Thanks for twisting my words, leaves a lot less work for others who want to.

What I understand most people to want, is not necessarily 'marriage' under the traditional definition of things (although I personally see no problem with it) but a civil union that will allow same sex couples to have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple (adoption, insurance, spousal benefits, etc). Some people see that this is a perversion of the word marriage - but are content to allow a civil union. Some people don't care either way, some folks won't accept the concept at all.

I'm _well_ aware that this is the United States, having been born here, raised here, and educated here. I also understand the separation of church and state, and believe that this is _not_ the issue at hand.

Small tidbit of advice, but I know you won't be taking it, seeing that you're an all knowing idiotic asshat -

Pull your head out of your rectum, the universe and how it operates does not revolve around you. Our opinions are JUST as valid as yours, again, if you feel the need to vehemently argue with anyone who won't kowtow to your "I rule the world" attutude - perhaps you need to check yourself. For me, it is definitely amusing - I love watching people make fools of themselves. (and I needed a laugh today)

Until you can prove to me you're the god you seem to think you are, my opinion of you will not change for the better.

(Definitely siding with Dave on this one....yer a fucknut)

Give me a break. Don't strawman or sippery slope the argument into absurdidty.

Marriage - Union between two concenting adults. Period.

The keyword is "CONSENT". Cow's cant consent. Thats already been mentioned in this post by ME. (Thats also why screwing animals is considered rape by PETA and other animal rights activists, cause see they can't say "NO!")

There are several reasons that gays want legal marriages:

Ability to take time off from work for carring of loved one.

Ability to file taxes as married.

Equal treatment/acceptance of gays into society.

I see NOTHING wrong here. If you can't explain it, then it's not there. (Kind of like god's not there)

How is this affecting you. How is the definition change hurting you? Is your marriage something other than a union between two consenting adults? Do you want to say "sacred union between two consenting adults"? Why?

Your whole argument is such a personal soap box that it's not even funny. Why don't I start a personal soap box of my own based on the fact that to get a marriage license I have to put my hand on the bible and swear "I do". Being an athiest I find this offensive and see it as a way to discourage me from getting married. It's such an insignificant inconvinience that it's abusrd to argue about it - as is your resistance to the change of the definiton of the word "marriage"

If the culture goes that way there will be little you can do about it. But that's not likely.

If you want a serious answer to your question, for the purposes of the state, marriage is a legal contract, and a cow cannot enter into such a contract, partly because they have hooves and can't hold the pen to sign it.

Re: Nope
 

Marriage is also between two halves of a woodworking joint. Words have multiple definitions, and definitions change. There are already two definitions of marriage being used: civil and religious marriage.
Only RELIGIOUS marriage is 'sacred' to anybody. Civil marriage already exists, independent of any religion. Civil authorities recognise marriages performed by recognised religious authorities, but religious participation is not required for the civil marriage to be performed.

The only issue up for debate here is CIVIL marriages for gays. Nobody is trying to get the government to force any religion to perform the marriages. A church can, if it wants, refuse to marry anybody for any reason, and always will be able to. However, if a church DOES perform a gay marriage, the government should recognise it.I'm no fan of PC, either. As a nonreligious pro-gay former Boy Scout myself, I think their policies are idiotic, but the government should not be involved. Just as churches should not be forced to perform marriages they find sinful. But remember: the US Government is not a private organization. An inequity performed by the government is not protected freedom. Correcting it is not 'PC'. It is just C.If the laws are rewritten for their benefit, what is the problem? They are not being rewritten to ANYBODY's detriment. No matter how yucky they may find it, a gay marriage does not hurt a heterosexual. There is no special treatment here - the new rule will be just as available to heterosexuals as heterosexual marrage has been available to gays. We should always take every opportunity to write laws that benefit some and harm none.So is being non-Christian. Neither fact is relevant to lawmaking.

Slippery slope is a good way to describe this, so where WILL the line be drawn then?

Your reply to my first post on this board was an immediate "If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave" and you're giving me shit about being on a personal soapbox?

You're a funny one to be preaching tolerance and open mindedness.

Yeah sure whatever, somebody thinks I'm a fucknut. The terror. I'm heartbroken I'll go cry now...ok I'm all better.


If you know that the bible SHOULD have NO effect on laws why bring it up?

I don't care where you were raised, half the people raised in the US wouldn't know the difference between Thanksgiving and Day of Independance and probably think that Mayflower is a type of bush or something.

