LinguistSilver Spring, MD8:23 p.m. Feb. 7, 2013============= Thanks Linquist.As a heterosexual male,
I couldn't agree with you more.Everything you described is
precisely what a "real" marriage entails, and I've been
trying to explain that distinction to the homo-phobes for years.Marriage is about Love, committment, sharing and caring.Your
comment my friend, was so elequent and spelled it all out and explained it
"And to place an entire military unit and its important missions at risk, in
a vain attempt to vindicate obviously-flawed liberal dogma, is so
Obama-era."----------Actually it started with the
first Gulf War and has expanded into the two wars we have now. There is no real
"front line" and women have been defending (with guns!) their role in
the wars. It is time to make the policy match what is happening.Obama? Blame
it on the Bushes!
@DougS "To me, Love is more than sex. Homosexual relations are all about
sex."With respect, I am a gay man. Love is about far more than
sex for me as well. My committed relationship has lasted decades. Trust me: it
is not "all about sex." I could do without sex. I would not want to do
without love.Last month, the love of my life had the flu. Good
partner that I am, I made chicken soup from scratch (hey, I am also Jewish!),
mopped his forehead with a cold washcloth, and made him as comfortable as his
condition allowed. Trust me: cleaning up the sick from a person you treasure
is about love, not sex.We are together in good health and ill. And
we were together struggling to pay our bills and the mortgage, till today, we
are debt-free and still very much in it together. Trust me: you don't
spend hours sanding floors together, painting walls, and planting gardens if
it's "all about sex."Our relationship is every bit as
much about love as any strong, committed longterm opposite-sex marriage could
possibly be. It's about building a life together.Peace.
You don't have to agree with the choices to support peoples right to
choose. A test when all that is available is the correct answers is no test
what so ever. Coerced correctness proves nothing.So long as you
don't hurt others - you should have the right to live the life you choose -
regardless of others approve or not. But when your choices impact the rights of
others to choose - that is the rightful role of government to step in. You
don't have to like others choices, but if those choices don't impact
you or others, you have no right to limit others ability to choose.That was the plan. Coerced correctness never proves anything.
@proud duck So rather then pretend that your comment has not already been
addressed above why don't you actually try responding to the comments that
have already challenged your assumptions? maybe offer a counter argument?
Dear author,Thank you for your view. It is correct.
"There are not substantive differences between straight and gay
couples."The cohabitation of straight couples, in the aggregate,
can reasonably be expected to produce children, whether their birth is intended
or not. A gay couple will not produce children without taking special,
intentional measures.That's a substantive difference.
Equality means treating like things alike. When two things are not alike, there
is no inequity in treating them differently.
DougS you say "BTW.. I served 21 years in the Navy and feel somewhat
qualified to comment on women in combat situations." ok, you also say
"Homosexual relations are all about sex." Your basis for such an expert
statement is..or are you simply stating an unsubstantiated opinion.
@procuradorfiscal - Your comment at 129 contains a huge assumption. We
don't know that placing women in combat will put a unit or its mission at
risk. What we know is that a great many women posses the physical skills and
strength required for combat. What we know is that a great many women have
served in almost every conceivable role in Iraq and Afghanistan. As
Eric Samuelsen pointed out above, women are currently serving with distinction
and the change will allow them to be recognized for what they're already
The argument that gay marriage will lead to pedophile/minor marriages is
ridiculous. There's no correspondence between an agreement between two
consenting adults and the exploitation of a child. One is an honorable contract,
the other is a crime.
Re: "To hold back a woman from any achievement just because of a
preconcieved notion about what a woman can or cannot do is so
1950's."And to place an entire military unit and its
important missions at risk, in a vain attempt to vindicate obviously-flawed
liberal dogma, is so Obama-era.
@Bloodhound"I have no doubt it is just a matter of time before
liberals will want laws passed to protect pedophiles and thieves. "As a liberal I find this statement offensive and ignorant. If you can't
tell the difference between consentual relationships between homosexual adults
and pedophiles then you have a problem.@DougS"Homosexual
relations are all about sex."That's completely wrong.
It's quite clear you don't know any gay couples.
Anyone arguing against women in combat roles hasn't been paying attention
to how wars are fought. There is no "front line" anymore. Anyone in
Afghanistan is on the "front line". Right now, women are fighting and
dying along with their male counterparts. But because women aren't allowed
"combat" roles, when they want to advance their career, say to work at
the FBI or CIA, and apply for a job that requires "combat" experience,
they are denied because, technically, they can't have that experience. In
reality, they have all the skills of their male counterparts. Allowing women into "combat" roles is not the same as mandating it.
There are already a set of physical requirements that exclude those unfit.
Women who want to, would have to meet those standards. Anyone putting forward
arguments about women being physically smarter, is trying to obfuscate this
point. And to Doug, you have got to be kidding me. Just look at
your argument: 'Gays only want sex, that's why they're fighting
for marriage.' That's like saying immigrants are all lazy and
that's why they're taking our jobs.
