Text 10915, 77 rader
Skriven 2007-01-27 20:10:17 av lizardgirl (14352.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================


On Dec 28 2006, 2:07 pm, "Vorlonagent" <nojts...@otfresno.com> wrote:


>The thing about gay marriage is that the legal benefits of marriage
>are bestowed by the government.  Those benefits are not "rights", they are
>privileges.  Which means that the government must determine who qualifies
>for those benefits.  It is within the government's rights and powers to
>restrict legal marriage to heterosexuals.  It isn't necessarily the right or
>moral thing to do but there are lots of things that governments can legally
>do that aren't right or moral.


I don't buy the argument that marriage is a 'privilege' determinable 
by the government.  What was marriage before government?  The same 
thing it still is, a voluntary commitment.  Governments are little 
more then record keepers after the fact.  They serve the legal 
interests of the individuals material processions/obligations not the 
marriage.  As someone else already mentioned they protect each party 
there in against fraud (polygamy) and/or abuse (40 year old men 
marrying 12 year old girls and vies versa)  I do not see how this 
entitles a government to restrict legal marriage between two 
individuals contracting in good faith.

>It's gays themselves that have made sexuality and sexual deviance a core part
of their
>public persona.  It never needed to be that way and doesn't need to be that
>way now.  The activist-presentation of gays seems to say that the US must to
>embrace the full spectrum of sexual deviance to embrace gays.  (more
>correctly, the US must embrace gays and every sexual deviance they display
>with complete tolerance)  Most people can't make that leap.  Thus they
>reject the deviance and gays with it.  Gays are the poorer for it.


So there is a bit of transference going on here then -  if we accept 
gays and their deviant tendencies then we must also accept our own 
'heterosexual' fetishes.  Correct?
We have to, oh my gosh, get in touch (can I say that?) with our own 
sexualities?  I don't see this as a bad thing.  but that's me.

I understand your concern that the message of love between same sex 
individuals will get lost in all the taffeta and feathers.  But I 
don't think it's the fault of the messenger.   People who think gay 
marriage is about 'deviant sexual behavior' will never come to accept 
gays no matter how modest and well mannered they are.   Our culture 
is, as you have said, homophobic.  'It' is the problem not the folks 
at the parades, which are in fact a form of nonviolent protest.   The 
reason 'outing' folks has fallen out of fashion is because it is no 
longer 'necessary.'  More and more folks are finding the courage (feel 
it's 'safe') to come out on their own.  Not just in Hollywood and 
politics but in every day America.  Homophobia has nothing to do with 
the homo and everything to do with the phobic.

Submit, damn it, submit!


>But to understand painting requires understanding color.

No it doesn't :^)

>You can't understand color unless categories exist that define what a "color"
>is.

'Color' is a wavelength of light reflected by an object in space.  
Which may mean the 'colors' we see are not the color things 'are.'

but that hardly matters as its not the colors that are the problem.  
it's the folks who say, "do you see that color? Yeah, me too.  That 
color goes here."  I think you get that.


lg

(good luck with the new job and the pending move.)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)