Gays want the right to marry. Instead of giving them this, people are out playing word games and trying to give them something else. This is seperating them from the rest of society and making them outcasts. It'll turn into "Straight people marry - Gay people have Unions". Thats not fair and equal treatment. How will a gay man answer to "Are you married?" "No I'm in a civil union...". Thats idiotic.

I didn't ask you what some people want to do. The levels of resistance are obvious to even April - well maybe not April...

Still I'm curious how I twisted your words? You drag the bible into a legal discussion and I tell you to shove it because it has no place here and that is twisiting your words?

Please note: Nobody is trying to make gay marriage mandatory. People who think it is a sin will retain the ability and fundamental right to not marry people of their own sex.

What's the slippery slope? I don't see how it's a slippery slope.

Is your first name Rick, and your last name Santorum?

I'm not preaching tolerance or open mindedness. I never said I was.

I am preaching equal treatment. I don't care if you can't tolerate gays or can't accept them as long as you manage to treat them equaly.

I TOLD you where the line is drawn. Read my post and you'll see. Tip: "Consenting adults"

Good point there, sometimes forget to look at it in that light.

Of course, they are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own standards, right or wrong.


In my opinion it does, it cheapens something that I strongly believe in and weakens an institution that's already on thin ice.

How does allowing gay people to marry the man/woman they he/she loves cheapen marriage?

And which institution are your refering to?

How does marriage become weakened by allowing gay people to marry? Does it weaken the "institution" or just your perception of what marriage is?

:applause:
Very well stated, UT.

- pie

I knew you'd go there eventually, thing is I do tolerate and accept them. In fact I have no problem whatsoever with them or any group. This is about gay marriage, not discrimination.

And for what it's worth, no I don't really understand the gay lifestyle and will admit it. The sex part I can understand, the lifestyle and desire to spend your life with a same sex partner somewhat baffles me.

But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.

As far as I can see, the absolute furthest that this slippery slope could go is polygamy. All of the other bugaboos being brought up in the general debate, such as bestiality, marriage to "poltergeists" or inanimate objects, or incest, are sufficiently different to be separate slopes. And there is no major push down those slopes. There's not even much for polygamy.

Ironically, all of these conservatives making the spurious slippery slope arguments actually may be weakening their future cases against them. If many of these arguments end up on the record, like Scalia's dissent in the Texas case, they may end up being used by people with much less legitimate issues than gay marriage.

Essentially, if arguments were made against gay marriage itself, rather than theoretical future issues, it would be much more likely to stop there. Instead, slippery slope arguments are pouring oil on the slope.

It's that whole change factor...many people hate change, be it the way the icing is put on their donut, or allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

That may be how they run their lives, but I resent like hell their efforts to run MY life.

The Bible isn't my book. Why do I have to follow it?

- Pie

Sure, nobody should expect the world to revolve around them. But as you stated in the first sentence gay people deserve a right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against, so if they want to marry, they should be allowed to marry.

Gotta get the hell off this computer for awhile, but thanks for the interesting conversation....even you FNF ;-)

Been lurking here for awhile now, don't have alot of time to post, but this is a fascinating place and I love the topics & images & personalities.

Later

Pie,

I wasn't saying that you did. I was commenting on the fact that someone said the Bible isn't law, when to many it is.

I don't live by the thing either, and resent when it's shoved down my throat. Unfortunately, the majority of people do live by those tenets, and take those beliefs with them into office when they're elected. (But that's a whole other issue)

Dagney

Interracial Marriage
 

Here's a comparison between the arguments against gay marriage and the arguments against interracial marriage.

Are there any arguments against gay marriage that weren't used against interracial marriage?

What a lot of the debates on gay "marriage" miss is this ...

Marriage is a religious contract that has also been given civil status. (for a modern example ... consider the necessity for observant catholics to pursue an anullment in addition to the civil divorce, or jews to obtain a get.)

As a religious contract is is defined and established as a union between a man and a woman.

I happen to agree on this one with Blue58 (hi blue) ... find some other word(s) to describe it, but it's not "marriage."

Civil Union fine ... and I'm also cool with the notion of civil union being open to heterosexual couples as well. I'm not objecting to a formalizing of the relationship, just to the use of the term.

Marriage WAS a religious contract. Yet overtime the meaning has shifted. My parents are married yet no religious ceremony ever took place.

