Gay and Lesbian Marriages

[Vidala]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- By noon Monday, 140 couples -- nearly all of them gays or lesbians -- had married at City Hall, and a city worker vowed that the day's total would rise to 650 before the weddings stop at 8 p.m.

As couples emerged from the rotunda into a chilly drizzle at a rate of more than one per minute, they were greeted with showers of rice, flower petals and applause from hundreds of well-wishers.

Inside, County Assessor and Recorder Mabel Teng -- whose signature makes the marriage certificates legal -- thanked those waiting for their patience.

"I want to thank you for bringing so much joy and love to City Hall," she said. "For those of you who tied a knot, congratulations. May you have a lifetime of happiness together."

It was the fifth consecutive day that gays and lesbians have lined up to get marriage licenses before a court challenge to try to stop the same-sex marriages is heard Tuesday.

Each couple paid $82 for a marriage application and a $13 license fee in exchange for the certificate.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/16/samesex.marriage/index.html

[Panache87]

Wow..... good for the gays and lesbians to have the courage to get married. I'm also glad to hear that there were positive reactions from the well-wishers. They're gonna be together anyways, so why not? My opinion is that people can marry whoever they want. It's nobody elses business but their own.

[monsieurjohn]

i read another article that talked about a couple who had been together for something like 40 years and were finally able to get married

occasionally when i get to thinking (dangerous, i know) it puzzles me why marriage is stipulated by law at all - seems almost like a violation of the separation of church and state (which i also take issue with, but that's a different thread entirely). it's an emotional thing fundamentally, but at the same time it's a legal and financial thing.. interesting, how worlds collide in that institution. and yes, it's nobody's fault that some people fall in love with men instead of women or vice versa, and there's no legal justification to punish them for something like that. so i think this is good.

[koehiir]

It's about time!

[mthrlangl]

One of my friends in Cali was volunterring at city hall yesterday. I know he planned on going back, too.

Honestly, who's business is it who you decide to marry? God forbid your union doesn't produce children..

[Rack]

One of my friends in Cali was volunterring at city hall yesterday. I know he planned on going back, too.

Honestly, who's business is it who you decide to marry? God forbid your union doesn't produce children..

Well, I am tired of gay people trying to be "normal". They have to accept the fact that they are different than heterosexual people.


I am not a homophobe, however I feel that gay people should live with a union, that allows them to get the same benefits as a married couple. Marriage is a religeous ceremony that our government has adopted as a legal union. .

I say, gay people are different, but they need to create a "union" and make it something great for themselves. I cannot understand why they have to chip away at the religeous zealots fabric of marriage, leave it alone they will always win. I completely agree that gay people should be allowed to the health benefits, and the tax benefits that married people recieve.

[nootch]

Well, I am tired of gay people trying to be "normal". They have to accept the fact that they are different than heterosexual people.

. . .

I say, gay people are different, but they need to create a "union" and make it something great for themselves. I cannot understand why they have to chip away at the religeous zealots fabric of marriage, leave it alone they will always win. I completely agree that gay people should be allowed to the health benefits, and the tax benefits that married people recieve.

I'm also "different" because I'm middle-eastern. My Asian friends are "different", as are my Mexican friends. How "normal" must one be to be allowed to get married? Should marriage between mentally disabled people be prohibited? Certainly they are "different".

Saying that gay people can't get married is like saying black people can't get married; it just doesn't make sense!

[Rack]

I'm also "different" because I'm middle-eastern. My Asian friends are "different", as are my Mexican friends. How "normal" must one be to be allowed to get married? Should marriage between mentally disabled people be prohibited? Certainly they are "different".

Saying that gay people can't get married is like saying black people can't get married; it just doesn't make sense!


From my dictionary verbatim.

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"


A Black man is a man, a white man is a man, a hispanic man is a man, etc.
A Mentally Disabled man is a man, A mentally disabled woman is a woman.

Should I be allowed to marry my mom? My sister? My Brother? My Grandpa? who gets to draw the line?

Can Michael Jackson want to marry a 13 year old if they both wanted to?

Whats next? Transgender bathrooms? Oh wait Microsoft allready has them.

A mentally disabled person does however have differences that would prevent it from doing things that normal person can do. Can someone with a iq of 75 drive a car? I hope not. Then again, did this mentally disabled person chose to be mentally disabled? Did you choose to be Middle Eastern? Did a Black man choose to be black?

[lobo]

Hey Guys! The homo connection is much antique and not fashionable. You know ... these relations between human being have a limited choice.

The much interesting thing is marrieage between men and inanimate nature. This is a future ... this is unlimited abilities we should crave for ... :nod:

[nootch]

From my dictionary verbatim.

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife"

. . .

Should I be allowed to marry my mom? My sister? My Brother? My Grandpa? who gets to draw the line?

[With the assumption that you are male] According to your dictionary, you should be allowed marry your mom (or your sister for that matter). Is this a clear example of how using a strict definition to describe a complex matter fails? I think so.

I won't get into the whole gay-by-choice thing, as it's off-topic.

Is your problem that you think homesexuality is "gross", therefore it desecrates your concept of marriage?

P.S. - I really hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you personally. It's the logic behind what you're saying that I'm attempting to refute. If you were to have posted: "You know, I can't really explain why, but, I honestly just don't feel like two gay people should be able to get married legally." I probably wouldn't have even responded.


The much interesting thing is marrieage between men and inanimate nature. This is a future ... this is unlimited abilities we should crave for ... :nod:

My car is counting the seconds until this day comes... :naughty: ...but don't tell my girlfriend! :ut-oh:

[lobo]

My car is counting the seconds until this day comes... :naughty: ...but don't tell my girlfriend! :ut-oh:
:rotflmao:

[Rack]

Would it be wrong of me to put homosexuals in the same class classification as swingers, and polygamist. To me homosexuality is a alternative lifestyle, and I doubt too many gay people will dispute that. Doesn't common sense tell you that a man and a women are designed to be together for procreation purposes.

I never really spent to time to determine whether 2 men making love is gross or not, according to nature it has no purpose other than to defy its design.

=

[nootch]

Would it be wrong of me to put homosexuals in the same class classification as swingers, and polygamist. To me homosexuality is a alternative lifestyle, and I doubt too many gay people will dispute that. Doesn't common sense tell you that a man and a women are designed to be together for procreation purposes.

I never really spent to time to determine whether 2 men making love is gross or not, according to nature it has no purpose other than to defy its design.

=

It would be wrong of you to put homosexuals in the same class as swingers and polygamists if you are doing so by assuming that all gay people are promiscuous. When you fall in love with a girl, is it just because you want to have sex with her? How about when you are attracted to a girl you just met, is that just because of the thought of having sex with her? Is it not possible that a gay person can be attracted, emotionally, to a member of the same sex and have it not be about the physical act of sex?

If you're trying to say that you doubt most gay people will dispute the fact that their "alternative lifestyle" is much like the lifestyle of a swinger/polygamist, then I'd say you should talk to more gay people.

No offense, but, the nature/procreation argument is even more flawed. My aunt and uncle tried to have kids for years and couldn't... does that mean they shouldn't be married? Having children is not the "purpose" of marriage (you might be able to argue that you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to create, but not that you shouldn't marry).

[Diesel]

Since when did marriage become the exclusive property of the "religious zealots"?

Does that mean that heterosexual atheists aren't allowed to marry? That Bhuddists aren't allowed to marry because they don't fit the mold of the "religious zealots"? That agnostics aren't allowed to marry?

Seriously, the religious right in this country has their priorities so screwed up that it's not even funny. Since the "sex for procreation" argument was brought up, is it now more acceptable that we have teenagers having sex for pleasure at such alarming rates that teenage pregnancy rates are at an all-time high, than it is for a gay couple having a monogamous relationship, not being a drain on our tax dollars, and not pushing their lifestyle on anyone else?

Personally, I find the arguments and beliefs of the religious right more offensive and intrusive than any gay marriage. As long as they're not forcing their beliefs on me, I say live and let live (say, wasn't that taught in the Bible?!?). I certainly haven't been able to say that about the religious zealots, since they seem ready to spring at the chance to force their beliefs on me at the first opportunity.

I like to think that our society has advanced to the point that people can just be seen as people, but the religious right always seems to want to pull us back as far as possible. I don't find it that coincidental that a good portion of the religious right also inhabits a part of this country who still yearns for the "good 'ol days" of slavery.

[mthrlangl]

What about religous gay people?

Gay people *are* normal. I would wager most of them have two eyes, two legs, two arms, ten fingers, etc. Maybe they do live an "alternate lifestyle," but I would wager that's only because people (like you?) try to force them into it.

If nothing else, look at gay marriage as a form of population control :rolleyes:

[Rack]

No offense, but, the nature/procreation argument is even more flawed. My aunt and uncle tried to have kids for years and couldn't... does that mean they shouldn't be married? Having children is not the "purpose" of marriage (you might be able to argue that you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to create, but not that you shouldn't marry).

Well Homosexual people have a 0% chance of procreation Vs. your aunt and uncle that did have a chance.

[Rack]

I don't find it that coincidental that a good portion of the religious right also inhabits a part of this country who still yearns for the "good 'ol days" of slavery.


Why does every arguement w/ a leftist end up in a racial discussion? I never brought up race. Once again homosexuality is a lifestyle not a RACE.

If you do some research, a large ammount of the slave owners, kkk members etc were left wingers. Many of the people fighting for slavery were conservatives. If you look at the civil rights movement there were many prominent conservatives such as charleton heston speaking for minorities rights. Charleton Heston even marched w/ MLK.

[nootch]

Well Homosexual people have a 0% chance of procreation Vs. your aunt and uncle that did have a chance.

And how does this relate to marriage?

I thought I was just showing that marriage != having kids. If I wasn't clear enough with that example, how about my roommate: he swears he's never going to have kids. Or another friend of mine who is not married, has no children, and is considering getting a vasectomy because he really does not want children. Should they be allowed to marry?

