Stupid Girls

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

"Christian" politician hates Queer marriage

You are reading
Share |

So, it should not be legal for infertile, heterosexual couples to marry, since they can't produce progeny?
And same-sex family units, such as penguins who adopt and raise orphaned eggs, do not constitute naturally-occurring same-sex, breeding families?

And invitro fertilization, surrogacy, adoption and foster parenting do not qualify as "parenting," (by your narrow-minded and bigoted "definition," which is not found in any dictionary) and, therefore, should not be considered either natural nor a justification for marriage?
Greeks didn't believe women were human; we were chattel property, owned and controlled so we would produce heirs. Marriage was a way, and still is, to control property and inheritance, therefore, marriage was merely a legal contract to control wealth. Greeks had no access to turkey basters, invitro fertilization, etc. Hence, women were owned as baby factories. Ah, the good, old days!

Your wholly babble was written by semi-literate, Bronze Age goat herders. It is completely fabricated, unscientific, superstitious and contradictory. It is no basis for modern, social contracts. It is a very weak citation for any argument regarding contemporary, social contracts.
US law is not based on the wholly babble, but on contemporary social contracts. Now that we, in the LGBTQA community, REFUSE your closets, mental hospitals, dungeons, prisons and ignorance (which takes an incredible amount of courage, at considerable personal risk, by the way, you smug "Christian"), we are telling you: We have civil rights; we demand them. We're not asking you; we're telling you. We are full partners in culture, and always have been. We demand the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the population. "Majority" does not equal "right." We may be a smaller population, but we are equal to you. And we will not stop demanding until we are fully enfranchised in our culture.

Many cultures that you are either choosing to ignore or of which you are ignorant in your white, Western, male, heterosexual privilege included various forms of family bonding, and made room for transsexualism, transgenderism, pansexuality, Gays, Lesbians and other forms of bonding not based on heterosexual monogamy. Just because YOU don't know something exists doesn't make it unreal. And these relationships last, to this day, despite imperialistic attempts to wipe out indigenous cultures, traditions and bonds globally.
Your religion is of no interest to us. We are not imposing on YOUR rights. Go ahead.
But, when you impose your superstitions, faulty logic, prejudices and ignorance on US, we will resist, demand our rights and challenge your assumptions that EVERYBODY on the planet is required to live by your standards.
Tell you what, mister: we've been marrying, raising children, caring for elders and bonding for life for tens of thousands of year, with or without your knowledge, support or consent. And we will continue to do so. The only difference now is: We refuse to LIE about who we are and who we love, any more.

If you want us back in closets, fine, we'll go. But we're polite, so after you.


Nature already decided who qualifies for marriage


Bill Sharer
Here is my response to Jake Mayfield’s op-ed, “Allowing gay people to marry is the right thing to do.”
New Mexico law does not address homosexual marriage at all. Until recently no one even contemplated such a dramatic change in the thousands of years of traditional interpretation of marriage.
Although I am a Christian I do not need to use the Bible or any other religious book to see the fallacy of homosexual marriage. I do, however, acknowledge the great truths and wisdom of the Bible, including the commandment to “love thy neighbor” taught in the New Testament.
My position on homosexual marriage is clear; nature already decided who qualifies for marriage. A man and a woman can (although they may choose not to) have children. A man can love many things, he can be committed to those things, he can even have sex with them, but he can only have children with a woman; therefore, he can only marry a woman. Commitment and love are not sufficient reasons to alter the definition of marriage.

No benefit to society by calling it ‘marriage’

Relationships that qualify for marriage are based on the universe of humanity, not specific individuals. Humanity has accepted this law of nature for thousands of years. Even people who never heard of the Bible have accepted that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bonding that takes place in the relationship between a man and a woman, which most often results in children, is a natural and good thing since it encourages couples to stay together to rear their children and creates the most fundamental unit of all societies: the traditional family.

If we look at history we can see that the ancient Greeks clearly accepted homosexual behavior. It was an open part of their society, but even they did not have homosexual marriages. It was then, and is now, clear that such marriages would do nothing to benefit Greek society as a whole, nor would it serve to perpetuate their society or culture. Societies have long regulated who can and cannot marry in the interest of the health of society; for example, we have laws against incest.
I believe that all of us must “love thy neighbor;” however, this does not mean that we must accept and encourage any and all behavior. Rejection of behavior is not hatred of the individual. Hatred or bigotry is not the basis for my objection to homosexual marriage. I have never advocated mistreating anyone.
The advocates for homosexual marriage seem to be interested in healthcare benefits, inheritance, property rights, etc. All of these concerns can be addressed today through proper estate planning and beneficiary designation. I see no benefit to society by calling these issues “marriage.”

Far more than a mere legal contract

Marriage is a natural law. The state Legislature can legally change the definition of gravity, but that does not change the reality of gravity. The same is true of marriage.
The only reason the state has any business in marriage is because of children. Marriage is the first and best child welfare system. Keeping moms and dads together protects the unrelated taxpayers from being burdened with having to pay for dadless children.
Marriage is far more than a mere legal contract endorsed by the state.
Sharer, a Republican, is the state senator representing the Farmington-area District 1.

Applying the term "homosexual" to animals

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[14] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[15] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.[16]
Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior or even same-sex sexual behavior; however, this article conforms to the usage by modern research[16][17][18][19][20] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex. In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans,[19] but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.[21]

POST SCRIPT: New Mexico Politics is refusing to publish my comments for the following reason:

Hey Rogi,

I can't publish your comment as is because I don't allow name calling, but if you make a few changes and resubmit it, I'll be happy to publish it. Here's the comment, with my suggestions:
  (by your narrow-minded and bigoted "definition," (take out "bigoted) 
  was written by semi-literate, Bronze Age goat herders. It (take this part that's highlighted out) i
  you smug (take out smug) "Christian"),

That's it. If you resubmit with those three changes, I'll be happy to publish it. Thanks for responding to him.

Heath Haussamen
Editor and publisher,