Civil Union sounds like something friends have. Marriage seems to be something reserved for couples in love.

I think saying that heterosexuals can get married, and also civil unions while gays can ONLY have civil unions is once again, unfair treatment.

Now all of a sudden it's become piss easy to invalidate all the benifits of gay marriages. Just make it so that only "married" couples can file jointly for taxes, addopt kids etc while civil union is just that...bs.

It's like the segregation all over again "Oh yes, you're black so you CAN ride the public bus but you must sit in the back. You're white, you too can ride the bus, you can sit in the front, well also the back if you like...but thats where 'they' sit..."

There are many religions, some of which perform gay marriages. Why shouldn't those couples get a civil marriage license? Just because YOUR religion doesn't like it doesn't make it a nonreligious marriage.

Also note that it is NOT necessary for catholics to get an anullment or for jews to get a get in order to get a civil divorce. There are TWO independent types of marriage. Religious marriage can exist or be dissolved according to the rules of a particular religion, but it won't affect the civil marriage unless you file the paperwork. Likewise, you can file the paperwork for a civil marriage or divorce, but if you don't follow your religion's procedures and requirements, they won't recognise it - and you may be kicked out.

One more time: This debate is only on the subject of civil marriage. None of this affects religious marriage in any way. "Civil union" is not any more acceptable than any other "separate but equal" law, unless all other civil marriages are also renamed to the less "offensive" term.

Undertoad was raised by his mother, with no "official" father figure. If he had been raised by a lesbian couple, the only difference in his upbringing would be that the mothers were lesbians. In both cases there is no official father. I see no difference in male influence at all.

What you seem to be saying here is that you think it will promote homosexuality in children. Is that what you object to?

I hate to create another post for such a small point, but I thought I'd mention that gay men can have children. All that is needed is for said man to have sex with a woman.

Its interesting that so many people find loving gay relationships "repulsive". Maybe theyve never seen one. Strong and caring relationships give me hope. As the injustice and inequality becomes more visible, it will change. Society will demand it.

The separation of terms, marriage vs civil union...It is classic segregation tactic.
But I'll take the civil union if it affords a crack at equal rights. As fears subside, the hangup on terms will errode. Marriage is marriage. Families are families. Parents are parents. Home is home.

in realtion to children being brought up by 2 fathers, i dont see how this would be a huge problem. Its not like the gay couple who gain custody of the child will be performing explicit sexual acts in front of the child just because they are gay (straight parents dont)

I was raised by my father and became a daughter figure to a lot of his mates but i have had no female figure, being a female i wont say that some things were a little difficult to talk about, but nothing we couldnt overcome and eventually bring us closer. i have had little to no contact with my mother, and my dad has never remarried.

I feel like ive had the best upbringing i could ever have had, i'm the biggest daddies girl and i think im really well adjusted. I have great relationships with both males and females, and i have turned out just as girly as the ballerina next door did. i wouldnt change a thing. some of my friends, and friends mothers would express how worried they were about me when i was younger because i didnt have a mother around, but honestly, if you have NEVER had one around, you really dont notice at all. you adapt. it becomes NORMAL to you.

I'm proud to have been raised by my dad and his mates with no female intervention, and if i had of had even more dads, just as wonderful as mine is, then wouldn't that have been fantastic!! IMO anyway.
:D

Problem: a gay man having sex with a woman would be like you having sex with a guy.

¿Entiende?

Of course, there's always in vitro...

gay couples rasing kids
 

the environment a couple creates for their children is a complicated mixture, and it's not as simple as 'x will mess up a child, and y will create a happy healthy child'. the strength of the union between the parents has a HUGE effect on the children's sense of safety and security at home. honestly, a straight couple who have issues between them like drinking/drug abuse, domestic violence, crime, don't-give-a-s#it-ness, etc. will probably 'mess up' their children way more than anything about the concept of having two fathers or two mothers. and frankly, the discrimination and legal hurdles that a gay couple have to navigate to raise their children seem more likely than pure 'gayness' to give the children problems as they grow up. particularly the custody battles, in which the law does not recognize one parent as a parent, because the couple was never 'married' in the eyes of the state... that sort of emotional roller coaster scars children, not the fact that their parents are gay. in some ways it IS a different life for a child. but growing up biracial is also a different life for a child. growing up in a city is a different life for a child than growing up on a cattle ranch. ALL lives are different from one another, and the religious right doesn't claim that raising a child in a city will cause emotional scars, whereas raising him/her on a farm will not. this fear of 'psychological effects' from a same-sex couple raising children IS a social construction. period. i know it feels weird to think about it; i'll admit it feels a little weird to me too. but we can change that if we make the effort. we're just used to a family being a mother, a father, and kids, because that's wha tmost of us grew up with. it's the first thing we ever knew as children, it feels normal, so the alternative feels questionable and strange. but remember the days (still not entirely past, depending on who you ask) when a biracial marriage was considered a sure way to mess up any children involved. most peopel today can see that the race of the parents is not directly related to the happiness of the children, because there are other factors that are way more important.