How about this, you want to marry your sister:
You are both members of the opposite sex. check
Common sense tells us that your bodies are designed for procreation. check
You are probably as likely to have a healthy (no birth-defects) child as my aunt and uncle were, which is still above the "0% chance of procreation" that homosexuals have. check


Should you be able to marry your sister? Have I proved yet that your reasoning is seriously flawed? What is it about two gay people getting married that is so wrong to you? Again, it's not that you don't approve that I'm arguing against, it's your reasoning.

[Diesel]

I think the key here is that Rack considers homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle", which seems to be implying that they're choosing to be homosexuality.
Since there's no objective way to prove one way or the other whether it is a choice or if someone is born with it, you really can't fault him for taking the stance he's chosen, but you can fault him for being so closed-minded about the possibility that it might be something that someone is born with.
This seems to be a recurring theme with the religious right in that they're so closed-minded that their way is the ONLY way, that they box themselves into thinking that unless someone is in 100% agreement with them, they're wrong. There's no room for an alternative opinion or possibility, and that locks them into defending an argument that might be inherently flawed.

[MO]

Rack-

WHO have you been talking to?

When you say "alternative" it sounds like you're saying they have a choice. One can argue that SOME may choose it (but there have been some studies that show this often happens after sexual abuse, etc).
Maybe you should talk to my friend who knew he was gay since he was around 5 years old. All of the years of putting up with the ridicule wasn't his choice, or the sadness and praying he could change. Why would people CHOOSE such a harsh life? Why do some Mormons commit suicide over it? Why did some BYU students get submitted to shock therapy while looking at gay porn? (according to some, BYU denies it of course) Why does a small NY college that I will not name have a "therapy group" that students get sent to to "change" when they get caught on campus performing "unnatural acts?" This perpetuates self-hate, as does any form of discrimination.

As far as "swinging," you can also ask my friend and he'll tell you that he wouldn't know about that either, b/c he's in a committed relationship.

Sorry guys for ranting, but this is a sore subject for me :mad:

[Rack]

Rack-

WHO have you been talking to?

When you say "alternative" it sounds like you're saying they have a choice. One can argue that SOME may choose it (but there have been some studies that show this often happens after sexual abuse, etc).
:

Is a pedophile born a pedophile? This we may not every be able to answer, but we do know that a pedophile should not be having sex w/ children. We expect pedophiles to go against the way they may be wired because we know that a grom man having sex with children is wrong.

What if I was born a theif, would that make it ok for me to steal everything you own? I have known I was a theif since I was a child, and it could possibly be a biological condition.

Also how does a 5 year old know he is gay? I didnt know I was heterosexual when I was 5 let alone think about being gay. Was your friend possibly sexually abused?

[mthrlangl]

Is a pedophile born a pedophile? This we may not every be able to answer, but we do know that a pedophile should not be having sex w/ children. We expect pedophiles to go against the way they may be wired because we know that a grom man having sex with children is wrong.

What if I was born a theif, would that make it ok for me to steal everything you own? I have known I was a theif since I was a child, and it could possibly be a biological condition.

I would wager the major issue here is consent. A child, legally, cannot consent to sex with an adult. A victim doesn't consent to be robbed. A gay couple does consent to have sex with each other. And that's fine and dandy with me. If you could get a goat to consent to have sex with you, that would also be fine and dandy with me, as long as you didn't try to make me have sex with the goat, too.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. So back off.

[Rack]

I would wager the major issue here is consent. A child, legally, cannot consent to sex with an adult. A victim doesn't consent to be robbed.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. So back off.

Well lets see A man cannot legally marry another man. Even in california It violates prop 22 passed in 2000.


You can legally only have sex in the missionary position in the state of florida. Fellatio is also illegal in many states.

[Prox]

Back when that proposition passed in california I think many people were voting instinctivly, and homophobicly. I know I was (the only vote I honestly wish I could take back). Since then there has been a lot of education going on. Not so long ago interracial marriages werent legal. What is going on in San Francisco is more forcing the court to take issue with the constitutionality of telling someone that they can't get merried based on their beliefs. A lot has changed in the last few years, at least in public opinion. Im almost positive that when this does hit the courts that the law will be thrown out as it should be.

[nootch]

Well lets see A man cannot legally marry another man. Even in california It violates prop 22 passed in 2000.


You can legally only have sex in the missionary position in the state of florida. Fellatio is also illegal in many states.

You're really hurting your own cause here. You cite law, and then show how pointless and unfounded certain laws can be in the same post.

[Rack]

You're really hurting your own cause here. You cite law, and then show how pointless and unfounded certain laws can be in the same post.

I did realize that when I posted it.


To most heterosexuals marriage is a cornerstone of their society. Is most of the opposition created by homophobia, or the respect for their culture, and sociological beliefs? I guess you will never completely understand because to you it is all homophopic rhetoric.

Why is it that anyone who opposes same sex marriages is labeled a homophobe? It's like discussing affirmative action, if you oppose it, your immediately labeled as a rascist, when in fact affirmative action is racism.

[nootch]

I did realize that when I posted it.


To most heterosexuals marriage is a cornerstone of their society. Is most of the opposition created by homophobia, or the respect for their culture, and sociological beliefs? I guess you will never completely understand because to you it is all homophopic rhetoric.

Why is it that anyone who opposes same sex marriages is labeled a homophobe? It's like discussing affirmative action, if you oppose it, your immediately labeled as a rascist, when in fact affirmative action is racism.

I think marriage is a cornerstone of most people's society, gay or straight. The issue being that it is illegal for gay people to make official their love and commitment. Imagine being told that you can't get married because you prefer the color pink over blue. I'm sure you'd question the rules and ask for legitimate reasons why your personal preference dictates your ability to marry.

I have not once brought homophobia or racial discrimination into the conversation. My question to you about homosexuality being "gross" might have seemed as though I was accusing you of homophobia, but rest assured I wasn't: I think it's gross to be sitting at a stop-light and watching the guy in the car next to me pick his nose, but that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of him. I was just trying to figure out if THAT was why you don't think they should be allowed to get married, since I don't believe you've really given a legitimate reason yet. It's not that I think you're spouting homophobic rhetoric, just flawed logic (possibly worse?).

Again, it's not that you don't approve that I'm arguing against, it's your reasoning.

[MO]

No, my friend was NOT sexually abused.
Many homosexuals kind of "know" they are different when they're young children. The sensations one may get from a first crush in first grade can be with a kid of the same gender. I'm not saying this happens all of the time, but it can.

[Vidala]

I don't remember what channel I saw this on, but they had a interview on two partnered gay men that wanted children. One of them was a hair stylist and the other a lawyer. The hair stylist was meantioning to one of his customers (a female) one day on how he wanted to have children with his partner. Well one day as she's getting her hair done, she tells him that she wanted to help him and his partner and be a serrogate person for them. She says that she wanted to help them b/c she knows the feeling of being a parent and she wanted them to feel the same happiness that she did when she had her two children.

The two men paid for everything (maturnity clothes, doctor visits, hospital bills etc...). The agreement that the woman had to agree with was not to fight for custody. The courts was giving the partnered men a hard time with the parental rights being taken away from the woman, but it didn't say at the end of if they got full parental rights. The woman ends up getting pregnant with 5 babies, but one had to be aborted due to complications with that fetus and to save the rest...so 4 total. There were 3 boys and 1 girl.

By the time the quads were 1 1/2, the other man wanted one of his own (since the other one is the one they used for the first pregnancy). So the same woman decided to help them again! This time only one baby, a baby boy...totaling 5 children!

[lobo]

Anyway ... The marriage was special institution of co-existence of one man and one woman for about last 100-200 years. Like ... sepulation is the special institution of co-existence of sepulcary and sepulca. So, I have a question :

Why gays and lesbians can't create another special institution of co-existence gay/gay pair or lesb/lesb pair or gay/lesb pair different from marriage?

This is really very important question. I can not to understand why they should to diverse already existing good institution. If you need institution for co-existence - do it yourself! Name it as homorriage or lesborriage. Go to congress and legalize this institution. Ballot for tax indulges. Ballot for church indulges. Do special gay/lesb-rriage certificates for stable pair.

As i know, traditional marriage did a serious work to get their political and economical rights. And it was made not for one year - for decades!

Why gays and lesbians want to get all immediately. Why they want to ruing good old thing without creating new one?

It is ridiculos ...

:nuts:

My father was a lesbian, of course he loved women

[mthrlangl]

The times, they are a-changin'. If we can't change with them, we're screwed. If gay people want to get married, then they should effing be able to get married, just like straight people. We (meaning straight people) don't need to be protected from the big, bad homosexuals. Ultimately, your marriage certificate is just another piece of paper. I really and truly fail to see why we can't give out a few more pieces of paper.

And as for Bush wanting to make it a Constiutional ammendment to ban gay marriages? He can lick my ass. Jesus Christ. It's not like gay people are going to rip "normal" families apart by getting married.

[lobo]

Of course, gay people can not rip apart "normal" families.

But the question of co-existence is to provide the normal co-existence of stable pair - does not matter which pair. From this side - why gay peoples are trying to confront with stright? I mean, the question of legal co-existence of gay pairs can be solved without any confrontation, by creating one new institution of co-existence.

Seems that somebody can not live without confrontation.

[mthrlangl]

That's like making black people eat at separate lunch counters back when things were more segregated. We're not depriving you of lunch; you just can't eat with us.

If an institution to legally bind people already exists, then why the hell can't it be open to everyone? There's no NEED to make another one just for gay people.

[lobo]

That's like making black people eat at separate lunch counters back when things were more segregated. We're not depriving you of lunch; you just can't eat with us.
Don't mix entities. They already lives between us and eat with us.

You know ... it is like satanist will go to catholic church and will request place for satanistic rituals. Both satanists and catholics are living together, eating tigether ... but they do not share fields of beliving ... cuz it different things. And at surveys the worlds satanist and catholic can be neighbors in the same field 'religion'

And ... The current marriage is much more than beleiving thing. People love to think that that this marriage is sanitized and powered by supreme-being and traditionally this is private deal between man and woman. And, when somebody are trying to disturb this tradition ... he will collide with ... may be aggression.

Anyway, creating of new institution is much easier and healthy and less confronting.

We should to memorize that the same action forwarded to a cow can be milking or mastrubating ... it depends of the cow's gender.

