Comments on: stop talking about "gay marriage"

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:11:25 +0000

sorry to hear that you think my position is demeaning to my educational background. but it is because of my educational background that i came to support this position. ironic right? it would be better if you refrained from ad hominem and stuck to the issue.

Christ's non-sexual relationship with the Apostles is irrelevant.

based on the support you offer to your position, couples that have no intention or ability to have children should not get married? i have another related post arguing why this is not a rational outcome in societies where pro-creation is not a necessity for the propagation of the human race. actually, this does nothing to account for population levels worldwide and that in many if not most cultures the function of marriage is no longer simply procreation.

By: RB

RB — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:41:59 +0000

drew,

I agree with you that sex should not be the issue when it comes to Marriage. But you must agree that Mariage was and is a commitment between two [male and female] and that it was institutionalized for the fact of pro-creating and replenishment of the Earth.

As towards the Love of another equal gender, we find that Christ 'loved' the Apostles and the World, but he did not have sex with them nor did he marry them. Also, i find it demeaning of your educational background to even advocate that the Love of God is extended to homosexuality to the point that they too can have a union based on Biblical Principels.

When we look at the Love of Christ and that of God as well, i believe that we have defamed the Word of God, in the truest manner, when we can agree that homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. The two can in no wise be equal, yet i will agree that there can ba a bond of Love, but not to the point of marriage between equal genders.

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:11:25 +0000

By: RB

RB — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:41:59 +0000

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:36:36 +0000

The problem is that once you pull sex and even marriage out of the discussion and focus on love, it does not fit into the ideological structures that inform nonaffirmative positions. This itself reveals that these are positions that are ideologically conceived in extra-biblical referents.

By: steph

steph — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:12:57 +0000

Well said Drew. It's about love, not sex.

Apart from the non sense at the end, I don't understand 'pistol's comment. 'Plea' to humanise the debate?

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:30:27 +0000

There's the problem. You went right to sex rooted in ideological assumptions before any discussion of love. My position is that these sorts of assumptions ought to be bracketed before we jump to intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex, etc. For the LGBT community the issue is not sex at all. No one needs legal legitimation to have sex. The issue is that the state refuses to legitimize same gender love. The issue is that people of the same gender either love each other as do people of different genders or not. And your last question does not make sense. Get rid of some of the negatives and re-phrase. There's plenty of social commentary to go around. I just disagree with one set of arguments I think are irrationally conceived for reasons I have continued to argue.

By: Pistol Pete

Pistol Pete — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:30:57 +0000

As much as I appreciate your plea to humanize the debate, I must disagree. Advocates as well as opponents of same-gender marital unions politicize the issue to such an extent that something as fragile as love gets rooted out. If a person can indeed genuinely love someone of the same gender and not have sex with them, then why not do so and leave the rest of us no room for critique or social commentary?