(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It only need be "non-traditional" because you and people like you say so.

Really? Show me one time period in Western hisotry where it has been considered traditional. You made your point, why do you keep throwing out so many crocks of hoo-ha? You of all people know that whatever the merits of banning or accepting gay marriage may be, there is no dispute that such marriage cannot be reasonably decribed as traditional in our society.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I have no interest in doing anything to their intimate relationships. Perhpas they feel stigmatized by the inability to be married (as opposed to be a civil union, or to have most finaicial benefits of marriage, all of which they can already do in California). Their interst is to require full equivalence in all respects by law. I do not agree with that notion, as you correctly but hyperbolically point out. I suspect we understadn each other fully, but that you insist on pumping out so many wild-eyed statemnts that are not supported by your own beleifs (e.g. the ONLY way to have an intimate relationship) suggest you are only trying to amuse yourself or trying to mislead with rhetoric, neither of which seems very helpful to the matter.

Separate but equal.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Really? Show me one time period in Western hisotry where it has been considered traditional. You made your point, why do you keep throwing out so many crocks of hoo-ha? You of all people know that whatever the merits of banning or accepting gay marriage may be, there is no dispute that such marriage cannot be reasonably decribed as traditional in our society.

Except for the Greeks and Romans and societies rooted in those traditions polygamy is traditional. Twenty years from now gay marriage may be traditional.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Separate but equal.

That is not my position.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Except for the Greeks and Romans and societies rooted in those traditions polygamy is traditional. Twenty years from now gay marriage may be traditional.

IOW, you concede. You might just try to be direct in a concession sometime, you might even find it libnerating.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Actually SU you don't understand it, and if you weren't such a condescending prick most people would be picking up what you are putting down.

As it is I keep trying to put you on ignore but there doesn't seem to be a way to accomplish this.

Maybe this issue for some of us bigots has nothing to do with religion and just the fact that the homosexual act makes most normal human beings sickened. And the thoughts of not only just ignoring it but embracing it makes allot of us bigots yearn for the old days when they just kept it out of sight out of mind, and we didn't have to feel as thought the disgusting act needs legitimization.

Hate the sin brother not the sinner.

Thank you. I'm sure this more straightforward form of hatred has a lot to do with it. I was giving proponents of Prop. 8 the benefit of the doubt.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Except for the Greeks and Romans and societies rooted in those traditions polygamy is traditional. Twenty years from now gay marriage may be traditional.

I'll defer to your Roman expertise, but point to me where the Greeks married gay men to gay men. The practice of pederasty was not a marriage but an educational process and not all segments of Greek society practiced.

Tolerance of sexual activity is not tantamount to allowing marriage.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is not my position.

Proponents of segregation had no desire to deprive black children of an equal education with whites, just as you don't want to intrude in gay intimacy, even as you deny their relationship social imprimiture and implicitly treat them as sub-class. This is exactly why Brown v. Board of Education went the way it did.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'll defer to your Roman expertise, but point to me where the Greeks married gay men to gay men. The practice of pederasty was not a marriage but an educational process and not all segments of Greek society practiced.

Tolerance of sexual activity is not tantamount to allowing marriage.

They didn't, and Athenian democracy also had a lot to be desired. The also Greeks owned slaves. My point is that contrary to your theological argument, "traditional" marriage has taken different forms in differnt epochs and places. It's an evolving institution. No fault divorce has as much historical precedent as gay marriage. Your reasoning could be employed to support slavery.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

IOW, you concede. You might just try to be direct in a concession sometime, you might even find it libnerating.

See my most recent post above.