[mthrlangl]

Don't mix entities. They already lives between us and eat with us.

I'm not mixing anything. It's the same sort of problem. They're "different," so they're some how "lesser" and don't deserve the same privileges "we" enjoy. It's stupid.

Anyway, creating of new institution is much easier and healthy and less confronting.

It's not easier. We HAVE AN EXISTING INSTITUTION. What could be easier than letting someone else join in? There shouldn't be any confrontation over it. If you're not gay, then why the hell should it matter to you? They're not endangering any of your rights. You can still get married.

[lobo]

There shouldn't be any confrontation over it.
But ... It is there ... Today's lunch was poisoned by this topic ... I thought that people will start fighting - so hot was these debates.

Usually we are spoken about mars exploration, SARS, weapons or something interesting ... but last week they was speaking only about gay/leasbian marriage. This is so boreing.

This topic did not appeared 1 year ago, 2 year ago or 10 years ago. Why did it appeared now? Only because of eliminating marriage penalty from tax? Does $1,000 have such a matter to start cheating?

Really the problem is much deeper. The stright married peoples spend much efforts for health/children/psychological support and these money will be useful for these pairs. You know, sometime two strangers are living together only because they don't like to traumate kidz.

With gays the situation is different - they do not have such unobvious strings, like menstruation and kidz breving.

We HAVE AN EXISTING INSTITUTION.
Please, explain it to poor satanists whom catholics does not allowed to sacrify animals in catholic church ...

[Alyth]

you know it took a long time for people to even accept people marrying another race, color, nationality, or even religion. I don't see the difference with sex here. A black person can marry a white person, just like a christian person can marry a jewish person, Why can't a person of one sex marry another of the same sex?

The heart is untamed and cannot be controlled. No one can tell another who they can and cannot fall inlove with. Love is rewarded with marriage and acceptance. There is no difference to the heart who it loves and who it wants to be with, why try to control something so beautiful and natural. Long ago, people might say it's not natural for one race to love and marry another, but eventually it was accepted, so what's the difference now?

[lobo]

I do not speak about difference. There are no difference for love :)
Nobody will prohibit You to live with gay or lesbian long and to be in love.

I am speaking about the ways to reach this goal.
I am speaking about this confrontation between straight and gay marriage. There are exists 100000 ways to avoid it ... but these peoples choosed the hardest one. You know there are too many peoples who considers marriage only in old way and new trends will insults their social/religious/moral feelings. I want to understand a reason why gays/lesbians doing it.

I see only one reason $1000 tax returns from marriage penalty.
So, does these money costs to start insulting innocent peoples?

[Diesel]

I can't speak for gay people, but I see the "why they are doing it" issue as that they just want to have access to the same rights and priviliges as everyone else.

Perhaps the fault lies with those who are too closed-minded and set in their ways that they won't allow in the idea that these people should be entitled to those priviliges, and not with those who think that they should be entitled to the same treatment as everyone else because they're not that different from everyone else.

[mthrlangl]

I completely wash my hands of this argument, because quite frankly, I'm pissed beyond words. Anything I said at this point would be censored out.

[lobo]

Yeah! I am washing my hands too ... But ... these lunch time talks makes me rant about gays and lesbians ... Even more ... I started to think that they are <censored> ...

It is mournful ... sometimes You are thinking good about peoples untill You collides with them ... or they are starting to prove that they are better than they are ...

[Diesel]

This is one of the great things that I love about Alien Soup...

The fact that we, as individuals, can disagree with each other, even on extremely sensitive topics such as this, and still come away from the discussion peacefully, with a mutual respect for each other.

We may not all agree on particular issues, but we treat those with whom we disagree with respect for speaking their minds in intelligent discussion. It's not always easy to keep a cool head when you're confronted with someone who steadfastly believes that which you do not, but we always seem to handle it with dignity.

I wish it weren't such a rarity on other forums, but I'm glad we have this kind of comraderie and respect for each other around here. It's one of our strongest traits as a community, and it's a very large part of what makes our forums so great.

[BigFoot]

Let them do what they want, isn't our countries unalienable rights "life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? If this is what makes these Americans happy, and poses no threat to the country or its citzens, than they definitly should be allowed to wed.

[monsieurjohn]

yeah but if going on a killing spree makes me happy, that doesn't make it legal or ok

NOT EQUATING GAY MARRIAGE TO KILLING SPREE... just pointing out a logic hole. i really can't make a decision on this issue, which is why i'm staying out of it for the most part

[BigFoot]

In my previous post, i said "if it makes them happy, and poses not threat to the country or its citizens", which wouldn't include a killing spree, but would include gay marriage imo.

Thanks.

[WaterB]

hrm.. gay marriages didn't seem that wrong to me until dan posted the news article of Rosie getting married.


think i'll be protesting that one

[Diesel]

WaterB> Good job explaining that happened in the chat, not in the forums.

Anyway, here's the link he's referring to.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/26/odonnell.ap/index.html

[WaterB]

WaterB> Good job explaining that happened in the chat, not in the forums.

Anyway, here's the link he's referring to.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/26/odonnell.ap/index.html


their loss for not being in there :P

[monsieurjohn]

In my previous post, i said "if it makes them happy, and poses not threat to the country or its citizens", which wouldn't include a killing spree, but would include gay marriage imo

hey good point. sorry, i'm still learning to read

[Nuphoria]

Well, it's all a big hoohar... personaly I am a gay woman living in the UK, awaiting the right to marry my woman. We are infact engaged and plan on eventually marrying.

What's it about? Not an immitation of heterosexually, of any church doctrine, exsisting beliefs about parntership. Nope, it's about love ~~ LOVE ~~ That's the thing, that's all it's really about. For us, it means I want to show the world that I love you and have a good party too :nod:

Aside from the romance of it (and yes, queers do romance) it would also be nice to know that we share the same legal rights regards death duties etc... the things that straight couples take for granted which we have been discriminated against for years. I grant you, the world evolves slowly, but if homophobe type folks get to stay in charge, y'all will find yourselves devolving.

RANT OVER.. Peace y'all.

[lobo]

Not an immitation of heterosexually

It will remain an imitation untill you will became pregnant and brew Your child.
This is simple - love is love and life is life - these topics does not intersects.

And the question in this thread is not about the love-or-not-love. Question is - why american gays choosed the way of war to stright peoples. You see? Stright peoples does not intrude to gay's life ... gays do it . You can explain it with evolution ... of course ... this is contemporary ...

Anyway ... some statistic :

about 3% of biological homo
about 8% of social homo
---------------------------
Summ : 11% of homo

The amount of real(genetically proven) gays on the planet Earth was/is/will remain about 3% of population. This value did not changed from 1900, when first screening occures. 8% of peoples who are thinkting that they are gays - they are mostly BI - or psyko - or wanna be in TV show - or prostitutes - or perverts - but they are not a gays in biological meaning. This is a reality.

So ... we have 8% of nasty peoples who even not a gays ... but they are want to poison my life by their social activities - like fake battle royale for a freedom.

You see a reason for this battle? I don't. So. Is it product of insane gay's brains or evolution?

Live and lets die!

[Nuphoria]

First thing is that it's extremely easy to get pregnant if you are fertile (and obviously female) - so the concept of family/breeding has got sod all to do with sexuality. My partner has a child and neither of us immitate hetero ethos in any way shape or form... couldn't be further from the truth.

If you live as a gay/bi individual, your life is constantly at threat from prejudice, especially in many workplaces and communities even to the extent of actual physical violence. What the point of marriage is about is really about equity, of having the same rights as any hetero couple have by default. The laws differ in the UK but we still need legislation to get some balance, and perhaps to help those less enlightened to appreciate that differences in sexuality should not give others the right to discriminate.

I'm not going to rant about this one because it's experiential and I doubt very easy to understand if you're not queer! They say you should never judge anyone until you've walked in their moccasins for 2 moons.... it's true :no: Sadly we are all guilty of ignorance somewhere along the way... all I hope for is to live in a society that tolerates all choices and differences in people as long as they are not hurting anyone else. That too ideaistic?!

Anyway, I should be writing an essay!

Peace y'all

[lobo]

Anyway, I should be writing an essay!
:lol:
You should!

[Prox]

Anyway, I should be writing an essay!

Peace y'all

Nah, procrastanate . . . its more fun :)

[Diesel]

From my standpoint, I see marriage as a religious ceremony (with legal implications), and I see homosexuality and heterosexuality as a sexual behavior. The two things are not tied together in any way, unless marriage is simply about the sexual behavior of the married couple, and nothing else.

Personally, I've always thought of marriage as being something more than just being about sexual behavior, but that's what right-wingers want to reduce it to for the sake of this argument. It's all just a tad hypocritical, if you ask me, because these are the same people who insist on putting the "sanctity of marriage" up on a pedestal and preaching that marriage is about love, committment, trust, faith, etc. In fact, they say nothing about sexual behavior in the way that it pertains to marriage. It's my belief, as I've stated above, that this is because marriage and sexual behavior are not tied to one another.

In the end, I really wonder who gets hurt by allowing homosexual couples to marry.
It's certainly not "the sanctity of marriage", because heterosexual couples have made a mockery of marriage without the help of homosexuals, driving divorce rates up above 50%.
It's not hurting heterosexual couples, because they have no involvement when it comes to other couples marrying, homosexual or heterosexual.

So, who's getting hurt?
By having the government fight this battle, I'm afraid everyone will end up losing because of the deluge of lawsuits that will no doubt be flying everywhere shortly.

[Nuphoria]

Nice to hear a few sensible views about this one people :nod:
However, you reckon that a bunch of law suits will ensue and then no-one will benefit... ha... what about lawyers?! They'll be happy, and what about my queer lawyer friends, what side of the fence shall we throw them on??

Hmm... dilemma...

Still haven't started the essay 'cos ladies keep visiting my house for tea! It's all very civilised :nuts:

[Diesel]

When lawyers are happy, something is very amiss with society.

