Comments on: Theories of (Homo)sexuality

By: Hispanic Pundit » Conservative And Liberal Dialogue Is Good

Hispanic Pundit » Conservative And Liberal Dialogue Is Good — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:51:25 +0000

[...] The Liberal Response In Support Of Gay Marriage [...]

By: El Oso, El Moreno, and El Abogado » Blog Archive » Who Am I to Blow Against the Wind?

Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:32:56 +0000

[...] I have to admit, during our stop and go, weekend-long brawl over judicial philosophy, HP did catch Myke on an ideological inconsistency. For reasons we’ve already gone over a thousand times, Myke and I are both for the federal legalization of gay marriage. We see it as a civil right – any two people who love each other should be able to profess their love in a federal contract and gain the “privileges” that come with it. Especially since it does no harm to anyone else. [...]

By: oso

oso — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:56:18 +0000

A legalized civil union seems to be a pretty happy medium for all of us, but you don’t see anyone talking about making it law right now.

By: Israel

Israel — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:41:40 +0000

I found all the arguments for and against gay marriage to be very insight. I have to side with HP on this issue. I believe the hard core supporters of gay marriage are pushing this agenda for only one reason. They want society’s blessing on their lifestyle. Why should a government institution sanction a lifestyle? I believe HP assertions that it was basically done in the first place to promote a stable family lifestyle which can benefit society. This reasoning has serve humanity for more than a millennium. After all, we see the devastating effects when people don’t follow through with marriage commitments. Now we have people advocating this only to satisfy such a small percentage of the population. I don’t see how society can benefit greatly for sanctioning this.

One other point, if supporters just want it for same benefits as marriages, why didn’t they advocate for civil unions only? The only conclusion I could come up with is that these hardcore folks are the same crowd that would go after the religious institutions for not accepting the homosexual lifestyle once gay marriage is implemented.

Bottom line, I’m for civil unions but against gay marriage. Marriage is defined as a union between “a man” and “a woman”. If homosexuals want to change the definition, what’s to stop the polygamists, same siblings, or any other lifestyle from doing the same? What gives the homosexuals that right to change the meaning and not others? Marriage is not perfect, but nothing is gain by changing the meaning of marriage for society.

By: Hispanic Pundit » Should Gays be Allowed To Marry? Two Different Views

Hispanic Pundit » Should Gays be Allowed To Marry? Two Different Views — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:00:44 +0000

[...] The Liberal Response In Support Of Gay Marriage [...]

By: El Mas Chingón » Blog Archive » El Mas Chingón’s Non-Required Reading

Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:25:10 +0000

[...] “Theories of (Homo)sexuality”by El OsoEl Oso, El Moreno, and El Abogado [...]

By: HispanicPundit

HispanicPundit — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:16 +0000

Nobody said gay people had the power to destroy a civilization, what was said was that changing the definition of marriage to include gay unions, or polygamous unions, or first-cousin unions, has the power to weaken marriage, thereby causing harm upon society.

In other words, my focus is not on gays, it is on marriage.

By: EgOiStE

EgOiStE — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:52:18 +0000

I got on this late in the game (surfing) but still would like to say
I never realized that gay people had the power to destroy a civilization. What does this really mean? That there are a lot more breeders out there who have gay inclinations but just dont act on them? Is this why they view it as a choice, because they have personally chose to not act on it?
I dont personally believe that there are enough of us to destroy life as we know it.
The way people argue it though is that yes, it is possible.
So given that we’ve been here probably since the dawn of man, we homosexual/homosocial/homoloving (which covers the myriad forms of man on man sex/love/socializing and not everyone is all three ie prison sex) WHY HAVENT WE DONE IT YET.
Why has society persisted regardless of the fact that we’ve been running around, legal or not, persecuted or not, fucking and loving. Could loving and living just like the breeders do actually destroy all that? Given the number of kids up for adoption, It would seem that giving married gays the same rights, they could actually help perpetuate society, by fostering those kids into positive adulthoods in nurturing environments, instead of being just another kind of prisoner in a school for the orphaned.
And why have couples who are married and dont or can’t have children not destroyed society either? They produce no offspring and yet we are still here. What’s this mythical superpower that this Terran Sun called Marriage (legal) would give us? To say it would devalue the tradition of marriage is to say that you dont view us as human like yourself, not as much American as yourself. That whorish drug abusing gays exist is beside the point. Frankly there are more of the breeders who do this. It’s not about deserve, It’s about equality. We are less equal because our society is misogynist and we dare take on a femenine role of loving a man.

In regards to civil rights, civil rights are by virtue of citizenship granted to you and include no discrimination and equal protections under the law. To say that this is not a civil rights issue is to either be dense, or selectively ignorant mister HP. In the case of being forced to write left handed, it is in fact discriminatory and favors the right handed. That you find it a petty or simple thing to squabble about in law is beside the point.

OK I might start rambling here. Nuff said.

By: swercurve

swercurve — Sat, 28 May 2005 00:26:10 +0000

Wow. Why do we care so much about this?

By: ricia

ricia — Wed, 25 May 2005 23:04:58 +0000

why should citizens subsidize corporate interests? medicare? education?
afterall, some of us despise the concept of investing in certain types of
industries and certain corp’s, some of us can afford private or group medical plans and some prefer private, public, traditional, creative learning, religious or otherwise education systems…

the question is a good one, but it leads to a discussion surrounding economic systems – and does not implicate the issue of male+female or same sex relationships what-so-ever.