quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think letting two loving people, get married, who care for one another, is very moral
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: conservative man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as it is a man and a woman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if two men fall in love they should not be allowed to marry. But if one of them has a sex change it would then be OK to marry?

Our souls, our brains, our conscience, whatever it is that makes us an individual is only housed in our physical body. What type of plumbing that body comes with should not determine who we can marry, what type of job we can hold or weather we can partake in a liberty that all other Americans have. For example - voting or marrying or attending college.

To deny people the right to get married merely because their plumbing is the same is nothing less than descrimination.

It always starts out as a social steriotype, i.e. only women should be nurses, only men should vote, only women can be teachers, only men can attend college, only men can run for office, etc.

Slowly the public comes to it's senses ussually because the group being discriminated against rebels and says enough! It is social growth and societies have been doing it for centuries. Eventually we will eliminate most of these social steriotypes, all of which are based in fear of change, fear that by giving said group equal rights we may be taking away some of ours.

Open minded people look forward to social change. They know it is growth and inevitable. They also know that making the world more tolerant and giving equall rights to all Americans is the essence of our constituion. It is the good and loving thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

Why are conservatives so focused on other peoples sex lives?

Echo wrote: "Open minded people look forward to social change."

Abortion being overturned would be a social change. Are you open minded?

People are only "open-minded" to the social changes with which they agree.

("Abortion" will never be overturned.

The Roe vs. Wade decision might be overturned someday, but people will still have abortions. They had them before Roe vs. Wade.

The only people who will be denied safe abortions if they become illegal again are poor people.)

There is absolutely no reason to worry about what consenting adults do in private. It is evil to think you can tell someone how to live. If you THINK you know better than someone just pray for them to figure it out sooner than later. You probably don't know as much as you think you do, though.

Originally posted by Echo2
Why are conservatives so focused on other peoples sex lives?

Yeah, that's it...:rolleyes:

I didn't mean for this to go off topic. I was just making an analogy about open mindedness.

It's pretty weird he didn't catch that...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, that's it...:rolleyes:
You have to admit, the more extreme members of your political wing tend to take an unhealthy interest in others' sex lives. Sodomy laws, for example.

Their twisted little minds are constantly worried about what consenting adults do in private, what kind of sex they are having, when they are having it, what position they have it in and how often they have it. Some are even concerned about the reasons for them to have it i.e. procreation.

Ed - Roe v Wade will never be overturned. The supreme court would loose ALL of it's credibility if it flip flopped on this decision and the supreme court justices are aware of it.

Remember how angry all the conservatives get when someone doesn't "stay the course"? Or is it that flip flopping is a bad thing only when a liberal individual does it?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
You have to admit, the more extreme members of your political wing tend to take an unhealthy interest in others' sex lives. Sodomy laws, for example.
Fair enough, I'll give you that...

Too many people worry too much about how other people live their lives, instead of cleaning up their own act.

Originally posted by Echo2
Their twisted little minds are constantly worried about what consenting adults do in private, what kind of sex they are having, when they are having it, what position they have it in and how often they have it.

True.

It's a manifestation of the deep-seated Calvinistic, Puritanical tendencies of the RightWing personality.......repressive, rockribbed societal taboos that extremely superstitous societies have a difficult time ridding themselves of..........


Puritanism; \Pu"ri*tan*ism\, n. -- the knawing, dreadful fear that someone, somewhere might be experiencing happiness or pleasure.

you guys make me sick lol.....

i dont care about what sex you are having....just don't try to tell kids that. If someone disagrees with homosexuality and doesn't want their kids to get into it....let them do that.

Originally posted by Decka
If someone disagrees with homosexuality and doesn't want their kids to get into it....let them do that.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

Who is preventing or trying to prevent parents from doing that??

No one that i am aware of.

The ---"Oh woe is me, they're trying to force something evil on me and my family!" -- persecution complex of the religious faction in this country never ceases to amaze.

Why is plumbing so damned important?

Because without it there would be sh** all over the bathroom floor :D :D

Originally posted by Decka
i dont care about what sex you are having....just don't try to tell kids that. If someone disagrees with homosexuality and doesn't want their kids to get into it....let them do that.
It's your duty to educate your kids about your personal beliefs on homosexuality, not mine. As far as I know, no one is going around telling kids to be gay...

What do you guys think marriage is about? It's not two people being in love and getting married so they can indulge in tax benefits and hospital visitation rights.

Marriage is about brining forth a new generation of people into the world in a stable secure environment. Marriage binds two families together. Marriage is the very nucleus of every single society on the planet. Marriage is important. It is simply not meant for gay couples.


If you guys want to come up with arguments for gay marriage, you would do better than the old spiel that the right of marriage is meant to be stretched to the point of distortion and given to any two, five or ten people who think they are in love and any who don't see it that way are bigoted, homophobic bible thumping morons who would keep blacks in chains, women barefoot and pregnant and its Selma 1963 all over again. Geez, what a crock!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
What do you guys think marriage is about? It's not two people being in love and getting married so they can indulge in tax benefits and hospital visitation rights.