In case you don't know, I work with lawyers. :(

[Nuphoria]

In case you don't know, I work with lawyers. :(

~~~~
Ay Caramba my friend... no I did not know this. Unfortunately we need a home office license at medical school to use human body parts - I'm sure you could set up a healthy trade in supplying some :embarass:

But I digress from the topic... do I get probed for such a terrible crime?!

[lobo]

But I digress from the topic... do I get probed for such a terrible crime?!
You should write oficial request in Newbie Hatchery.

Do You sip english tea? Or just a tea ... with cookies ...

[Nuphoria]

Do You sip english tea? Or just a tea ... with cookies ...

Actually I don't drink regular tea because I think it smells of horses.. just trust me on this one! I also gave up caffiene a few years ago so really don't see the point in decaffinated things as the chemicals in them are far worse for you then the actually caffiene. I drink herbal teas, lemon, chammomile, that kinda thing... biscuits when available :tongue:

As for that probing.... hmm... a newbie thing...

[meezercat]

Just a thought - for those claiming religion as a reason not to allow same-sex marriages... this is a quote I pulled off a United Methodist Church website:

I know a number of same-sex covenanted couples or those with long-term relationships whose de-facto marriages are better and more faithful than many more heterosexual couples. Some even have children and are better parents than many. To encourage those relationships with legality would strengthen both the institution of marriage for heterosexuals and commend a role-model to the LGBT community.

[GoingNova]

Wow, hot topic. I did not read every post, I just skimmed. Well, here goes:

I am against gay marriage because I believe that by chaning the definition of marriage, you open the door for a whole bunch of problems! Homosexuals have "Civil Unions", mena and women have marriage. What is the difference? I see no reason to deny homosexuals anything that married people currently have, but I also see no reason for them to be so darn insistant that everyone approve and accept thier behavior.

Should you allow homosexuals to change the definition of marriage, you more or less set the stage for any consenting adults to come forward and ask to be recognized as being married. On what grounds could you deny a man and his son/daughter the right to get married, if, by allowing homosexulas the right to change the definition of marriage to include themselves and stating "consenting adults should be able to enter into any relationship they desire, and the government must legally recognize that relationship". Once that precedent is set, how can you legally deny incestious marriage? How can you legally deny Polygamous marriage? What about bestiality? Are homosexuals the only people permitted to change the definition of marriage? The law simply does not work that way.

Do you think I am being unreasonable? Well, think about this: do you think that the women who legally fought for abortion in 1973 ever, in their wildest dreams, would have believed that just 20 years after they won the right for a woman to abort a "fetus" in the first three months of her pregnacny, that a women who was 8 months pregnant could kill her baby because she was clinically depressed? Well, that is the "health" clause that so many pro-abortion people want in the partial birth abortion law. Clincial depression is a health matter, and therefore can be used to "terminate a pregnacy" - kill an 8 month old baby- any time up until natural labor begins. So, I do not think it so far fetched to conclude that if you change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, you must change it for ANY consenting adults.

Frankly, the entire gay issue annoys the hell out of me, because in my opinion, it is totally irrelevant. What you do in your home is your business and no one elses. If you are gay, big deal! Who cares, because I don't. I believe it is a learned behavior and a choice, but that is my personal belief. There is no proof that people are born gay, and there is no proof they are not born gay, so until there is, I can have my opinions, and they can have theirs.

Homosexuals that try to ram their beliefs down my throat and try to force everyone to accept and approve of their behavior annoy me. Hetrosexuals who hate homosexuals based soley on the fact that they are homosexuals have no right to do so, and they annoy me. Keep your sex life private, and I will keep mine private. Unless I ask you to tell me, I don't want to know! I have many friends who do things that I do not approve of, but they are still my friends. If you are a nice person, and we become friends, the fact that you are gay does not change that. We are still friends in my book. But, marriage is between a man and a woman, and to change the definition for ANY group of people is just not a gwise thing to do

[jourgenson]

The only reason this (same-sex marriage) is an issue is because same-sex couples are denied the rights afforded to married opposite sex couples. They typically cannot share the fiscal benefits of marriage such as sharing health plans and other work benefits such as retirement plans as well as anything else that is only awarded to married couples. The issue is entirely about fiscal and civil rights and nothing to do with sexualtiy itself. Two adults should be able to form a civil union or whatever you want to call it. The same rules still apply as to polygamy or incest which do very from state to state. As far as I know this all falls under state rights, so barring a Constitutional ammendment (which is all but impossible) it is going to remain the choice of the states.

The only real problem is that this allows you and you same-sex roommate/friend to form a union to take advantage of the fiscal benefits. The reason this probably wouldn't be a widespread problem is entering into marriage/civil unions is is a fairly big step/process and you then have to get a divorce of some kind to actually get married. Not to mention the difficulty in explaining this yo relatives, work or future love interests. The world is a bit more complicated than that of Three's Company or the Drew Carey show.

That being said, I know poeple who have gotten married to be able to stay (or keep a friend) in the country. I also know people who got married simply to take advantage of benefits, primarily military benefits. Now this people were in fact couples, but would never have married, at least not that fast if not to gain a benefit. I only add this to say that using marriage/civil unions to your advantage is not a new problem and is certainly not a problem associated only with same-sex civil unions.

At my workplace (a fairly large corporation), that already allow same-sex partners to share benefits, although I beleive the IRS still taxes this differently. The irony is that opposite sex couples who are not married are not eligible for the shared benefits. So in this case a gay non-married couple gets the benefits but not a heterosexual non-married couple. This is a bit of an inequity, but the argument is that the gay couple does not have the right to marry so this is the best solution at present for the corp.

[GoingNova]

My position is give them the same rights, but don't change the definition of marriage. I believe that is the majority position in the country, and I do think that is what is going to be done. The problem is we have judges who want to impose their views on the people of this country, and that is a problem. Judges are supposed to interpret law, not legislate from from the bench.

[mthrlangl]

My position is give them the same rights, but don't change the definition of marriage. I believe that is the majority position in the country, and I do think that is what is going to be done. The problem is we have judges who want to impose their views on the people of this country, and that is a problem. Judges are supposed to interpret law, not legislate from from the bench.

I still fail to see the problem. An institution already exists for uniting 2 people; there's no need to make a new category for gay people. It's stupid. (Additionally, I could give two craps if a man marries his daughter as long as they're consenting adults. Keyword here being *consenting*.) Making it okay for gay people to get married isn't going to endanger your marriage or mine; it's not going to force your priest to marry a gay couple (hello, separation of church and state, anyone?). I reiterate my statement from a few pages back: It's like segregation. You can eat lunch, but you can't eat with *us*.

:rolleyes:

[lobo]

It's like segregation. You can eat lunch, but you can't eat with *us*.
segregation is a normal way and it is the general line in american politic.
Look there, why do exists the illegal immigrant problem in USA? This is a typical segregation. You can to say that this is a way to save american way of life(market, job, culture). So, when somebody tell that marriage is not for gays and lesbians - this is the same way of thinking.

You know - the best way to solve this problem is to create especial marriage institute for gays and lesbians. This practice is good and proven through centures. Look at those catolics/orthodocs/methodists/.... etc. Those guys are praying for the same god, those guys are have the same tax credits and thay are living in segregation to each other.

There are is nothing wrong with segregation if there are exists legal ways for migrating from one to another segregate groups.

I know - some people has hypertrophied sence of justice and those guys will require the presence of catolic priests on satanistic rhituals for eliminating the segregation. This is quietly silly.

Anyway, the last gay activities on legalisation of gay marriages was initiated only because of Bush's promices to remove marriage penalty in taxes. You know, those money are credit for stright families to brew healthy and smart kids and to prevent stright families from divorce. And You know - I see no reason why gays should to use those money. But gays wants to pick out those money from our children. What does it mean? It mean that those people want to lower the life level of our children.

And about gay/lesbians. What is the problem? The problem is - there are exists not more than 3% of peoples who are genetical gays. Only half of those peoples are living as gays - some of them does not know about it at all. So, who are those peoples who are claiming that thay are a gays? Some of those people are mentally insane, some of them are vicitims of fashion.

I am agree that we should to give marriage privilegies to gays. But, there are should be hard rules, like rules for giving american citizinship through marriage. You know, if You are married with man from another country - Your spouse will get american citizenship only after proving that it is a real marriage. And ... the gay pairs should not have tax benefits. While the gay marriage is based on tax benefits - it is just a fraud with the goal to puck up our childrens money.

It is just my 2-cents

[mthrlangl]

I think that's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read.

Again, I remove myself from this argument, as I feel myself declining towards swearing and spluttering incoherantly.

[GoingNova]

(Additionally, I could give two craps if a man marries his daughter as long as they're consenting adults. Keyword here being *consenting*.) Making it okay for gay people to get married isn't going to endanger your marriage or mine; it's not going to force your priest to marry a gay couple (hello, separation of church and state, anyone?). I reiterate my statement from a few pages back: It's like segregation. You can eat lunch, but you can't eat with *us*.

I do not think that incestious relations are something we as a society should condone or accept. When you start to think this way, that is to say you do not care if people commit incest, you are overlooking the underlying psychological problems that exist when two people want to commit incest. Incest is wrong. It is not something that you can say "well, what is right for some people is wrong for others", it is wrong. Making it okay for gay people to get married is, as I said, going to set the legal precedence for any types of sexual unions to be allowed.

If you think that we, as a society, should allow incest, pologomy, bestiality, S&M, and other abhorrent behavior, to become accepted as normal, healthy behavior, then well, I will just have to diagree with you. You can call me judgmental, but the fact is, people who do those things have psychological problems, and would benefit more from therapy then acquiescence. And please do not tell me that someone who wants to be tied up and humilated does not have an underlying psychological problem. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to do what they want, provided they do not hurt others, I am saying that just because we as a free society allow such behavior does not mean we have to condone it.

It is not a matter of segregation, and it is not a religious matter. It is a matter of we, as a society, having a right to determine what we consider be normal and acceptable forms of behavior, and I say again, just because we allow certain behavior in a free society, does not mean we need to accept it as normal. By allowing Civil Unions to get all of the same benefits as marriage, without chaning the definition of marriage, we are allowing homosexuals to receive the same rights as hetrosexuals, without opening up ourselves to legal challenges from other groups. Let these groups come forward one at a time, as homosexuals did, so that we can address it on a per issue basis. We need not throw a legal blanket of acceptance over every form of behavior adults can dream up by simply changing the definition of marriage.

