More than anything, your fantasies of “gay chauvanism” are good for a laugh. So thanks. You do care to keep me amused.

What is nonsense is your unbelievable clasp onto homosexual superiority, your gay-chauvanism. So much so that you speak actively against diversity and integration and its documented influence in order to forward your gender segregationist ideals.

I don’t see anything in that post beyond such an attempt. When you have something more important to say, you’ll know where to find me.

It only took about a few thousand years. And to this day, in many parts of the world, your “nonneutered” non-gay marriages haven’t given women their share of power. Is it a coincidence that these societies also happen to be more homophobic? Without looking it up, I bet you that where women have weiled enough influence, they have influenced men that had to put up being demeened for their lack of “manliness”…and so, I bet you, they were called whatever equivalent insults they had for “fags.”

Your “gender segregation” “equal gender representation” nonsense is that…nonsense.

How interesting.

I write a post that says why I’m against neutering marriage. Some of the points include how the act of neutering marriage encourages treating human life as a commodity, and subjects minorities for the sake of a pampered minority.

And then you take that as pro-slavery?

On Lawn in 1860: “Emancipating the slaves for the sake of only blacks is rather bigoted toward a race.

It is dissapointing that you have decided to sell your respectability on this argument with such an easily discredited lie. Do you often debate here? Do you often try to lie about others? Have people around here come to respect you for the fantasy world you hold to that is so far from reality?

Slavery was abolished for the sake of individual freedom. After slavery was abolished we learned that the fight for fairness in opportunity wasn’t over. Racial integration in schools and marriages was a way to bring about ideal goals. Seperation was a way to create disparity between races.

In endorsing same-sex marriage one inherently endorses gender segregation.

So not only is your quote made up, examining it shows that it is entirely misplaced.

On Lawn in 1890: “Neutering suffrage for the sake of only women is rather bigoted toward a gender.”

Woman’s sufferage was brought about largely due to the infuence women were able to weild through their marriages. Rarely in history do we see such an event as with woman’s sufferage. A set of people voluntarily vote to share their power with others. And what influence woman had greater than their marriages, I haven’t seen.

Gender integration, like we’ve seen with racial integration, increases the fairness. Being for same-sex marriage is to be for creating a gender segregation option and then expecting the government to make up the difference.

If these were schools it would be like a public school deciding to be all-white, as long as there is an integrated school too people could choose. But beyond that the government would ensure that anyone who graduated would be given a job of equal or greater value as the anyone who attended the integrated school. Or just give them that much money.

But Chairm’s point is well taken. Race and gender are not interchangable analogies.

The racist filter was an identity-based filter, just like sexual identity. The subjective criteria do not qualify for an objective classification. Skin color, for example, while inheritable just like “blood lines”, does not provide an objective criterion for classification of subspecies — or a superior species — of humankind. Sex, not gender roles, but sex, is an objective criterion when it comes to the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation. Thus, the sexual identity filter, not some claim to immutable homosexual orientation, would segregate the sexes, just as the racist filter once did, on the basis of an irrelevant basis.

Racism is extrinsic to marriage; sexual identity (i.e. “gay”) is extrinsic to the conjugal relationship of husband AND wife. Either filter presents a denial of both the diversity (two sexes, all skincolors) and the unity (one human race) of our humanity.

By the way, the racist filter did more than deny certain combinations of man-woman the right to state recognition of marital status; it segregated, and positively punished, even casual sex relations, prostiution, and “dating” when the false criteria of racial subsepecies was enacted.

Meanwhile, the one-sex towsomes may be short one of the sexes for marriage, but they are free to live and love in New York and elsewhere. Theirs is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

Neutering marriage for the sake of only homsexuals is rather bigoted towards a sexual orientation.

On Lawn in 1860: “Emancipating the slaves for the sake of only blacks is rather bigoted toward a race.”

On Lawn in 1890: “Neutering suffrage for the sake of only women is rather bigoted toward a gender.”

I swear we’d move to Oregon if D. …

Hate to rain on your grass-is-greener parade, but not only did the Oregon Supreme Court rule roundly against gay marriage, but Oregon also recently added a one-man-one-woman definition to their constitution. Much as Oregon appears to be a bastion of hope for aging hippies bent on smoking weed and killing themselves before they get older, on the subject of remolding marriage to match the sexual whim of the day they seem to have fallen in line with the rest of the nation. Try Massachussets. At least there the citizenry has been prevented from voting on the issue for now.

Neutered marriage provides a procreation industry, lets think about that, because some people are angry that their lifestyle isn’t as good as another we are treating procreation as commerce. Massachusetts, home of the largest fertility industry in the USA, sells children. And now the state is commited to foster the commerce of this baby selling industry because their court ruled it was the equivelent of white supremacy not to do so.

People endorsing neutered marriage on the false premise of equality are misguided. What happens is not equality at all, but a number of subjected minorities to exhault the wishes and selfish desires of another selected minority. The crimes against humanity that are swept under the carpet for this already pampered class is entirely inhumane.

“But we want our 1000 benefits” some say. Of course you do, access to state money and benefits is what everyone wants. But you need to take a cold dispationate look at yourself and what the state is really doing.

And that is why 45 states have already acted. That is why neutered marriage is a step backwards.

As for the indirect benefits to children, via the welfare state, that is a different matter that can be addressed by modifying access. Be more specific and an appropriate reform or change can be put on the table that fits the problem.

Reciprocal Beneficiaries does not presume sexual relations of any sort, but it provides the mutual trust relationship with recognition and direct benefits. That is the way to go. No need to touch the state’s recognition of the social institution of marriage.

I think that it does not boildown to government bestowed benefits. There is something else that is behind the SSM project. The imposition of a particular morality on the rest of a society that tolerates what the SSM project wishes for society to approve of. It remains a matter for the democratic process outside of the courtroom.