Young Gay Marriage - Marriages and Weddings - Boston - New York Times

LAST NOVEMBER IN BOSTON , Joshua Janson, a slender and boyish 25-year-old, invited me to an impromptu gathering at the apartment he shares with Benjamin McGuire, his considerably more staid husband of the same ...

[Nolte]

It is cruel to perpetuate the cruel lie of homosexual "marriage."

No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in any country that permits it.

Homosexual participation rates in "marriage" are less than 1/2 of 1% in Spain and Belgium, and much lower than that in South Africa.

In the Netherlands, where the political charade first began, homosexual "marriage" has been in steep decline, since the initial charade began there with a slow start.

In Sweden, the homosexual civil union "divorce" rate is several times that for real marriage.

[CDMelton]

Nolte wrote:

It is cruel to perpetuate the cruel lie of homosexual "marriage."
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in any country that permits it.
Homosexual participation rates in "marriage" are less than 1/2 of 1% in Spain and Belgium, and much lower than that in South Africa.
In the Netherlands, where the political charade first began, homosexual "marriage" has been in steep decline, since the initial charade began there with a slow start.
In Sweden, the homosexual civil union "divorce" rate is several times that for real marriage.

You've posted this numerous times and I of course have just ignored it as spam but I really want to ask you this question:

Why is it cruel to perpetuate the lie of marriage equality? I mean, assuming the rest is true, that your stats and such are accurate. Why is it a cruel lie, if it is indeed a lie? Even if only 3% of all straight people ever took advantage of their right to marry, that wouldn't make it a cruel lie to expect them to keep that right.

Why don't you imply that the right to vote be revoked due to low voter turn-out? Or that public schools be closed in areas where the majority of students attend private schools? Why is it only in marriage equality that you adopt a "use it or lose it" attitude towards equality? And even if all of your stats and claims are true, claims which I haven't researched but still doubt the validity of, how does that make equal marriage rights cruel, and cruel to whom? Te right to be able to do something doesn't mean one is forced to do it. In some large cities many people don't own cars, or even have drivers licenses, instead relying on public transportation, but the rights to own a car and get a license still exists for those who choose to take advantage of them.

Perhaps the cruel lie you speak of is that of the equality opponents who scream that the institution of marriage will be taken over by a mad rush of gay couples seeking to redefine it. Perhaps the point you try to make is dwarfed by the point you actually make, that the reality isn't worth the fuss. But again, that's only if your claims are true, which I strongly suspect is not the case. And somehow, I don't think your claims are worth researching. I just consider the source and the importance of usage percentages anyway, and go from there.

[Yobyag]

Oh Wil. You are so predictably silly and phobic.

[fuzi]

CDMelton wrote:

<quoted text>
You've posted this numerous times and I of course have just ignored it as spam but I really want to ask you this question:
Why is it cruel to perpetuate the lie of marriage equality? I mean, assuming the rest is true, that your stats and such are accurate. Why is it a cruel lie, if it is indeed a lie?

They are most certainly a lie. The statistics he/she/it claims for the Netherlands is an often-quoted one from the religious zealots, but it is an outright lie. You'd think being religious oriented they wouldn't lie so readily, but then, the modern christian seems to be able to lie with increasing ease, as witnessed on these forums.

[pmp727]

The religionists are disabled for life due to their extensive brainwashing and are permanently incapable of logic or reason. They will never ever moderate, for any reason, in the face of whatever facts land them square in the face. That's what makes them fanatics. There's no hope for these people... the only solace they get in life comes from bashing their scapegoats, and right now that's gay people. When they've been legally enjoined from bashing gay people, and that day will come, they'll move on to somebody else, because these pitiful excuses for thinking human beings are incapable of anything else. That's what these sad automatrons do, exactly what they are. So pity, them, do. They can't be comforted, and there is no cure. I really feel sorry for them, and all the joy they're missing out on in life, because they're so busy being crazy and minding other peoples' business for them.

[fuzi]

Actually, after looking further, all of his statistics are blatant lies. And he's comparing the actual number of straight marriages to gay marriages... of course there will be less gay ones since there are less gay people, DUH! And the ability of gay people to get married is a new ideal that will require time for people to find someone they want to marry. Surely the poster doesn't advocate people marry without due consideration?

As to the divorce rate he suggests, that is also a lie. But then, this poster isn't a stranger to blatant lies on here.

[Raul]

fuzi wrote:

<quoted text>They are most certainly a lie. The statistics he/she/it claims for the Netherlands is an often-quoted one from the religious zealots, but it is an outright lie. You'd think being religious oriented they wouldn't lie so readily, but then, the modern christian seems to be able to lie with increasing ease, as witnessed on these forums.