[MO]

You know, those money are credit for stright families to brew healthy and smart kids and to prevent stright families from divorce. And You know - I see no reason why gays should to use those money. But gays wants to pick out those money from our children. What does it mean? It mean that those people want to lower the life level of our children.

And about gay/lesbians. What is the problem? The problem is - there are exists not more than 3% of peoples who are genetical gays. Only half of those peoples are living as gays - some of them does not know about it at all. So, who are those peoples who are claiming that thay are a gays? Some of those people are mentally insane, some of them are vicitims of fashion.



Umm..WHAT???
Gay people are now criminals for "taking money" from kids?
So are you saying gay people cannot have healthy and smart kids? Are you saying if someone likes fashion that they may turn gay?

[mthrlangl]

P.S. One more thing to add.

Illegal immigrants WHO DON'T PAY TAXES are much more likely to take money from your kids than are married gay couples WHO PAY THEIR TAXES.

[lobo]

Umm..WHAT???
Gay people are now criminals for "taking money" from kids?
I did not tell that all gays are criminals. I just told - the current gay activisation in USA is directly connected to marriage penalty removing. And the goal of this removing is to support families to maintain normal life and brew children. And from this point - and this is a real point - struggle for gays rights looks very fishy. However, wag the dog.

So are you saying gay people cannot have healthy and smart kids?
Of course, gay people can adopt children. In 97% it will be non gays children. But, because of they parents are gays - You will get 100% gay kids. You know - fat parents insists normal kids to eat more. I think that gay parents will insist normal children to do something too. Is it OK with You that some pervert will broke child life? Do You think that those children will be mentally health?

Are you saying if someone likes fashion that they may turn gay?
Yep! Look at this widerly. Did You ever seen NipTalk, Straight Man, ... etc ... etc or those eminems, who sing about sex between male species in school toilet? This is busines. Gay peoples do gay busines and they want to involve as more peoples as it possible. They need more profit - there are nothing about morale. This is very aggressive marketing. You know, big amount yong peoples start gay life only because older gay has a money and ... he pays ...

Anyway please think about such fact - there are only 3% of earth humankind who are genetical gays. Look at Fox timeline - You will find that about 10% of Fox's timeline is propaganding gay/gay style/gay sex. Is it strange? Is it propaganda of gay style of living? For example - about 10% of americans are muslims. Can You find something propaganding Islam on Fox?

Another fact. Statistic shows that about 6-8% of peoples claims that those are connected to gay lifestyle. Can You tell me who are those 5% non genetical gays? Are they perverts? Are they mentall healthy?

[lobo]

Illegal immigrants WHO DON'T PAY TAXES are much more likely to take money from your kids than are married gay couples WHO PAY THEIR TAXES.
Yep. You tell it. Those immigrants likes to pay taxes ... but only because american goverment makes them illegal - it is impossible. You know, peoples want better life and they will pay taxes for it.

Anyway - simple solution - do all immigrants legal and you will get those taxes. Shure - You will be first man who will vote for restriction of immigrant's rights, only because of - THIS IS REAL SEGREGATION! EAT YOUR IMMIGRANT'S LUNCH WITHOUT US!

[GoingNova]

On my way to work, and I don't have time to defend Lobo. In his defense, there IS (deny it if you want, just like you can deny rampant left leaning media bias, but it still exists) a radical homesexual movement in this country who's ultimate goal is to change people's general perception of homosexuality from

"If you want to be gay, that is your choice, no problem"

TO

"Every person has a choice - you can be hetrosexual, homosexual, or bi-sexual"

Again, I am on my way out the door, so please excuse my lack of being able to formulate my thoughts in the best way, but I disagree with the notion that my children, or the nation for that matter, should be indoctrinated into the gay movement. I believe that you are born hetrosexual, and you make the choice to be homosexual or bi-sexual. Do you have the right to make that choice, absolutely. Do you have have the right to force me and society as a whole to accept your behavior as part of the normal human pattern?Nnot until you show me concrete evidience that people are born gay. Until then, no one has the right to say that you can not be gay, and no one has the right to say that gay behavior is normal. My religion has NOTHING to do with this belief.

Accept people for who they are, but stop trying to force your beliefs down my throat. I find it funny that the right is always being attacked for being intolerrent of others, when I find that to be generally untrue. In fact, I find the opposite to be true more often - it is the left, the "tolerant" people, who try and ram their beliefs down everyone's throat, and attack you without mercy should you dare oppose their beliefs. Now don't start quoting radical right wingers, because I can quote just as many radical left wingers who do the same. I am speaking GENERALLY. Generally speaking, I find the left to be much more intolerant than the right. Granted, I live in NY, which is Liberal, so of course my view would be biased.

Off to work! DAMN THIS FORUM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ME ALWAYS BEING LATE! :lol:

When will I learn to only check it when I have free time! :nod:

[mthrlangl]

On my way to work, and I don't have time to defend Lobo. In his defense, there IS (deny it if you want, just like you can deny rampant left leaning media bias, but it still exists) a radical homesexual movement in this country who's ultimate goal is to change people's general perception of homosexuality from

"If you want to be gay, that is your choice, no problem"

TO

"Every person has a choice - you can be hetrosexual, homosexual, or bi-sexual"

Again, I am on my way out the door, so please excuse my lack of being able to formulate my thoughts in the best way, but I disagree with the notion that my children, or the nation for that matter, should be indoctrinated into the gay movement. I believe that you are born hetrosexual, and you make the choice to be homosexual or bi-sexual. Do you have the right to make that choice, absolutely. Do you have have the right to force me and society as a whole to accept your behavior as part of the normal human pattern?Nnot until you show me concrete evidience that people are born gay. Until then, no one has the right to say that you can not be gay, and no one has the right to say that gay behavior is normal. My religion has NOTHING to do with this belief.

Accept people for who they are, but stop trying to force your beliefs down my throat. I find it funny that the right is always being attacked for being intolerrent of others, when I find that to be generally untrue. In fact, I find the opposite to be true more often - it is the left, the "tolerant" people, who try and ram their beliefs down everyone's throat, and attack you without mercy should you dare oppose their beliefs. Now don't start quoting radical right wingers, because I can quote just as many radical left wingers who do the same. I am speaking GENERALLY. Generally speaking, I find the left to be much more intolerant than the right. Granted, I live in NY, which is Liberal, so of course my view would be biased.

Off to work! DAMN THIS FORUM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ME ALWAYS BEING LATE! :lol:

When will I learn to only check it when I have free time! :nod:

Do the Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index.html) ring any bells for you, dear? Gosh, it must suck to be rejected from your own party based on your sexual orientation.

I give up. I can't stay out of this argument.

[jourgenson]

Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

The problem with this issue on the national level is that it shouldn't be a national issue at all at the current point. It's sort of like worrying about cleaning out your gutters when your house is on fire. At this point war and safety and protecting the future and our children's futures have to take a front seat to this type of civil rights/morality issue. That being said:

Another problem is that in this debate it seems that separate issues are being thrown together in the same argument. Issues of morality and sexual preference should have no place in this discussion. Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions will never be a slippery slope to allowing mothers to marry sons or goats to marry men or whatever. Even if there was same-sex marriage then 2 brothers still would not be allowed to marry. Now I'm not sure what the particular laws in each state are regarding incest etc. as each state is a bit different. Certainly cousins far enough removed would be allowed to be married as they are now, but my argument is not about the specifics of each states' laws.

The fear that judges will use this change in marriage code as a precedent to throw up their hands and say that anyone can marry anything, is somewhat farfetched. Yes different judges have different personal views than other judges on both sides of any issue but there is simply not this conspiracy of judges with this crazy marriage agenda. The system is far too disorganized to allow such a thing even if such a conspiracy existed. And let's saying a judge did come up with a completely outlandish (in the eyes of the citizens) decision, this would be appealed and go through the system of checks and balances. So even if the courts decide a law allows something it wasn't intended to, then it goes back to the legislature to correct the laws.

Incest, pologomy, bestiality, S&M are all separate issues. S&M is completely legal and has nothing to do with marriage so this is a red herring. Bestiality is most likely illegal and will remain as such and there is no connection between a civil union between 2 humans and between a human and non-human, the law is quite capable of differentiating here. Pologomy is illegal and has been ever since the Mormans attempted to normalize it and were almost destroyed by the U.S. government as a result. But, it is certainly is not illegal to live with multiple women and treat them as wives which does in fact happen under our current laws. Incest is illegal in most cases for close relatives, siblings, 1st cousins etc. The level of separation required varies by state. So it is by and large illegal, and would prevent marriage but it is not something that the authorities would typically anything about unless it was non-consenual or involved someone underage. So while it may be illegal, in a de facto allowed even at this point unless it was flaunted or involved minors etc. Marriage would however, be illegal. It's sort of like the sodomy laws that many states have which technically outlaw oral sex.

The same arguments about slippery slope where made when mixed race marriages were being legalized and it is pretty clear that that was the correct choice.

[lobo]

In his defense, there IS /*sniffed*/ a radical homesexual movement in this country who's ultimate goal is to change people's general perception of homosexuality from
Nope. I just told that that this is a big busines and, may be this is radical busines, as any big business it became annoying and it involves and brokes more and more peoples. Statistic shows that amount of unsatisfied peoples is equal in homo and in hetero world. So, if You will migrate from hetero to homo - it will not heal Your mental, but it can add more. But, big money required big sacrifice. So, what we have - one more sweet tail about happy and talented gay peoples.

1) There are no segregation between hetero and homo pairs. I mean - homo peoples was living together, they are living now and will live together in future and nobody can't to prohibit it.

2) Homo peoples are existing between us and nobody restricted those rights, untill those became aggressive. Moreother, if hetero man became aggressive - he will get the same responce from society as a homo.

3) The struggle for gay marriage is just a kind of fraud. You know why? If marriage is made on the heaven - the earth laws does not work on heaven and You do nor care about earth. If marriage is made to keep more money from goverment - this is a fraud, as a marying on wealthy immigrant to get his money for his citisinship.

There are exists some mental conditions, which makes some peoples to do a struggle for opening already opened door. Is it insanity? Somebody want to make us to beleive that exists a culture and that exists a GAY CULTURE. This is ridiculos. Those peoples are trying You to beleive that one people are better than another. And that's why You are thinking about mythical segregation.

My point is - there are not exists such a segregation - some peoples has stick around it only because this segregation exists in those brains.

[mousefur]