wow. a novel. thank you to anyone who actually read that through...
bottom line: let them have kids. in fifty years it'll be old news,a nd we'll wonder why we felt weird about it.

i hope!

~always amazed

I fully support gay marriage. I have never understood what is holding it up. Who does the marriage between two consenting adults hurt? Will our children all go off and become homosexuals if gay marriage is allowed? What is it with the US? Canada and most of Europe have legal same-sex marriage and I don't recall hearing that they're being smitten by God.

As most of you know I'm a pot smoker, and so I'm sort of a big fan of personal responsibility. Do what you will, but harm none.

*at this point in the message I'm getting pissed*
who the hell does the right think it is? They cite religious precedents in their arguements against something that has NOTHING to do with religion! Is this not a free country? One of my best friends is a devout catholic, he is also gay. Does he not have the same rights as others? I don't find the words gay, homosexual, or same-sex anywhere in the fucking constitution! What I do see though is a clause saying that because a right is not outlined in the constitution does not mean we don't have it. I would say the right to marry whoever you damn well please is an inalienable right.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Fucking narrow-minded zealots! They're like the idiotic bullies in grade school.

If two gays want to go off and have sex with each other fine, don't include me. I do agree what two people do behind closed doors is their own right. blah, blah, blah, blah......

What I want to do is play professional basketball.

Problem is I'm white, 5'10, and a little tubby.

Sure that doesn't preclude me from trying my hardest, drinking my milk and practicing lay-ups. I might make it on a team if I try hard enough, I know several other people have done it but it would be a lot harder for me to get the billion dollar shoe contract that LeBron James signed.

Even if I did get signed to a contract, I'd never be able to dunk the ball no matter how hard I tried. I simply don't have the vertical leap, and therefore would never make the 'star' status in the NBA.

So should I gather up all the other short people in the world and post a petition that the NBA is violating my civil rights to become a multi-million dollar basketball superstar with the ability to make shoes fly off the shelfs????? I mean it's just a tradition that the NBA has always had rims that were more than 5 feet off the ground isn't it?

If you are saying that 'marriage' is just a word why does it matter if they can do it or not? OH for the fringe benifits that come with it. I see.

Well too bad.

I didn't choose to be non-athletic, why should I suffer?


Because sometimes the world is just unfair.

If the government was in the business of handing out basketball licenses, then it should give you one. You aren't guaranteed to find someone to play with you, but if you do, you have the right to play. Likewise, if a gay person finds someone they want to marry, the government should give them the license.

parallel gov't retardations
 

adult seatbelt laws
helmet laws
many of the drug laws
what do you mean i can't kill myself, i'm mine aren't i?

I just think that the right wing types are afraid of seeing validated gay people running around being all public and stuff - might offend the bible thumping constituency or something.

I am all for people having the right to marry other consenting people (of reasonable consenting age) regardless of ANYTHING. What gives a governing body the fucking right to impose their morality standards on such things that hurt no one?

as far as adoption goes - adopting a kid is fucking hard, and if 2 people can qualify for that, then fuck the rest I say! The housing systems unadopted kids live in have to be worse. And it beats the welfare state ghetto living baby factories and 17 year old "i wanted a kid because it was cute" types. If the government is going to impose restrictions on child owners, there should be a licensing body for pregnancy as well!

Yeah, but it still happens quite a lot! :) They're under a lot of pressure, you see.

JeepNGeorge -

The government is not a company or a private entity. It does not have the right to discriminate.

I'm curious.
For those who are queezy about gay parents, how would you feel about your child having an openly homosexual kindergarten teacher? Would it matter if the teacher was male or female? How 'bout another notch...what about a transgender person?

I have no children, so my opinion is less valid (i guess), but I would have to say that sexuality is OFF FUCKING LIMITS in a kindergarten venue, so gay/straight/trans seems rather irrelevant.

