XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: Davis@neutralc.com 
  
 € 
  
 Stan de SD wrote: 
  
 > "Jeff North"  wrote in message 
 > news:q6a1jv8u7vg71nq0dd0cnfnmqn81fpi5v7@4ax.com... 
 > > 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). 
 > 
 > Yet it's their institution, not yours. Go start your own institution if you 
 > don't like it. 
  
 € 
 Well there is that little thing your lot hate so much, it is called the 
 US Constitution, you might of heard of it. It says everyone must 
 be treated equal before the law with due process of the law. 
 Right now heterosexuals have a special right to marry who they 
 choose and intersexuals and homosexuals cannot legally marry. 
 Brown v. Board of Education says there cannot be separate but 
 equal anything, it is not equal protection nor due process of the 
 law, the Vermont's civil unions are unconstitutional. 
  
 If it is called a marriage for heterosexuals, it must be called a 
 marriage for everyone. A man can marry a woman, but the 
 same woman cannot marry a woman, the man has a special 
 right that the woman is denied. That is not equal protection 
 nor due process of the law. 
 € 
 € 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)