I've stayed out of this thread on purpose. I thought that it would make a much better debate if I did. I have resisted reading it except very briefly at the beginning. Part of me wishes that I had stayed out of it totally.

It certainly has changed my view on some of the people who post in this forum. I have never heard such a load of racist, homophobic, ignorant clap trap before. And I'm saying that as the daughter of immigrants and an out bi-sexual single parent who is engaged to marry a woman....believe me, I've heard a lot of clap trap before.

To answer some of your misguided questions:

Yes it is my decision to do what I like behind closed doors. It is also my descision to do what I like out in the open. Out in the open I am a senior manager, I work damn hard for my money to raise my son and hopefully support myself and my wife-to-be when we are old. If I should happen to get run over by a bus my partner will be entitled to nothing....none of my house, none of my money, no custody of my child, no choice about my funeral, no right to say "turn the machines off" if i end up a vegetable. This person who loves me, knows everything about me...all my hopes and dreams, will not be able to help me fulfill them. This is not asking any more than anyone else on the planet is entitled to. I am in love with an adult with free will who is absolutely no relation of mine. I am insulted that peadophilia and beastiality have even been brought into this thread. How is joining in a legal life partnership with someone you love changing the definition of marriage? I always wanted to marry someone who loved and respected me, someone who knew me and loved me for all my faults, someone who was always on my side, someone who I cared so deeply about that I would move heaven and earth to make them happy, someone who I could see by my side when I am old and grey. Is that any different to what any of you want? Is it sick, perverse or unnatural?

To answer further, I am the daughter of two straight parents, I am well educated, literate, articulate and well repected in my field. My son is also well on his way to being the same, he is intelligent and unusually articulate for his age. I think it's bizarre that sexuality has been linked to intelligence here.

I think it's ironic that the words "Homosexuals try to ram thier beliefs down peoples throats" have been used. So far all I have read is a load of ignorant straight bigots doing just that.

I have tried very hard not to cause offence. I apologise if I have caused any. I have stated some of my views and tried to let you see the other side of it. By all means answer/question what I have said but bear in mind how I have answered you. I have answered with respect and curtesy...all I ask is that you do the same.

[lobo]

I have never heard such a load of racist, homophobic, ignorant clap trap before.
:rotflmao:
Sorry, fur :(

I am washing my hands ...

[GoingNova]

Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions will never be a slippery slope to allowing mothers to marry sons or goats to marry men or whatever. Even if there was same-sex marriage then 2 brothers still would not be allowed to marry. Now I'm not sure what the particular laws in each state are regarding incest etc. as each state is a bit different. Certainly cousins far enough removed would be allowed to be married as they are now, but my argument is not about the specifics of each states' laws

I do not understand how you can make that statement. You can not one hand say that consenting adults must be allowed to enter into any form of union they wish, and the governement must recognize that union, and then turn around and say, well, we did not mean two consenting incestious adults. Grant Civil Unions the same rights as married people, and forget the whole thing. Then, when the incestious people want to be recognizea as being married, you have a leg to stand on in denying them.

[Diesel]

Grant Civil Unions the same rights as married people, and forget the whole thing.

I fail to see the reasoning behind allowing a couple all the legal rights and distinctions, but not allowing them to be bestowed the same title. If the legal rights and disctinctions are equal to them being married, then it's pretty "nitpickish" to then say they're not married, because they don't define your definition of marriage, but the legal disctinction says they are.

[GoingNova]

IHow is joining in a legal life partnership with someone you love changing the definition of marriage?

Because marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Period. To allow for men and men and women and women is changing the definition.

[QUOTE=mousefur]I think it's ironic that the words "Homosexuals try to ram thier beliefs down peoples throats" have been used. So far all I have read is a load of ignorant straight bigots doing just that.[QUOTE=mousefur]

So because I believe that homosexual activists are trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of the country that makes me an "ignorant straight bigot?" You are entitled to NOT BE harmed or discriminated against based soley on your sexual orientation, just like the rest of country. Being homosexual does not entitle you to insist that anyone accept what you do as either right or wrong, just like me being a hetrosexual does not entitle me to insist that anyone accept my views. I have openly said that I belive that homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as a married man and woman, but that does not mean they, and they are alone, are entitled to change the definition of the term marriage. If that happens, LEGALLY, how can you stop anyone else from doing the same.

Speaking for myself, I am not passing judgement on anyone. To me, this is a legal issue and nothing more. I have homosexual friends, and I respect their choice to do as they please, just as they respect my right to disagree with what they do. I have hetrosexual friends that, on occasion, use drugs. I disagree with them on that issue, but that does not mean I am not their friends.

[GoingNova]

I fail to see the reasoning behind allowing a couple all the legal rights and distinctions, but not allowing them to be bestowed the same title. If the legal rights and disctinctions are equal to them being married, then it's pretty "nitpickish" to then say they're not married, because they don't define your definition of marriage, but the legal disctinction says they are.

:banghead: Because, if you allow one group of people to change the definition of something to fit their needs, you can not stop another group of people from doing the same thing. If you allow homosexuals to be married by saying that consenting adults are allowed to be married and the government must recognize it, how can you deny a brother and a sister that same right? How can you deny a man and four women? Now, if you want to argue that they all should be allowed, and that you see no reason to deny any of them, that is another story. Then we disagree, and God Bless you! Unless you believe that ANY relationship between ANY consenting adults that does not hurt or effect anyone else, should be sanctioned by the government, then you can not simply allow for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage to include them, but deny another group the same right.

And by the way, the definition of marriage is what it is, it is not MY definition Diesel.

[GoingNova]

IHow is joining in a legal life partnership with someone you love changing the definition of marriage?

Because marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Period. To allow for men and men and women and women is changing the definition.

[QUOTE=mousefur]I think it's ironic that the words "Homosexuals try to ram thier beliefs down peoples throats" have been used. So far all I have read is a load of ignorant straight bigots doing just that.[QUOTE=mousefur]

So because I believe that homosexual activists are trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of the country that makes me an "ignorant straight bigot?" You are entitled to NOT BE harmed or discriminated against based soley on your sexual orientation, just like the rest of country. Being homosexual does not entitle you to insist that anyone accept what you do as either right or wrong, just like me being a hetrosexual does not entitle me to insist that anyone accept my views. I have openly said that I belive that homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as a married man and woman, but that does not mean they, and they are alone, are entitled to change the definition of the term marriage. If that happens, LEGALLY, how can you stop anyone else from doing the same.

Speaking for myself, I am not passing judgement on anyone. To me, this is a legal issue and nothing more. I have homosexual friends, and I respect their choice to do as they please, just as they respect my right to disagree with what they do. I have hetrosexual friends that, on occasion, use drugs. I disagree with them on that issue, but that does not mean I am not their friends.

[jourgenson]

I do not understand how you can make that statement. You can not one hand say that consenting adults must be allowed to enter into any form of union they wish, and the governement must recognize that union, and then turn around and say, well, we did not mean two consenting incestious adults. Grant Civil Unions the same rights as married people, and forget the whole thing. Then, when the incestious people want to be recognizea as being married, you have a leg to stand on in denying them.

Well, we allow marriage now between 2 different-sex people now right? Has this always been the case? No, it used to be illegal in many areas for mixed race marriages so the institution has changed it has always adjudst with the times. I never said the law would read "consenting adults must be allowed to enter into any form of union they wish." The law would simply allow same-sex partners to enter into a civil union or marriage, whichever word you wnat to use. The same laws that prevent insest would still exist. These are different laws, or parts of the same law, that would not change. It comes down to this same sex couples should have the right to share the benefits of being "married." Benefits like sharing health care, having the ability to have say in the case of a partner's death and all the little things that married couples take for granted

The laws of our country are more complex and capable than your're giving them credit for. I'm a little confused here though. By saying, "Grant Civil Unions the same rights as married people, and forget the whole thing," are you saying that we should grant rights to civik unions or that if we do it then ruins the whole instituiotion of marriage. Seriously, this can be read both ways. I guess I'm not sure where you're coming from and this may be an argument about semantics. Basically, in my opinion, the word Civil Union and Mariage are synonyms as far as a secular government is concerned. The only difference is when it comes to religion and how different religions look view the institution.

[GoingNova]

Well, we allow marriage now between 2 different-sex people now right? Has this always been the case? No, it used to be illegal in many areas for mixed race marriages so the institution has changed it has always adjudst with the times. I never said the law would read "consenting adults must be allowed to enter into any form of union they wish." The law would simply allow same-sex partners to enter into a civil union or marriage, whichever word you wnat to use. The same laws that prevent insest would still exist. These are different laws, or parts of the same law, that would not change. It comes down to this same sex couples should have the right to share the benefits of being "married." Benefits like sharing health care, having the ability to have say in the case of a partner's death and all the little things that married couples take for granted

Very well said. While simply adding homsexuals would be better than the blanketing "consenting adults" argument, it still can be used to bring up the other issues. I use the "consenting adults" term because that is what is most likely used to defend the issue. The problem I have here is Jorugenson is that once you allow for homesexuals to be added, it would be difficult to not allow some others. Incest, if the people involved do have children, hurts no one. Yes it is currently illegal, but that illegality can be challenged, and, were I a person who was incestious, I would be hoping that homosexuals argued their point first, since society sees homosexuality as much more reasonable than incest. Once they do, however, I would use many of the same arguments that they used to argue my point. I will give you that it may be a stretch, but I do not think what I am saying so far fetched.


"Grant Civil Unions the same rights as married people, and forget the whole thing,"

Sorry, hehehehe, what I meant was, grant Civil Unions the same right as marriages. Then:

Hetrosexuals - mind your own business, and let people do as they want
Homosexuals - accept that not everyone approves of your behavior, and it should not matter what others think, do what you feel is right

In other words, lets just move on already, and solve this issue in a way all parties can be reasonably happy.

[jourgenson]

