XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au 
  
 On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:55:22 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Stan 
 de SD"  wrote: 
  
 >| 
 >| "Jeff North"  wrote in message 
 >| news:r4dvivciagdkckkpkj8u45csm048fa185q@4ax.com... 
 >| > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:59:49 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality Lazer 
 >| > Sharp wrote: 
 >| > 
 >| > >| On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:19:20 GMT, Ward Stewart 
 >| > >|  wrote: 
 >| > >| 
 >| > >| >On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:40:49 GMT, "Stan de SD" 
 >| > >| > wrote: 
 >| > >| > 
 >| > >| >> 
 >| > >| >> wrote in message 
 >| > >| >>news:691e612a4442a03cb79256938e5af969@free.teranews.com... 
 >| > >| >>> 
 >| > >| >>> Even if homosexuals win the right to same-sex marriage, they will 
 >| > >| >>> continue to seek multiple partnerships. Homosexual Andrew 
 Sullivan 
 >| is 
 >| > >| >>> the senior editor at The New Republic. In his book, Virtually 
 >| Normal, 
 >| > >| >>> Sullivan says that straight society will learn a lot from 
 >| homosexual 
 >| > >| >>> marriages if they are legalized. He notes that straights will 
 learn 
 >| to 
 >| > >| >>> have a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital 
 outlets 
 >| > >| >>> between two men than between a man and a woman." In other words, 
 >| > >| >>> homosexuals have no intention of remaining monogamous to each 
 >| other. 
 >| > >| >>> Sullivan criticizes what he calls the "stifling model of 
 >| heterosexual 
 >| > >| >>> normality." 
 >| > >| >>> 
 >| > >| >>> Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile has openly called for 
 >| the 
 >| > >| >>> abolition of marriage and family as we know it. According to 
 >| > >| >>> Signorile, writing in Out magazine, homosexuals should "fight for 
 >| > >| >>> same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, 
 redefine 
 >| > >| >>> the institution of marriage completely. . . . to debunk the myth 
 >| and 
 >| > >| >>> radically alter an archaic institution. . . . The most subversive 
 >| > >| >>> action lesbians and gays can undertake--and one that would 
 perhaps 
 >| > >| >>> benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of 'family' 
 >| > >| >>> entirely." 
 >| > >| >> 
 >| > >| >>In other words, militant queers want it both ways - they want 
 >| "inclusion" 
 >| > >| >>into the same social institutions they are hell-bent on destroying. 
 >| They 
 >| > >| >>sound just like the malcontent teenager who says he really doesn't 
 >| want to 
 >| > >| >>go to the party, but wants an invitation so badly merely so he can 
 >| disrupt 
 >| > >| >>it. :O| 
 >| > >| >> 
 >| > >| >Dim witted and nasty too -- a poisonous combination. 
 >| > >| > 
 >| > >| >Is it that you imagine that ALL Gays must have the SAME opinions? 
 >| > >| >Michael Signorile and I (for instance) have entirely divergent views 
 >| > >| >in the matter of marriage. 
 >| > >| 
 >| > >| Regardless your views, homosexuals in general are inherently 
 >| > >| promiscuous. That fact has been demonstrated many, many time. 
 >| > 
 >| > ...and there is no such person as a promiscuous heterosexual? 
 >| 
 >| Promiscuous heterosexuals aren't out there actively trying to "debunk" or 
 >| "radically alter" institutions to force others to accept them. 
  
 Why should they? They have ready access to the institutions (and look 
 what they are doing to them - just look at the divorce rate, the level 
 of adultery etc). 
  
 --------------------------------------------------------------- 
 jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au  : Remove your pants to reply 
 --------------------------------------------------------------- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)