Quite right. It’s lazy and pathetic.

1 - Monogamy … every civilized society or ” high ” civilization is based on this so called ” strict ” moral code ( usually criticized by hedonists ) and sadly it’s not fairly supported in the homosexual community

2 - ” Mixture ” of gender roles to the point of confusion or extinction … anarchy or nihilism … that nothing will matter anymore … as long as it’s ” love ” everything will be alright

Read the story of this Swedish woman http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/feminine-rebellions-viking-princess.html

3 - Are men and women ( whether you are religious like me or atheist or agnostic or you believe in this or that or whatever ) not complementary designed ? The Bible says ” one flesh “… obviously if it needs more clarification ( and sorry if this hurts anybody but I just want to describe it even more ) one flesh meaning in mind , soul and body … mind and soul in the male and female charateristics such as male being the provider and female being the nurturer and in body since two vaginas do not complete one another nor do they have any other moral proper use and the anus is literally where crap comes out ( study the human body and you’ll get the picture even clearer … clearly not designed for sexual intercourse )

4 - Alienation of the sexes … yes … alienation of the sexes … this ” experiment ” will only divide men from women and women from men ( many people usually don’t think of this ) … this may seem weird but one man and one woman is good and not only that but ” diverse ” in itself … union … two men or two women is ” gender apartheid ” ( if it’s not too rough )

5 - Read this article http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/dutch-gays-turn-to-right.html and then the comments ( take a good look at ” Zenster ” )

6 - How Judaism/Christianity changed the world http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

7 - On how this will affect the children ( and how divorce , step families , single families and many other broken families are doing … the family institution is already scrambling … why make it worse ? ) and please note that I don’t agree with the ” reasons ” ( roots ) for homosexuality in this study ( only the evaluation concerning adoption by other couples whom are not the ” nuclear ” family per say ) since it’s fairly weak for me and I guess I have another view of things on that matter

Here’s the study http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

Which point? He’s made several. His primary point, that he’s sick up with having his opposition compared to racism, I don’t even disagree with. I just don’t care - I think he deserves it. And if it turns out that I’ve been too charitable and his homophobia is more on a par with Rick Warren’s, then I’m happy to upgrade him to a better class of villainhood.

I have apparently been unclear. When I said “your” I meant you, David Benkof. Your homophobia is relatively milquetoast compared to lots of what’s out there.

DB: “The whole No on 8 campaign was predicated on how marriage is the new civil rights movement, and how Prop. 8 was discriminatory.”

New? Hardly. Here’s some actual text from the most recent Courage Campaign email in my back email that made any direct criticism of the Yes On 8 forces:

‘Incest. Pedophilia. Polygamy. [//] When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify this statement — if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy — his answer was direct and unequivocal: “Oh, I do.” [//] That didn’t stop President-elect Barack Obama from choosing Pastor Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration — an appalling mistake that will forever tarnish our country’s celebration of Obama’s historic ascendance to the White House. [//] While President-elect Obama has chosen to ignore the troubling beliefs of the man who will spiritually usher in his presidency, Californians can not ignore Rick Warren and his Saddleback Church followers, based in Orange County. [//] We can not ignore Rick Warren’s fervent support for Proposition 8 or his mobilization of thousands of evangelical Christians to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution. [//] Harvey Milk did not ignore John Briggs in 1978, when Briggs sought to pass Proposition 6 — the infamous “Briggs Initiative” that attempted to ban gay and lesbian teachers, and anyone who supported them, from our California’s public schools. Milk challenged Briggs to debates across the state. [//] And we’re not going to ignore Rick Warren.’

It very clearly depicts gay marriage as one battle in a broader struggle going back decades.

DB: “Now maybe you meant that in a very mild way, but a reasonable observer would think Prop. 8 was being compared to discrimination against African-Americans, both moderate and extreme manifestations.”

No, I think a reasonable observer would conclude that the parallel to opposition to same-sex marriage being invoked was the blindingly obvious one: support for anti-miscegenation laws.

I wish that were true. But the rhetoric from your side is much more heated, much less milqutoast, than you describe. The whole No on 8 campaign was predicated on how marriage is the new civil rights movement, and how Prop. 8 was discriminatory. Now maybe you meant that in a very mild way, but a reasonable observer would think Prop. 8 was being compared to discrimination against African-Americans, both moderate and extreme manifestations.

Because every single one of us, without exception, is the product of the union of exactly one man and one woman, regardless of either’s “orientation”. You can continue to ignore this obvious fact, and pretend it pales in comparison to your “sexual attraction”, and further drive yourself into the fringe corner of “gays who are out to destroy the family”.

Also, Rutsy, can you please connect your original assertion to the topic of the original blogpost? Thanks.

RK has referred to qualitative and the quantitative difference. This applies to fertility, as well. I’ll comment under David’s new blogpost on that subject.

Chairm: The “1000 rights” is a mythical thing Oh Really. . .Do Tell

And thanks RK for responding

but with “How much would you want to send the message through the culture that marriage is not related to a sexual relationship (of any kind) at all. ”

History of Marriage: Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn’t and don’t have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn’t marry because they were in love but for economic liasons. http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Have a great weekend all. Sees YA around

Ciao