The spawn will be subjected/exposed to all kinds of alternate things in their forays from the nest. It's OK as long as the security of the nest remains intact to seek shelter in when things are confusing.
By "openly homosexual kindergarten teacher" I'm assuming you mean not hiding his lifestyle rather than "Hi kids, I'm your new teacher Raul and I suck penises". :eek:

See I knew something was wrong with my kindergarten teacher!!!!

When we will stop trying to legislate equality. Although we all are created equal, not everybody is treated fairly. Single people don't get the same tax breaks as married people. Rich people get more tax shelters than poorer people. Girls can be in the Boy Scouts, Boys can be in the Girl scouts, Women are picketing to be let on Augusta golf course, too my knowlege no men are fighting for the right to be in the LPGA though. Where will it all stop?

To me being gay is unnatural, I know how can I be so backwards in my thinking. Having sex is enjoyable and if you enjoy having sex with a person of the same gender fine go right ahead. But in the end sex is a means to reproduce, we like it so we can survive as a species. Again this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure there are others out there that disagree. But don't come whining to me cause you don't have the same rights as heterosexual people.

Women and minority business owners are judged higher when bidding on a government contract. People with military experience are given extra points on their civil service exam. Guess what people the world and especially the government is filled with all sorts of inequalities.

I myself don't want anymore government control in my life, so I hate it when people who feel the are rightly or wrongly being mistreated go off running to the gubment to get their rights reinstated. What usually happens is that they get more rights or more special rights than we do.

Sure you can trust the gubment, don't believe me just ask the Indians. I know how can I go way back in history for such a reference. We have moved on haven't we. Sure we have. Gays have the same rights as straight people don't they. Yeah they do on paper, but is it really so. Do YOU treat everybody equally ALWAYS? Have you ever stoppped to help a beautiful person of the opposite sex, but tend to look the other way at somebody less desireable but in need of more help? Just because the gubment says that people are equal doesn't mean they will be treated equal. Will all the benifets of straight people be instantly transferred to them, no. I know it has taken several years for african americans, or blacks if you will, I'm so outdated I don't know what they prefer to be called now, to be equal and we have to start somewhere with the gay world, but really what difference does it make if they are allowed to legally marry or not. Oh for the taxes and other benifits...well instead of fighting for that lets do away with those laws...LETS GIVE THEM TO EVERYBODY NOT JUST ANOTHER SELECTED GROUP!!!!!!! Let parents transfer property to kids without paying the estate tax, etc.

Lets make less rules, gubment. Not more of them

/endrant

*misspellings left intact to irritate Dave

George, this is simply untrue. Scientists have discovered that a great deal of mammals engage in homosexual behavior.

A simple google search reveals this site which has about a thousand scientific references:
<blockquote> In the non-human primate groups, incidences of homosexuality have been recognised in the activities of rhesus monkeys, female stumptail macaques (Mitchell, 1979, pp. 134 &142), Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988; Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) male chimpanzees, female bonobos, male mountain gorillas, male siamangs, male white-handed gibbons (Wrangham, 1986, p. 367; Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992; Edwards & Todd, 1991) and male pygmy chimpanzees (Savage & Bakeman, 1978).

Fedigan ( 1992; p142 ) writes that female-female sexual behaviour has been noted in ‘the squirrel-monkey ( Talmage-Riggs & Anschel 1973 ), the vervet ( Struhsaker 1967a ) and the talapoin ( Wolfheim & Rowell 1972 ), and Meredith Small also references incidences of female-female sexual activity amongst bonobos ( 1993: p144-5 ), Japanese macaques ( 1993; p145-6 ) and Indian langurs ( 1993; p146-7 ).

Other mammals noted for homosexual activities include: female cattle (Short, 1984)’, burros (Flinders, 1993), Male mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980), giraffes, rats (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982), dolphins, dogs (West, 1977, p. 116), female red deer (Short, 1984), donkeys, cats, rams, goats, pigs, antelope, elephants, hyenas, rabbits, lions, porcupines, hamsters, mice, and porpoises (Weinrich, 1982).