:banghead: Because, if you allow one group of people to change the definition of something to fit their needs, you can not stop another group of people from doing the same thing. If you allow homosexuals to be married by saying that consenting adults are allowed to be married and the government must recognize it, how can you deny a brother and a sister that same right? How can you deny a man and four women? Now, if you want to argue that they all should be allowed, and that you see no reason to deny any of them, that is another story. Then we disagree, and God Bless you! Unless you believe that ANY relationship between ANY consenting adults that does not hurt or effect anyone else, should be sanctioned by the government, then you can not simply allow for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage to include them, but deny another group the same right.

And by the way, the definition of marriage is what it is, it is not MY definition Diesel.

This does appear to be a difference in semantics then.

Below is the first definition of the word marriage I found from dictionary.com. Now this is not, probably the best dictionary in the world but it is the first one I tried, but I no longer have a subscription to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) which of course is the definitive source (anyone else have access to this through a college login possibly?). Your argument that marriage has a definition that shouldn't change is flawed in that you are basing this on an active language that changes over time. The constant in language is that it changes, and it changes quite on it's own. Even the government cannot claim the power to change language.

You certainly have the right to believe that marriage is a hetero sexual institution as do religious groups. I'm not even saying your wrong, although in 200 years my guess is that most people would barely remember a time when there was a difference, but that is strictly conjecture. I do think it is moderately silly to differentiate between marriage and civil unions based on the words themselves. If somethings looks like a duck and smells like a duck then.... well you get it. That being said, if providing civil roights to same sex couples gets through easier calling it a civil union then by all means that's what the gov't should call it.

I completely disagree with one point though, "if you allow one group of people to change the definition of something to fit their needs, you can not stop another group of people from doing the same thing." A few years ago the speed limits in many states changed from 55 to 65 MPH. This is not a precedent that allows congress to say, "Well we did change it before, so we don't have the ability to stop from rasing it to 500 MPH." Now in 1,000 years there may in fact be vehicles that go 500 MPH safely and the laws may need to be changed. This is simply how law evolves. Government reacts to the will of the people, at least that's the plan. And in a Representative Democracy the gov't is there to protect the minority from the majority which is why civil rights laws and the Bill of Rights exists to protect those not powerful enough to protect themselves.

ANd to reiterate a point from earlier, marriage laws used to foirbid mixed-race unions. If you go back farther into origin of the word and institution you may find that Nobilty could not legally marry peasents or that citizens could not marry non-citizens. Or that protestants could not marry Catholics or that Big-Endians could not marry Small-Endians (Apologies to Jonathan Swift) or any number of social rules that are considered a bit old fashioned today. Not to say that your views in case are old-fashioned just to suggest that in the past the word itself and the definition has changed before and that this has not really caused any problems.

The bootom line is that we basically agree. Same-sex partners should be able to have the rights of opposite-sex married partners as far as the gov't is concerned. The words used to describe these unions shouldn't be legislated as they are up to the people to choose the words they used which shapes the meanings of language in the future.





mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

and here is Webster's def:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

[GoingNova]

Ok, I want to gather my thoughts, and argue my point, leaving religion and emotion out of it.

[MO]

:puke:

[GoingNova]

Jorgenson, I want to thank you for a well thought out and civil response. It is much appreciated,and I say that with the utmost sincerity. Many of your points are valid, and I will not argue them further. I feel that I need to explain myself better. Perhaps that is the problem.

I see the gay marriage issue as one side. In this case "the gay activists", and I put that in quotes because I believe most gay people honestly do not care what others think and they just want to go about living their lives,these gay activists are trying to force a country to accept their values. It seems to me that they insist that we accept their lifestyle as normal, and quite frankly, I do not. Does that mean I hate them? No. Does that mean I say they are going to "rot in hell forever!"? No. It simply means that I do not approve of what they are doing. I happen to be a very faithful husband, and I happen to frown on infidelity. Does that mean that I hate my friends who cheat on their wives? No. It simply means that I do not approve of their behavior. Friends of mine try to justify their actions to me all the time, and still I say to them, you are married, cheating is wrong. But the bottom line is, gays are adults, my friends are adults, my opinion is just that, MY opinion, and they are free to do what they please. Life goes on.

Gays have fought for, and rightfully so, the right to be granted civil unions. If someone chooses (and I do not believe you are born gay, if you want to start another debate on that, start the thread and I would love to have a civil debate on that issue) to be gay, it is their right. If they want to grant the same status to their partner that I do my wife, it is their right to do so. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is the fact they want to be recognized as being "married". Provided they are granted civil unions, I can see no other reason for the insistence of being called married, other than to force society to put a stamp of approval, a forced acceptance, on homosexuality. What I find equally offensive, if not more, are the people who defend this action, this forcing me to accept a particular behavior, who are so fierce in their condemnation of me for not accepting gay behavior, that they fail to see it is THEY who are being intolerant, not I. What, in my opinion, makes this situation even worse, is that I see no need to broadcast one's sexuality in the first place. To me, it has no relevance whatsoever. What people do in their the privacy of their own homes is their business.

In regards to the legal aspect, I think it would be fair to say that one has to watch every court case very carefully, since many times for a case to progress, there needs to be a line of cases before it to "pave the way" so to speak. Case in point, the sodomy case in Texas started this whole gay marriage thing in the first place. Even I thought the sodomy law was outdated, but none the less, I feared that once it was ruled unconstitutional, it would pave the way for cases such as the gay marriage issue.

It is my belief that once a court recognizes gay marriage, it opens the way for other groups to come forward and demand recognition. I have said this time and time again, and no one has answered it directly, but legally speaking, if you accept gay marriage, how will you LEGALLY be able to reject any other form of marriage? On what ground would you stand saying that a man and his daughter could not get married? How could you legally deny a sister and brother the right to get married? Now before we go further, let's just say both "couples" involved are unable to have children, removing the "the child could have defects" argument. How could you legally NOT recognize such a union if that were the case! The fact is, already a man filed to be able to have more than one wife! Now, if you think that people should be able to engage in such relationships, that is of course your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. So, what is my point? Why do I care if we recognize incestious relationships, or pologomy, or whatever else comes forward? Personally, I do not think these types of relationships are healthy for anyone, and I certainly do not think we, as a society, should put a "stamp of approval" on them. Need we admonish people who engage in S&M, well, that is open to debate, but we certainly do no good by saying that S&M is normal behavior, because it is not.

If you are gay, and anyone abuses you in any way because you are gay, then they are wrong, and legal action should be taken. Just in the same way that if my wife is assualted because she is a woman, or discriminated against because she is a woman, she has the right to take legal action. If you chose to live with someone, and engage in a civil union, then good luck, and may you and yours be entitled to all the rights that my wife and I have. I wish you the best of luck, and a long and healthy life. But you do not have the right to force me, and the majority of the country, to accept your behavior if we choose not to. That is my opinion.

[nootch]

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect at all in any of what I am about to say. I will be as candid as possible, however, I have a slightly sarcastic nature so read between the lines and don't take it personally.

I see the gay marriage issue as one side. In this case "the gay activists", and I put that in quotes because I believe most gay people honestly do not care what others think and they just want to go about living their lives,these gay activists are trying to force a country to accept their values.

I am not gay, and I'm far from being an activist. However, I still have a strong opinion about this topic and I am for same-sex marriages. Does that make it two sides now?

It seems to me that they insist that we accept their lifestyle as normal, and quite frankly, I do not. Does that mean I hate them? No. Does that mean I say they are going to "rot in hell forever!"? No. It simply means that I do not approve of what they are doing.

Well, I do not approve of the fact that you do not approve of "what they are doing". Which one of our opinions is more important? The answer is obviously (and I really hope this is obvious for everyone): neither.

I happen to be a very faithful husband, and I happen to frown on infidelity. Does that mean that I hate my friends who cheat on their wives? No. It simply means that I do not approve of their behavior. Friends of mine try to justify their actions to me all the time, and still I say to them, you are married, cheating is wrong. But the bottom line is, gays are adults, my friends are adults, my opinion is just that, MY opinion, and they are free to do what they please. Life goes on.

It's unfortunate that you have to put that whole disclaimer in there to prove that you're not a gay-bashing hatemonger, but I understand. Sometimes, when you believe in something, you get pigeonholed and people make unfair assumptions about you. Not unlike the assumptions that many people make that homosexuals are promiscuous sexual deviants. Unfortunate.

Gays have fought for, and rightfully so, the right to be granted civil unions. If someone chooses (and I do not believe you are born gay, if you want to start another debate on that, start the thread and I would love to have a civil debate on that issue) to be gay, it is their right.

Again, your opinion versus mine... and I'm sure for every "credible source" you have that proves it's a choice, I can find a "credible source" that proves otherwise. Realistically though, I don't believe this has to do with whether or not the marriages should be legal (I mean, I don't think "white" people are born with the intention to marry "black" people, nor do I think it's a problem that some "white" people choose to marry some "black" people).

If they want to grant the same status to their partner that I do my wife, it is their right to do so. I have no problem with that.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have a very big problem with that. The most important, at least to me (and perhaps many others), status right that you and your wife have is the right to be married.

The problem I have is the fact they want to be recognized as being "married".

Oh okay, so you already know that you just contradicted yourself?

Provided they are granted civil unions, I can see no other reason for the insistence of being called married, other than to force society to put a stamp of approval, a forced acceptance, on homosexuality.

I wouldn't dare insult you by assuming I know why you wanted to marry your wife. I understand there are some financial benefits and such. However, since I was a child I had this idea of falling in love and getting married and being a family (well, a different family from the one that I was the child in... if that makes sense). I'm not married, but I still look forward to "being married" and what that represents (which, to me, is total love and trust for another person). When the time finally comes and I'm ready to take that step, though, I think it would have a lot less meaning if I was just "united civilly" rather than "married". Can you see that as a possible reason for "the insistence of being called married, other than to force society to put a stamp of approval, a forced acceptance, on homosexuality"? I'm not asking you to agree, just if you can see it as a logical, possible reason.

