queer - people here make up their own minds.

From F/Ds posts on the homo Episcopal (anglican) marrying his man, can see why the anglican church is disappearing

I am opposed to any legal recognition of marriage at all.  There should be civil unions (or personal contracts) to handle the legal side of intimate relationships.

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 11:30am:


Thanks!

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 11:30am:


I was under the impression that there were legal differences for same sex couples.  I am opposed to that.

As for religion, they should be free to do as they please.

Homosexuality is a dead end.
Heterosexuality is fertile.

Children, like religions, are the bridge between the past and the present and the future.

A hereosexual married couple may not want children and may never havee one. But it remains a possibility. The marriage, the sanctified relationship, carries that possibility.

Two blokes married carry no such possibility. They are a bridge to nothing.

This difference is important. It explains the importance of perceiving the difference.

Just in brackets - there is a difference between 'gay marriage' and 'homosexual marriage'. To my mind the former conceils, the latter reveals the differences I indicated above. It is harder to agitate for the latter because it does sound absurd, while the former is now imbued with a nice 'rights' agenda glow.

Gay is a euphemism and a 'lifestyle'. Intellectual and artistic gianst who were 'inverts', homosexuals, like Proust, Coward, Cole Porter, Wilde, would have shuddered at being thought 'gay'. It is so pink and lacking in fire. All the great homos were devourerers of life, not merely 'gay'.



(Yes, I have disscussed all this with a homosexual couple particularly close to my family. They still visit.)

mozzaok wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 11:22pm:



I am not talking about banning anything. What I am saying is the opposite - even if you legalise homosexual marriage, you cannot make it not absurd. Just becausee it can be legalised, as it has been and will be in various parts, it does not make it any less absurd. Nero could make his horse a consul, legally. It was still absurd.

An infertile couple is infertile by the reckoning of medical science, not by the reckoning, necessarily, of life and hope. A man and a woman can always hope for a child, grow old in this shared hope. It always remains imaginable, at least.
Hoping for a child in a homosexual relationship makes no sense. The mircle does not stretch that far. It is unimaginable.

(This is not about adoption or parenting)

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 9:28am:



We havee children, not litters. This is not about biology.

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:


No.
Marriage is not only about sex (the limit of homo biology), not even only about mating (the hetero biological boundary of marriage). If it were, all biological entities would be 'married' and whovever rubs you somewhere vigorously would be your spouse.

Human concepts like marriage, freedom, love, past and future are not about the animal, biological element. You want to treated like a human, not like a mere 'biological entity' or an animal.

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 10:16am:



Correct, as far as the social side is concerned. Marriage is not biological.

If homos want to reconstruct marriage they need to argue it on a basis other than sex. They also need to argue beyond individual rights.
They need to argue that homo marriage is an improvement for the whole society, not just the convenience of dead-end homo relationships.


Just a word of caution though - the talk of 'social construct' is a mental trap hard to climb out of once snared in. Marriage is not a social construct in your sense, because that assumes but leaves unstated who actually did the constructing. ANd if people think they are only married because some Roma aristo  needed an alliance with a neighbouring empire - you try looking into your wife's eyes and tell her that. And your children's eyes and tell them that they are only the fruit of the hollow remnant of some archaic barter ritual.