There have also been reports of homosexual pairings in several species of birds: female pairings of Western gulls, ring-billed gulls, California gulls (Weinrich, 1982; Davies, 1991; Denniston, 1980), budgerigars (also called undulated or shell parakeets) (Kavanau, 1987, pp. 41 &119); also mallard ducks whom consorted only with other males during the ‘imprinting period’, itself equivalent to human puberty (West, 1977, p. 43).</blockquote>

If you must compare humans to animals via some odd notion of "natural/unnatural", then this evidence surely points in the other direction.

I merely said it was unnatural to the propigation of the species. I don't doubt that all kinds of studies have been made to show that it in fact happens. They also found that if I drink too much coffee it will give me heart problems, and then they said if I dont' drink enough coffee that will give me problems.

Being born an albino also happens. That is not natural either, but it does happen. Too bad the albino animals can't lobby for congressional protection when the predators come their way and they stick out.

So, what do you mean by natural and unnatural, then?

how is a recessive trait surfacing every once in a while unnatural? silicone tits are unnatural - fake blondes - stuff like that, and I bet you have no problem with either, so who are you to define "natural"?

Silly me. I should have just listened to SteveDallas 3 months ago when he said:

very well put

how is a recessive trait surfacing every once in a while unnatural?

it's not normal, but natural

But do they get treated different?

You bet they do. The sun will burn their skin easier, they can't use their normal skin/fur/plumage to hide from predators.

my original statement goes like this
"To me being gay is unnatural, I know how can I be so backwards in my thinking. Having sex is enjoyable and if you enjoy having sex with a person of the same gender fine go right ahead. But in the end sex, is a means to reproduce, we like it so we can survive as a species. Again this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure there are others out there that disagree. But don't come whining to me cause you don't have the same rights as heterosexual people. "

My use of unnatural is more along the lines of a basic need for a species to survive. We have the technology now to make unfertile people produce. They can have kids, but have to pay more for fertility drugs, suffer emotional stress or other things that are otherwise not common for producing offspring. If we are talking equality lets give them some extra rights too.

While some animals might engage in homosexual activity it's not for the furtherence of the species. Natural insemination instead of artificial insemination if you will. Gay monkeys can't go to the ape doctor and get artificially impregnated. Natural selection. That was my meaning behind natural.



Government is not 'natural' as well, but we are trying to force it to give everybody the equal rights they were naturally/artificially born with.




I'm not asking you to read my words and instantly change your mind. I'm just asking you to consider all things.


Whats keeping two people from living together, as man and wife, or man and man, or woman and woman nothing. I don't need the gubments permission to do that. In some states they still have common law marriages when man and woman who do that will be considered 'married' by default, but do they care for the paper??? No or they would have been 'married'.

I think what the gays/lesbians are really after is the fringe benifites as I mentioned before. The tax credits, the death benifites.

Why don't they lobby so all people will be able to use them? I mean if my parents die and they want to leave the house and land to me, they can but I have to pay an estate tax on it. The government will pass laws to give two gays more rights than a mother/father and thier natural born offspring. Something just seems wrong with that to me.

So many times we fight for the rights or our group to be considered equal or more equal than others, but we get caught up in the semantics of it we loose sight of the big picture. What usually ends up happening is that we only make the government bigger and more powerful in our lives.

Don't believe me.

Consider one of the Nazi's first offenses against the jews was to simply put a sign on the window shops of non-jew businesses in 1933. Nothing wrong with that right. I mean come on it's just a little sign that says 'German Firm'. What a display of patriotism right? We know now how evil that was because we know the outcome of 1943.

Come on it's just a piece of paper. Just one more thing we have to go the government for. Just one more record they will have about us.

I mean it was just a little sign for the german owned stores right?

No I'm not saying that millions of people will die again if gay's are allowed to marry. Hell they are already living a married life aren't they. But do we really need the gubment to say it's right?


All I want is for people to check out the things they are asking the government to do.

No I'm not some militahead, yes I do think people need some kind of government for society to live. Yes I'm proud to be american and display my flag proudly, but doesn't the fact that I'm an american allow me to question the governments motive.

Is this the best possible outcome of the situation? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Could they remove certain other laws and get the same results? Maybe, maybe not. But question, always question.

Society will never be equal. There will always be a winner and a loser. We cannot ever legislate a truly equal society. After this debate is long over there will be yet another group of people who will want something and yet more laws enacted.

Ok, fair enough.

Think about this, though. Many birds and mammals are known to display homosexual behavior. Birds and mammals aren't even closely related at all. The common ancestor that they must have inherited that trait from lived well over 65 million years ago. Natural selection has selected <i>for</i> homosexuality.