Everyday -- I wake up, turn on the computer, open up the Deseeret News,
and I'm reminded of the movie "Pleasantville".Only - it's for R-E-A-L
@dougsSince you do not get to define for the rest of us what marriage or a
family is I will make a deal with you doug, if you can show me where any state
or federal law states that marriage is for the sole purpose of "producing
off spring," and that the off spring must be the result of the marriage
"on their own" and that "two do not make a family," we can talk
about whether there is any proof that homosexual relations meet your self
serving definition of marriage.
DougSI am the parent of a Marine. I know the Navy is pretty much
totally integrated with the exception of the SEALS, but there should be a chance
for some outstanding woman to be able to rise to that level - if she wants to.
To hold back a woman from any achievement just because of a preconcieved notion
about what a woman can or cannot do is so 1950's. And
homosexual relationships are not purely about sex. You need to get to know a
few gays. They are exactly the same as you are except they are attracted to
people of their same sex. That attraction is not just physical. That
attraction is emotional, just as your attraction to your spouse is (or should
be) more than wanting to have a physical relationship with a person. If it were
merely about sex, why get married? Why want to declare to your family and
society that this is the person you are committing to for the rest of your life?
Choice and oppotunity makes the difference in equality. One could
say women were equal when they were given the right to vote but they had few
choices. It's imporving.
Homosexual relations are all about sex. - DougS So why are they
advocating and fighting for life-long monogamy in marriage? FYI?
Didn't Britney spears have a 48 hour marriage?
@dougLuckily Doug you do not get to decide for others what their
relationship is or is not. Your self serving definition of homosexual
relationships is at best reductive to the point of absurdaty .
glendenbg's eloquence and thoughtfulness on this issue is unsurpassed. I
would simply add that women are currently in combat, serving with bravery and
distinction. The change in status simply means that they now can receive pay
and rank advancements for doing what they're already doing.
200 words aren't enough to give this op-ed the fisking it so richly
deserves.That the author believes our society reduces marriage to
nothing more than private sexual acts demonstrates his misunderstanding of
society, not society's misunderstanding of marriage. Does any married
person posting here really believe their marriage is nothing more than private
sexual acts? Does any committed couple married or not really believe that? Of
course not. Marriage is about love, commitment, mutual caring and nurturing,
building and sharing a life together. Mallat reducing relationships to nothing
but sex is the party offering a limited view, not contemporary society. Not to put too fine a point on it, Mallat is simply wrong when he claims
marriage is the celebration of intimate sexual intercourse. Mallat
also creates a false dichotomy between the creation of family and equality.
Equality is nothing more the realization that men and women may be different but
those differences do not make them unequal. There are not substantive
differences between straight and gay couples. Their relationships are about
mutual support, love, caring, nurturing and building a life together, which may
or may not include raising children.
Mariage is all about Love? To me, Love is more than sex. Homosexual relations
are all about sex. They have been doing it for years without marriage even
mentioned. What grounds would they use in the event of "divorce"?I really don't see where "choice" has anything to do with
equality except, perhaps, to an empty mind so infused with indoctrination that
"choice" is whatever they have been taught.BTW.. I served
21 years in the Navy and feel somewhat qualified to comment on women in combat
situations. What was your experience for comment?
@Lane Myer,Your female hero who signed a contract never played one
second in an NBA game. Sorry. Fail.
The mania for equality has produced some incredibly stupid ideas over the last
few years. The inability to tell the difference between men and women is simply
one manifestation. Throw out the words "choice," "equality," and
"non-discriminatory" and reason goes out the window for many people. I
have no doubt it is just a matter of time before liberals will want laws passed
to protect pedophiles and thieves. They will argue that anyone who doesn't
approve of pedophiles working with children is a hater and anyone who
doesn't believe thieves should be hired by banks is closed minded. Simple
insanity! The madness of political correctness.
Dear author, thank you for your view. It's wrong.
Chris BSalt Lake City, UTHere is a harsh reality for liberals. No,
we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And
no, its not because they discriminate-----------Chris,
you must be very young. Anne Meyers signed with the Indiana Pacers in 1979.
Please get your mind around the idea that equality = choice and opportunity.
DougS"Equality? How do you make the apple equal to the orange? You
couldn't even get all apples or oranges equal to each other. Why keep
trying to mix oil and water? Men and women are different.. Viva la
difference!As for homosexual marriage.. Show me one that can produce
off-spring on lts own.. Marriage was meant for "family" and two do not
make a family."_________________Doug, Equality come
with choices. Both sexes will have the right to choose. There will still be
limitations on who can serve on the battlefront, but taking away the right of
women to choose is wrong, especially since they are serving, fighting and dying
right now. Give those few who want to and can pass the test the choice. What
is wrong with that?Gays want the same marriage that older couples
can receive. These couples cannot bear children yet are given all the rights
and privileges that a couple who can are given. Or they want the same marriage
that a couple who is infertile has...or a couple who decide not to have children
are given. Why can't gays have these kinds of marriages?
