Nothing is safe from the Queers, not even Bert and Ernie ...

[Vern Humphrey]

Regarding polygamy, I am reminded of what Mark Twain said:

"Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here - until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No - the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

[clintonhater]

If two people of the same sex can get married, why not half a dozen people of assorted sexes?

There is NO logically consistent reason, once the common-sense, traditional, definition has been thrown out.

All the legal rights & benefits of marriage were provided under the "civil-union" laws passed by most states, but that wasn't good enough for homos, because their true & unceasing goal was not legal equality, but a means of MAKING society acknowledge their abnormality as normal.

[togor]

Question, CH: how long do you think same-gender contact of an intimate nature has occurred in H. sapiens? A long time, probably, yes?

[clintonhater]

Question, CH: how long do you think same-gender contact of an intimate nature has occurred in H. sapiens? A long time, probably, yes?

What does that have to do with the institution of marriage, because even in such a homo-tolerant society as ancient Greece, there was no such thing as same-sex marriage--to them, the idea would have seemed not merely ludicrous, but monstrously impious. Abnormalities of all kinds have a long history, but that history doesn't make them change from "abnormal" to "normal."

[bostonbound]

Not aware that people are being hired because they're gay, except maybe for certain cash-only services. But CH is our resident expert on such things.

People have been NOT hired because they're black, or female, etc. If the outrage about "protected classes" also extended to "excluded classes" as well, then I might think there was something to it other than narrowly-drawn self-interest.

You have obviously not been around federal government - hiring practices are specifically skewed to fit the politically correct meme.

[bostonbound]

If "open to all" is the only relevant standard, NOT what the definition of marriage has been in ALL cultures ALL over the world since Adam & Eve, then I presume you also support plural marriage, which--unlike this perversion of the definition--has been a common, legally recognized, form of marriage within many cultures, such as the ancient Israelites, for thousands of yrs. Yet the persecution of "old school" Mormons by the fed gov't has been relentless. Why shouldn't Mormon heterosexuals enjoy the same "open to all" rights as the Sodomites?

If two people of the same sex can get married, why not half a dozen people of assorted sexes?

There is NO logically consistent reason, once the common-sense, traditional, definition has been thrown out.

All the legal rights & benefits of marriage were provided under the "civil-union" laws passed by most states, but that wasn't good enough for homos, because their true & unceasing goal was not legal equality, but a means of MAKING society acknowledge their abnormality as normal.

What does that have to do with the institution of marriage, because even in such a homo-tolerant society as ancient Greece, there was no such thing as same-sex marriage--to them, the idea would have seemed not merely ludicrous, but monstrously impious. Abnormalities of all kinds have a long history, but that history doesn't make them change from "abnormal" to "normal."

You are obviously not a fan of Robert Heinlein!

Marriage has both civil and religious aspects.

I see nothing wrong with any two, three, or fifty people being bound together in the CIVIL form of marriage - with the CIVIL and LEGAL rights that go along with that. Care of children, inheritance and property rights, access to hospitals, etc. are a function of CIVIL law and have nothing to do with religion.

As for RELIGIOUS marriage - that is up to each sect or faith, and is no one's business but the adherents of that faith. If you choose to belong to a sect that allows only two heterosexual people to be married - that is your prerogative and the government should not say you nay.

But you have no business in telling other people how they should live, or who they should live with.

[togor]

What does that have to do with the institution of marriage, because even in such a homo-tolerant society as ancient Greece, there was no such thing as same-sex marriage--to them, the idea would have seemed not merely ludicrous, but monstrously impious. Abnormalities of all kinds have a long history, but that history doesn't make them change from "abnormal" to "normal."

A CH tautology--"abnormalities are abnormal". I'll answer the question you won't. Was there some of this stuff going on in the early hunter-gatherer stage of human society? Probably so, as those small bands were pretty egalitarian for most of our existence. It's well understood that advanced societies curtail individual liberty and your expressed attitudes are a perfect example of that effect in action, as you are in effect saying: "civilization demands that we forbade this." Maybe there was a time when it interfered with how things are organized, but today in the machine age, this hardly seems the case.

[Vern Humphrey]

A fine example of the Union Syndrome at work.

There was murder, rape and child abuse going on in the early hunter-gatherer stage of human society. Does that make it okay?

[Roadkingtrax]

A fine example of the Union Syndrome at work.

There was murder, rape and child abuse going on in the early hunter-gatherer stage of human society. Does that make it okay?

Umm? Bad example Vern you've already approved of Rape based on how attractive a woman is.

WHY would anyone rape Whoopi Goldberg? It's not like she's attractive or anything.

[togor]

A fine example of the Union Syndrome at work.

There was murder, rape and child abuse going on in the early hunter-gatherer stage of human society. Does that make it okay?

Early humans also had a sense of humor, empathy, need for camaraderie and penchant for superstition. So what is your point? That different human groups have different standards for what does and does not constitute acceptable behavior? This is already known. Some ancients might find it odd that we proscribe rape, which to them is one of the spoils of victory, while at the same time we tolerate criticism of the leader, which to them merits death. Every human ever born is to some degree a product of the age in which they live.

CH simply doesn't like gays, has a strong visceral reaction to them, and therefore regards any institution that legitimizes same-gender relationships as an abomination. He may cast about history looking for examples to rationalize his position, but it's clear to everyone (save maybe him) that his stance is driven by emotion over reason. My point to him is that what he regards as an aberrant behavior in humans (same-gender sexual attraction) has quite likely been there from the beginning. Making it less a flaw than a feature of humanity.

[Sako]

I've heard of "strap ons" but not "sew ons".

You must not remember John Wayne Bobbit.

[Vern Humphrey]

The Union Syndrome is going full force.

[clintonhater]

My point to him is that what he regards as an aberrant behavior in humans (same-gender sexual attraction) has quite likely been there from the beginning. Making it less a flaw than a feature of humanity.

Your point is nonsensical--"aberrant behavior" should be condoned merely because it's "always been around"??? As was already pointed out, greed, envy, a lust for power, leading to murder, torture, many other crimes, have been a "feature of humanity" since Cain slew Abel; they're part of the human genome. So let's de-criminalize them all because it's just human nature to behave that way!

[togor]

Cain slew Abel? So now you're a Bible literalist? Anyways, again, you take something that has been around in some fraction since the beginning, and decide for everyone that it ranks among the all-time evils of humanity. That's an emotional position, not a rational one.

[blackhawknj]

Whenever someone says a person's "sexual orienatation/affectional preference" is a private matter, I always reply:
"Do you approve of pedophilia ?"
The whole purpose of recognizing same-sex "marriages" is to obtain either government or employer provided benefits.
The only homosexual unit in the Greek Armies was the Sacred Band of Thebes. They were always put in the front line to receive the enemy's assault. TUoday we'd call them throwaway troops. The 300 was a "sire" unit.