Yes, of course they're after the benefits. They want things like power of attorney, so that if their spouse drops dead or goes into a brain-dead coma, they'll actually have a say over what happens.

They don't want more rights than others, they want the <i>same</i> rights. How does giving them equal marriage rights harm you?

Something to consider
 

I've heard that population presssure is one factor that increases the incidence of homosexual behavior in many species. (I'm too lazy to look up the link right now.)

So from that perspective, it's all the heterosexual "breeders" that are creating the biological/sociological drive towards more homosexuality in the first place!

Maybe this next question could be answered by someone who claims that marriage is only a means to provide for children -- I'm married, I don't plan on ever breeding.

Should I be forced to get a divorce since I don't fit in with your world-view?

- Pie

The bible is selectively law. Keep the parts you like, ignore the rest. Right? I mean seriously, no one goes by all of the Old Testament laws as transcribed. Hell, no one even lives by all of the New Testament.

I'll stop here before I go off on a tirade.

Oh and to be on topic, sure, why not. It doesn't affect me. If you've found your person of choice and you want to be with them forever, knock yourself out. If you want some piece of paper saying you're now united as one. By all means, go ahead. I could care less either way.

Quzah.

So I should change my belief to fit your view, but you shouldn't change at all to fit mine? Whatever the view is. In other words, your view of everything on earth is right, and no one else has a valid point of view, and you don't have to acknowledge said point of view.

Wow. Look up 'narrow minded' in the dictionary. I think there's a picture of your face next to it.

Quzah.

This has turned into a complicated but fascinating issue. There's so much info available on gay marriage and all the tangent issues, I've been reading for hours on end.

The original outline I made to detail and support my position has been rewritten several times and I'm just now starting to finalize it. But I keep finding additional relevant info!

I'm pushing the target release date back. This is a short week coming up. I'll get something posted next weekend.

Ut says I can posts the entire paper when it's ready. Those of you that have been here a while know what that means, a lot of info coming.

The format should allow the reader to navigate the pages and links without a real hassle.

stay tuned.

What's hard to figure out? Picture those frat boys hanging out in their house. They go hang out together. They go get hammered together. They go play football together. Whatever.

Now picture that you find yourself never wanting to end that. (Oh yeah sure, I'm sure the "gay lifestyle" isn't a big frat party, but it's a quick hack of an analogy.)

Or how about those "wierd people" that live with their brother? Is that wierd? God damn crazy fuckers. Why would they want to live with their brother?

So far in life I've known two sets of brothers that live in the same house. One I worked with, who was in his late thirties, early fourties, never met his brother.

The other was younger. The younger pair of brothers had purchased a house together.

God damn freaks I tell you! They shouldn't be allowed to buy a house together! What is this world coming to! Buying a house is a sacred right that only single people and married straight couples should be able to do!

I mean really, what part of this is hard to figure out? You and Person-X can't get enough of eachother. You decide you want to live together for whatever reason; less rent, you like the way they decorate, they're a great ride. Whatever.

What is the unfathomable concept here?

You know what, there's even these freaks that live with their parents!

Quzah.

Can't buy that Juju. The only thing that was inherited was the physical make up that makes sex feel good, in a world that's mostly about two states, feeling threatened or not. Do you think the birds and mammals are reasoning that they must continue the species. I don't think so. Come to think of it they may have inherited the predisposition to find the opposite sex to use to feel good. But I feel critter homosexuals are a case of "love the one you're with" rather than a conscious choice.
The other thing is to what advantage would it have for nature to do that.

Good observation Bruce. I didnt think of that.

So why can't the brothers have the same rights as the gay people? They can live together the same as gay people, but if one brother leaves the world before the other, I'm sure there will be a hefty tax penalty for leaving the house to the remaining brother.

I can't and won't stop two people from doing what they want, but what the gays are fighting for would be benificial to a whole group of people no just another selected minority.

No, that's called incest. ;)

Anyway, you missed the analogy. The comment was inregards to... well just read the quote. They couldn't understand how people of the same sex would want to live together; the sex they could understand.

So what part can't you understand?

Quzah

I really don't understand what you're trying to say, Bruce.

You concede that heterosexual attractions may be biological, but homosexual behaviors aren't? In other words, all these animals are "choosing" to have gay sex?

If not, could you maybe reword your argument for me?

Nature rarely does things randomly, so this question is more difficult than it appears.