What I find equally offensive, if not more, are the people who defend this action, this forcing me to accept a particular behavior, who are so fierce in their condemnation of me for not accepting gay behavior, that they fail to see it is THEY who are being intolerant, not I.

No one is forcing you to do anything. If gay marriages are permitted, your lifestyle doesn't change at all; you don't suddenly have to accept homosexuality as normal if you don't want to. However, if gay marriages are banned, many loving, monogamous homosexual couples are prevented from living the same romantic dream that I have: to one day be married and be part of a family of their own.

It's like this: I believe in separation of Church and State. However, our President is very religious and doesn't hide this fact at all. Some guy wants to ban Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn into office next week. Who's being more intolerant, Bush (who, for argument's sake, is not really forcing any religious ideals on anyone) or the guy that wants to prevent Bush from expressing his beliefs? Also keep in mind that religion is a choice, and often times someone who is of a certain religion believes that someone who is of another religion is "making the wrong choice" (not that you have a problem with him/her, but that you disagree with his fundamental choice). Do you see how this relates to our topic? Do you see that, perhaps you really are being more intolerant than those who are standing up for the rights of others (even if you don't mean to be)?

What, in my opinion, makes this situation even worse, is that I see no need to broadcast one's sexuality in the first place. To me, it has no relevance whatsoever. What people do in their the privacy of their own homes is their business.

Again, you are completely contradicting yourself. It is their very sexuality that is causing the problem for you. What if they get "married" in their own home? Can they still wear rings if they have a civil union? What if they want to hold hands or perhaps kiss in public? When does it become "broadcasting" one's sexuality?

It is my belief that once a court recognizes gay marriage, it opens the way for other groups to come forward and demand recognition.

It is my belief that you are absolutely wrong. In fact, I'm sure of it. It wasn't long ago that interracial marriages weren't allowed. Women didn't used to have the right to vote. I think we have enough proof that we can change the way we do things without creating utter chaos.

I have said this time and time again, and no one has answered it directly, but legally speaking, if you accept gay marriage, how will you LEGALLY be able to reject any other form of marriage?

If there is a constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as being between a "man" and a "woman", how can you LEGALLY be able reject another constitutional ammendment to make it between a "white man" and a "white woman"? Sounds like an absurd question, doesn't it? So does yours. Again, history proves that we can make changes without creating utter chaos.

If you chose to live with someone, and engage in a civil union, then good luck, and may you and yours be entitled to all the rights that my wife and I have. I wish you the best of luck, and a long and healthy life. But you do not have the right to force me, and the majority of the country, to accept your behavior if we choose not to. That is my opinion.


Once again, you should be more clear and state that you don't REALLY mean that they should be entitled to all the rights that you and your wife have.

The fact is that in the future, same-sex marriages will be legal and everyone will look back at this whole thing exactly like the interracial marriage issue.

[GoingNova]

Nootch, I have no time now, but I look forward to replying to your reply later today. 8)

[GoingNova]

I am not gay, and I'm far from being an activist. However, I still have a strong opinion about this topic and I am for same-sex marriages. Does that make it two sides now?

The crux of statement was simple: gay activists are lobbying to get acceptance of their behavior by trying to inundate popular culture with gays. They are successfully doing it on television. It is a very basic concept actually: the more people see something, the easier it is for them to accept it as normal behavior. By putting so many gay characters on tv, people will start to think of them as normal. Right now, the majority of the country does not see homosexuality as normal. That is a fact. Whether homosexuality is or is not normal is not the point of this particular statement. My point was, I see one group trying to coerce another group into trying to accept what they do. I prefaced the statement with "I see it", which informs the reader that is my opinion. I did not provide facts, I was merely stating my opinion. I am entitled to have an opinion, right?



Well, I do not approve of the fact that you do not approve of "what they are doing". Which one of our opinions is more important? The answer is obviously (and I really hope this is obvious for everyone): neither.

I fail to see the reasoning for this statement. What is your point? So, I am not allowed to approve or disapprove of something? If I disapprove of someone's behavior, I am a bad person? Did I ever say that my opinion mattered more than your opinion? What exactly is your point? My statement was used to present my point of view. What is wrong with that?



It's unfortunate that you have to put that whole disclaimer in there to prove that you're not a gay-bashing hatemonger, but I understand. Sometimes, when you believe in something, you get pigeonholed and people make unfair assumptions about you. Not unlike the assumptions that many people make that homosexuals are promiscuous sexual deviants. Unfortunate.

I agree, it is unfortunate that in today's world, instead of respecting someone for having an opinion, people tend to resort to name calling and snide remarks. I could not agree more. It is a shame. But, so often is the case, just as your example, that I felt it necessary to throw it in there. I am glad you agreed. The difference between me, and "many people", is I come right out and say what I believe, rather than hide it in snide, sarcastic remarks.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you have a very big problem with that. The most important, at least to me (and perhaps many others), status right that you and your wife have is the right to be married.

On what basis do you have the authority to say that I have a "VERY BIG" problem with Civil Unions? A Civil Union is a "marriage" between gay people. It affords them all the rights of a married couple. So how can you say I am trying to deny any status to them? Two gay people, under Civil Unions, have the same rights my wife and I have. What are you saying; they must have the right to say they "married"? Marriage is a tradition of being a man and a woman. Why do you, insist on destroying that tradition? Why? Can you answer that please? I am sorry that way back in history, when the marriage tradition was started, that it did not include homosexuals. Sorry, it didn’t. Again I ask, please tell me, why do you insist on breaking a tradition that the majority of the people in this country still hold dear? Start your own tradition! Why do you insist on tearing down others?

Oh okay, so you already know that you just contradicted yourself?

I did not contradict myself. The tradition of marriage does not include homosexuals. A Civil Union grants the same rights to a gay couple that a marriage grants to a heterosexual couple. Once again, I believe the only reason homosexuals are not satisfied with Civil Unions is because they want to force people to recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.

I wouldn't dare insult you by assuming I know why you wanted to marry your wife. I understand there are some financial benefits and such. However, since I was a child I had this idea of falling in love and getting married and being a family (well, a different family from the one that I was the child in... if that makes sense). I'm not married, but I still look forward to "being married" and what that represents (which, to me, is total love and trust for another person). When the time finally comes and I'm ready to take that step, though, I think it would have a lot less meaning if I was just "united civilly" rather than "married". Can you see that as a possible reason for "the insistence of being called married, other than to force society to put a stamp of approval, a forced acceptance, on homosexuality"? I'm not asking you to agree, just if you can see it as a logical, possible reason.

LOL... to be honest, I think this was the best part of your entire post, and I think this paragraph alone would have explained your position better than all your other statements. ;)

In answer to your question, yes, I do see your point, but I would counter it this way. Why would the fact that you and someone else you love each have decided to spend the rest of your life together have "less meaning" based solely on the word that defined your relationship? Moreover, why do you insist on destroying the meaning of a word, marriage, to me, when by all rights, that word was created to define my wife and I? As I said, I am sorry, but the tradition of marriage has been between a man and a woman. It just has, and the majority of the country does not want to change that tradition. So why do you insist on destroying it?

No one is forcing you to do anything.

Yes, you are. You are forcing me to change a tradition that I do not want to change.

However, if gay marriages are banned, many loving, monogamous homosexual couples are prevented from living the same romantic dream that I have: to one day be married and be part of a family of their own.

How are you preventing loving, monogamous homosexual couples from living a dream? How old are you? MARRIAGE IS NO DREAM! :lol:

Seriously though, what about my romantic dreams? My romantic dream was to find a beautiful woman. Trust me when I tell you, if you throw a man into that dream, all semblance of romance is gone! So once again I ask, why do you insist on destroying someone's dream to preserve someone else’s, when the easier solution would be for homosexuals to start their own romantic traditions, and associate them with Civil Unions.

It's like this: I believe in separation of Church and State. However, our President is very religious and doesn't hide this fact at all. Some guy wants to ban Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn into office next week. Who's being more intolerant, Bush (who, for argument's sake, is not really forcing any religious ideals on anyone) or the guy that wants to prevent Bush from expressing his beliefs? Also keep in mind that religion is a choice, and often times someone who is of a certain religion believes that someone who is of another religion is "making the wrong choice" (not that you have a problem with him/her, but that you disagree with his fundamental choice). Do you see how this relates to our topic? Do you see that, perhaps you really are being more intolerant than those who are standing up for the rights of others (even if you don't mean to be)?

This is weird, but I agree on your point, I just see it differently. I do not see this as me not allowing gays to express their opinions. They have Civil Unions. I see it as they who are not allowing me to express my views: marriage is a tradition reserved for a man and a woman. I see my view as fact: history and tradition supports my view. They are trying to force me to change that. I am not being intolerant; they are trying to force me to accept something I do not want to.

Again, you are completely contradicting yourself. It is their very sexuality that is causing the problem for you. What if they get "married" in their own home? Can they still wear rings if they have a civil union? What if they want to hold hands or perhaps kiss in public? When does it become "broadcasting" one's sexuality?

It is not their sexuality that is causing the problem for me, it their insistence that I accept it has normal and approve of it.

They can get married in their own home, but they can not force the State to recognize it as a marriage. They can call it a marriage if they want to, they call it whatever they want to, but they should not be allowed to force anyone to call it marriage, when that term has already been defined, and the majority of the people do not want to change it's tradition and definition.

Can they wear rings in a civil union? Why not? It is their tradition, they can wear rings in their noses if they want to!

It becomes "broadcasting one's sexuality" display your sexuality to other people, such as on a float in a parade. Two gay men kissing at a lake in a public park is not the same thing as two men in drag, on a float, simulating anal intercourse. In my opinion, there is no reason for people to have a parade to display sex.

My point is, sexuality has no practical relevance in every day life among strangers.[/quote]


It is my belief that you are absolutely wrong. In fact, I'm sure of it. It wasn't long ago that interracial marriages weren't allowed. Women didn't used to have the right to vote. I think we have enough proof that we can change the way we do things without creating utter chaos.

Actually, history supports my argument. The entire "gay marriage" issue is being pursued in court. Courts use prior cases to establish current cases. The overturning of the Texas Sodomy law was the foundation for the "gay marriage" court case. Interestingly enough, you did not answer my questions. How would you argue against any of those cases?

If there is a