Actually, you are the liar. Here's the proof:

http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/default.htm

Now, go away with your silly fairy tales about homosexual "marriage" until you can document even one country on earth where any sigificant percent of homosexuals has "married." Don't try Spain, Belgium, or South Africa, their homosexual "marriage" rate is less than 1/2 of 1% of their respective homosexual populations!

[Mike]

I have yet to hear one rational, intelligent argument against gay marriage.

[CDMelton]

Mike wrote:

I have yet to hear one rational, intelligent argument against gay marriage.

Rational AND intelligent? Man, you ask a lot! How do you expect anyone to be able to phrase "I read it in a book somewhere" as both rational and intelligent? And lets face it, for most of the fundies, that's what their argument boils down to.

[elaygee]

CDMelton wrote:

<quoted text>
Rational AND intelligent? Man, you ask a lot! How do you expect anyone to be able to phrase "I read it in a book somewhere" as both rational and intelligent? And lets face it, for most of the fundies, that's what their argument boils down to.

Considering that they have an imaginary friend who rules the universe, why listen to anything they say.

[jesus III]

Nolte wrote:

It is cruel to perpetuate the cruel lie of homosexual "marriage."
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in any country that permits it.
Homosexual participation rates in "marriage" are less than 1/2 of 1% in Spain and Belgium, and much lower than that in South Africa.
In the Netherlands, where the political charade first began, homosexual "marriage" has been in steep decline, since the initial charade began there with a slow start.
In Sweden, the homosexual civil union "divorce" rate is several times that for real marriage.

in the us, the average hetero marriage lasts 7 yrs and half of them end in D-I-V-O-R-C-E...so much for the sanctity of marriage in the good, ol' USA...pseudo-christians, take a good, hard look in the mirror and then turn the other cheek, just like the good book says y'all...

[Linguist]

Nolte wrote:

It is cruel to perpetuate the cruel lie of homosexual "marriage."
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in any country that permits it.
Homosexual participation rates in "marriage" are less than 1/2 of 1% in Spain and Belgium, and much lower than that in South Africa.
In the Netherlands, where the political charade first began, homosexual "marriage" has been in steep decline, since the initial charade began there with a slow start.
In Sweden, the homosexual civil union "divorce" rate is several times that for real marriage.

Even if only one gay couple in the entire world is helped by the protections afforded by a marriage certificate, that will be two human beings who are being treated fairly and with respect --and helped in a way that was eminently reasonable. How would preventing that one couple from marrying help them or anyone else?

Preventing or alleviating suffering or problems, whether it be through health insurance, the ability to make a medical decision for one's life partner, or even, alas, to make funeral arrangements for him or her--these things matter.

Numbers don't.

I already know more than a few gay couples who have suffered because they COULDN'T protect the most meaningful relationship in their lives. Why wouldn't you want to afford them at least the possibility of trying to protect it?

Not to do so is cruel, and completely unnecessary. Not one person will be hurt by allowing gay couples from protecting their relationships and frankly, I find it very odd and more than a little sad that anyone would try to.

Peace,
Linguist

[GraceJeanJones]

LOVE IS IN THE AIR....

Click on the first link...and take in the music....while enjoying the photo montage.

(P.S. Don’t blame me if you get the song stuck in your head.)

MUSIC: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

PHOTO_1: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/27/...

PHOTO_2: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/27/...

PHOTO_3: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/27/...

PHOTO_4: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/27/...

ARTICLE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27...

“I beg of you — please eat a tuna roll!” Joshua barked, circulating around the spacious apartment in a blue blazer, slim-fitting corduroys and a pair of royal blue house slippers with his initials.“The fish is not going to eat itself!”

[Rick in Kansas]

Raul wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you are the liar. Here's the proof:
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/default.htm

Actually "Raul" you are the liar and your own source tells us so. Marriage has only been an option for lesbian and gay couples in the Netherlands since 2005 and they only have figures through 2006 but the number actually increased from one year to the next. You really should check your sources before you say one thing and they actually prove something completely different...

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/... ,(l-1)-l&LA=EN&VW=T

[fuzi]

Raul wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you are the liar. Here's the proof:
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/default.htm
Now, go away with your silly fairy tales about homosexual "marriage" until you can document even one country on earth where any sigificant percent of homosexuals has "married." Don't try Spain, Belgium, or South Africa, their homosexual "marriage" rate is less than 1/2 of 1% of their respective homosexual populations!

Your "proof" is anything but. You take something out of context and twist it to suit your seething hate and ignorance.

Again, YOU LIE. You lie in every post you make. You can't even maintain the same username, which is yet another lie. You've become such a liar you probably don't even realize you're lying, it is your natural state.