You know you don't have to look very far to see the research that marriage
and the purpose for marriage has changed over the last few hundred years.
"The purpose" for marriage is no longer to have a family. It may well be
a consequence or a goal of marriage but it's no longer the purpose.
"The purpose" of marriage in modern times is love. Marriage allows two
people who love one another to commit themselves to the each other in a formal
way. To the author love and sex are not the same thing. Sex may be apart of a
marriages love but it certainly isn't the same thing, so to equate a
secular marriage with sex is just plain wrong.To DougS... Marriage
was meant for family so basicly if you can't produce a family you
don't have a right to marriage..you really don't want to open up that
can do you? Besides like the research shows, todays marriages are not
"menat" for families, they are "meant" for love.
"You know, I was married for 23 years to the love of my life and he died 6
years ago. I think of all the wonderful years we had and the wonderful fringe
benefits of having 3 beautiful children. I don’t miss the sex, and to me
that’s kind of what this boils down to. I don’t miss that… I
mean I certainly miss it, but it’s certainly not the aspect of that
relationship, that incredible bond I had with that human being, that I really
really genuinely wish I still had. And so I just think to myself: how could I
deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in
life. To me it seems almost cruel.And someone made the comment that
this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world
would be not allow those equal rights for individuals who are truly committed to
one another in life to be able to show that in the way of a
marriage....."(R-Washington State Representative Maureen Walsh
explaining her vote to support same-sex marriage)
Chris BSalt Lake City, UTHere is a harsh reality for liberals. No,
we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And
no, its not because they discriminate.======Lifting the
"ban" doesn't force women into combat roles - it only removes a
pseudo barrier.Before - a woman could not even TRY, this just opens the
opportunity.The same rules now apply, regardless of race, gender, religion
and sexual orientation.You probably are against female cops and
Highway patrol officer too. If you really don';t like women in
combat -- Enlist in the military.I grow ever so tired of
opinions from men who never "manned" up for the job themselves.As for gay marriage -- You all fought against legal Civil Unions and
Domestic Partnerships.But by refusing to compromising, you upped the anti
I think; for anything to be sacred it has to have a purpose. Hope for the
"Maybe there is more to my reluctance than the accumulation of
prejudice."No, actually, that's pretty much all you've
got. Everything else you offer is empty hand-waving.
Equality? How do you make the apple equal to the orange? You couldn't
even get all apples or oranges equal to each other. Why keep trying to mix oil
and water? Men and women are different.. Viva la difference!As for
homosexual marriage.. Show me one that can produce off-spring on lts own..
Marriage was meant for "family" and two do not make a family.
The world is evolving and moving on, and society is no longer willing to allow
the self-appointed Morality Police to dictate how the rest of us should live.
It's no real surprise that Deseret News repeatedly chooses to respond to
this by pouting and making straw man arguments...
Talk about your straw man arguments. The authors attempt at defining secular
marriage borders on comical.
@chris bI think you mean no you will not support them.
Sad that the article writer has such a rudicous narrow view of why people choose
to engage in secular marriage, Fortunatly he does not get to define for the rest
of us why we are married. What a sad and myopic world he has created for
If you are against equality, what do you stand for? Inequity. I choose to stand for something else...
@procuradorfiscal"The not-so-wise politician should initiate planning
for a militarily defeated America."That would be impossible. We
spend 5x as much as second place China, have the highest gun/person ratio in the
world, and have no world powers less than an ocean away from us.
Re: ". . . the right for women to kill and be killed in battle, equal to
men. The lawyer can hardly oppose this."Here's a lawyer
opposing it. Combat is simply not an appropriate forum in which to conduct
experiments in political equality.Combat has but a single exigency
-- rendering the enemy ineffective and incapable of inflicting harm, by threat
or display of superior and overwhelming violence, if possible, by unflinching
application of superior and overwhelming violence, as necessary.Contemplative sociopolitical discussion may be, and should be, illuminated by
combat necessity. But, beyond logistic support, and the setting the bounds of
acceptable violence in combat engagements, such discussions cannot hope to
meaningfully intervene in the physical correspondence of combat, given the
enemy's inalienable and inevitable vote in the process.Just as
courts have wisely recognized their inappropriateness as a forum for deciding
political questions, wise politicians recognize equal inappropriateness of
combat as a forum for such questions, or as a laboratory for social
engineering.The not-so-wise politician should initiate planning for
a militarily defeated America.
Here is a harsh reality for liberals. No, we aren't equal. Exactly 0 women
have ever played in the NBA or NFL. And no, its not because they
discriminate.Often, screams are equality are poor attempts by
liberals to get others to support behavior we simply wont, because its wrong.Take gay relationships. No, they aren't equal as straight
relationships. No, we won't support them.