, then we can have a much more respectful debate.

By: Joe's Dartblog

Joe's Dartblog — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:41:14 +0000

Reponse To A Response To The Hispanic Pundit

In this post, I linked to Alfonso Trujillo’s argument that gay marriage isn’t about equal rights, but instead about special rights. Alfonso said this:Currently everybody already has the same rights with regard to marriage. You, homosexuals, heterosex…