Comments on: Heterosexuals Do Not Have Special Rights; Contrary to Claims by Gay Rights Advocates

By: NakedGirl

NakedGirl — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:43:29 +0000

As you know, I had quite a bit to say about this at your Squidoo lens. You also prompted me to blog on you thoughts. So thanks for sharing

By: Christian

Christian — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:26:23 +0000

Thanks for the comments everyone. I’m much more a fiscal conservative than a social conservative, and rarely if even ever will I delve into social commentary. I heard the news on my way home from work yesterday about the upcoming court decision and thought I’d throw out something for the masses that is different from the topics I’ll usually concentrate on. Low and behold, that’s the one that finally gets the comments.
I’ll keep it going though…
Bill, what’s the “logical point” I’m missing? Could you please tell me in specific terms what right I, as a heterosexual male, have that a homosexual male does not?
I can’t honestly answer that question.
Season, not denying that for some cultures thoughout history, women have been treated as “chattel” as you say. I agree that was a shame. However, the *actions* taken by men as part of their marriage did not in itself *define* the marriage. You are mixing apples and oranges.
John, I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but the ideal situation for children to grow up in is with a loving father and a loving mother. That is natural. A same sex household has the potential to really screw up a young person’s perception of the world…especially while going through puberty and questioning his/her own sexuality. Kids naturally want to be like their “parents”, and a straight child growing up in a gay household is likely to feel very confused…much like a gay child growing up in a straight household…only much more likely since such a small percentage of the population is gay.
Better a loving household than one torn apart by abuse, hatred, etc? Sure, to an extent I will grant you that…but there is a tradeoff of one set of issues for another.
Homosexuality may be legal, but that still doesn’t change the definition of what marriage is.
If you are trying to say that Jesus supports gay marriage, I think you’d better re-read your Bible.
Larry, Hey man. Thanks for the comment. Um, ditto!

By: LarryJackson

LarryJackson — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:09:42 +0000

The entire point of the homosexual movement to subjugate the definition of marriage into something that fits their own viewpoint is to make themselves sound as normal as possible. If it was really for equal rights, then they have access to civil unions, but again that is not what they are after. If they bring marriage down to their level, then it makes them look like anyone else and gives their kind of relationship a feel of normalcy. In fact, there is nothing natural or normal about a homosexual marriage and we need to remember that.

By: john r

john r — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:54:22 +0000

the arguement is that marriage is a positive in this culture. homosexuality has been deemed legal. there is no such thing as seperate but equal. therefore homosexual’s legality presupposes equality with heterosexuality. particularly when the important thing is not procreation, but being able to provide a loving nurturing home for raising children, which homosexuals do and have opened their homes to rejected and abandoned children of heterosexual unions.

from a christian perspective, believing homsexual marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages. jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit………………fruit of the spirit. the fruit of the spirit of christ being different from the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities……..powers and principalities being those things that believers are called to struggle against.

By: Seasosn of Pride

Seasosn of Pride — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:44:26 +0000

Society’s definition of marriage for 5,000 years has been women are chattel. If you want to return to “traditional” marriage” why not just buy your wife or wives, deny them any rights and property ownership and you will have the ideal “traditional”marriage.

If you actually want to progress as a culture, you will evolve over time. Unless of course, you don’t actually believe in evolution.

By: Bill Courson

Bill Courson — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:44:04 +0000

For sheer mendacity, you can’t beat the notion that “since male-female marriage is open to both heterosexual as well as homosexual males and females, no one is being discriminated against.” Inasmuch as the denial of the right of same-sexed individuals to marry each other is al that is at issue, it taxes my credulity to think that a literate adult living in the 21st century could be so befuddled as to miss the logical point.

I think I smell some dishonesty here.