of faiths that are comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, there’s nothing
preventing gays from inventing their own religions to sanction their unions.
Mormonism, Raelism and Scientology are all examples of faiths that have been
manufactured by some enterprising upstart to fill new gaps in the market for
irrational beliefs. In a couple of thousand years they will all probably have
millions of adherents and be accorded the same respect as the Big Three
I don’t see any reason why some innovative young gay shouldn’t claim to have
unearthed a couple of golden dildo’s inscribed with ancient texts setting out the
tenets of a new religion. These texts could reveal for instance that the supreme
being is actually a supernatural transvestite who calls himself Jane [although
his real name is Frank].
If the desires and claims of the gay community were framed in this way as
emanating from deeply held religious faith, the movers and shakers in the
political world might be forced to take them more seriously.
If gays can get married, can a guy and his dog, a man and 5 wives…where do you draw the line.
homo sapiens. Since “gays” are still homo sapiens and we are talking about laws that relate to homo sapiens how about we draw the line there?
“slippery slope” & “can of worms” arguments seam to insinuate that we can’t clarify and legislate for these other possibilities (i.e. man & dog, man+man+man, etc.)… we can.
To the issue of multiple partners, which is by the way is easily a separate issue… I say whatever someone wants to do that doesn’t hurt the rest of society is fine… or in this case as long as I don’t have to pay for it (i.e. welfare hurts mine and others income). If someone wants to have multiple partners, who am I to legislate that they can not? If what they seek are the “benefits” that are given to two individuals within a society then no, because those “benefits” are for two people joined together not multiples. If the government wants to setup benefits for multiple partners then thats a separate issue to discuss. I actually think there should be no “benefits” for any religious ceremonies… other then people should be free to have them.
]]> Your spiel about gays marrying to take advantage of welfare benefits and tax
breaks sounds mean, small minded and prejudiced. Why would they be any
more likely than hetero’s to marry for these reasons?
Limiting the partnership contract to two persons of whatever gender looks like
the most acceptable option, given that it conforms to the current model of the
law that applies to hetero’s and that no one is really asking for the legal right
to marry a football team, pet hamster or whatever. Multiple relationships can
and are pursued outside marriage by those of an unfaithful or liberated
persuasion but that is entirely their own business and falls outside the scope of
what is being proposed.
Move to Sodom, huh. You’re sarcastic reference to a Biblical myth that depicts
God viewing gays in a negative light shows that you obviously attach some
credence to the story. I don’t buy it really. A supernatural being with the power
to create the whole universe would not spend his time obsessing over what a
few puny humans do with their dicks in private and visiting his divine version of
Shock and Awe on them. The idea just beggars belief, like the rest of the Bible.
I think the story is more founded in the morbid hygeine fixation of the Jews
who wrote it than anything else.
If God ever really was in the habit of employing his divine WMD’s to target
minority groups, why did he stop doing so? Why isn’t he interrupting Elton John
concerts with awesome displays of destructive firepower during “Benny and the
Jets” as a way of indicating his displeasure at the bewigged muso’s sexual
orientation? Why is there no Biblical acknowledgement of lesbianism? With his
all encompassing knowledge of human nature God would surely have foreseen
their emergence as a minority group worth persecuting and made the
occasional scathing reference or two. Are they okay to proceed with their man
free lifestyle choice or do we have to wait for Bible two to rule on that one?
The lack of a mention seems an odd oversight. Consistency is the least one
would expect from a divine dictator with an all consuming interest in controlling
and directing every aspect of human behaviour. Is he afraid to open himself up
to criticism from our more tolerant society by resuming the
wrath display or does he simply not exist?
More to the point, should our laws and customs be forever determined by this
rubbish or are we big enough to allow change based on how people really
behave and the diverse and individual ways in which they wish to live their
lives?
characteristics. I know a chap whose dog could vocalise the word “sausages”
on command. ]]>
I’m of the firm belief that the marriage should be looked upon as a religious joining, otherwise, what is it? If the only reason you are attaching the ‘married’ label to your relationship is to get benefits, then NO, you shouldn’t be allowed to be married unless it is 1 man and 1 woman. Maybe they should move to Sodom to be recognized as a couple and get gay benefits. 
but I wonder if this is to idealistic.
I think this is the same way they treated the idea of democracy back in the day of Hobbes. I don’t think there will be peace - true, lasting peace - until political thought evolves to the next stage.
Just my .02
]]>