Marriage is about brining forth a new generation of people into the world in a stable secure environment. Marriage binds two families together. Marriage is the very nucleus of every single society on the planet. Marriage is important. It is simply not meant for gay couples.
The government cannot say this. They are DENYING an entire group of people of rights which you and I enjoy. Personally, I would favor striking "marriage" from law altogether and calling anything performed by the government a civil union (given to any couple, gay or straight) and having marriages performed by whoever (churches, synagogues, etc.). And then each individual church is free to marry or deny marriage to whomever they desire.

Until that occurs, it's a simple matter of the state not being allowed to discriminate. Because there is a LEGAL definition of marriage, and it is not what you gave.

Agreed, Borg...;)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
What do you guys think marriage is about? It's not two people being in love and getting married so they can indulge in tax benefits and hospital visitation rights.

Marriage is about brining forth a new generation of people into the world in a stable secure environment.

Bullshit. Marraige is NOT about making babies. Babies are made out of wedlock all the time. Marraiges happen and last without producing chidren all the time. Babies are only one of the posible bi-products of marraige.

Marriage binds two families together.

This happens whether couples are the same sex or different sex's The blending of a family is about love, acceptance and being a part of something. The only time marraige doesn't blend two families together is when one or both of the families doesn't want to be blended due topersonality or societal differences. And that happens with both straight and gay couples.

Marriage is important.

Yes marraige is important to people who love each other and want to announce their life commitment to each other. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation they have. Love is love.

It is simply not meant for gay couples.!

Only in the small minds of those who feel the need to descriminate against an entire group of society becsuse they don't like what thos people do behing closed doors.

I'm convinced all this hate and descrimination has something to do with sexual insecurities and low self esteam. It is well known that people put others down to make themselves feel better.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
What do you guys think marriage is about? It's not two people being in love and getting married so they can indulge in tax benefits and hospital visitation rights.

Marriage is important. It is simply not meant for gay couples.

Right.

And women are not *meant* to wear pants.

And men are not *meant* to be with multiple sexual partners.

And humans are not *meant* to wear clothes made from two different fabrics.

Save your silly superstitions for the next brush arbor meeting.

Marriage is a human invention. Signing a contract between two people who agree to be legally bound by the wording of that contract is a human invention.

You need to get past this infantile concept you have of marriage being something "special" or "holy" or profound.

Marriage ***is*** whatever we as a society DECIDE it is.

Nothing more.

Originally posted by Echo2
It is well known that people put others down to make themselves feel better.
So that's why you do it...

The funny thing is, you started off the post by inferring that Darth belonged to a group of people who collectively possessed "small minds". Good call, hypocrite.

Thank you prae. I was beginning to feel left out. You haven't insulted me all day.

And I still haven't...

Freethinker and Echo,

Geez, I tell you guys not to resort to the old tactic of name calling and stereotyping and the first thing you guys do is name calling (I'm supposed to be sexually disfunctional, low self esteem and get off on making others feel bad) and stereotyping (infantile).

Thinker, I'm disucussing MARRIAGE, not whether or not women are wearing pants. Please stick with the subject.


Echo, not everyone who disagrees with your position is small minded and infantile, and it's small minded and infantile to think so.

Now, whether or not you guys like it, there are zillions of Americans who believe that marriage is profound, sacred and a key component to society. People who hold such institutions in high regard do not go and change them for the benefit of a minority.. I've stated my reasons why I view marriage the way I do, and I did so without name calling. If you guys wish to change the way marriage is viewed, you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than name calling the opposition. And you are going to have to be able to convince the majority of society why gay marriage should be extended homosexual pairs. You will have to come up with better than gay people should have the same rights as "everybody else" and everyone who doesn't see it so is some kind of bigot.

Darth, I don't recall calling you anything. I simply stated my personal oppinion of haters and descriminaters. Now if you are admitting to being a hater and a descriminator then you fall into that catagory and might possibly be insulted by my statement. However, if you are not one of the haters and dicriminators then you have no reason to be nasty to me for what I said.

Guess we all know exactly where you stand now.

That was a very good post Darth....well said, you definitely have my support on the issue

decka,

Thanks! It's nice to know my thoughts are appreciated.


Darth

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You will have to come up with better than gay people should have the same rights as "everybody else"....

No, actually, I won't.

The fact is that homosexuals [as well as people with green eyes, left-handed people and people who like mint ice cream] DO deserve the same rights and freedoms accorded **everybody else** living under the US Constitution.

You and your ilk will one day soon lose on this issue. because you stand in direct opposition to justice and ethics and common sense --not to mention the USConstitution.



Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
...and everyone who doesn't see it so is some kind of bigot.


Not everyone who doesn't see it.

Just superstitionists and bigots like you who have the atitude --"Weell, see, --sniff sniff-- marriage is holy and SPEESHUUUUL, and only me and other good "decent" people get to enjoy the legal rights accorded by it!"

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
What do you guys think marriage is about? It's not two people being in love

Really? I got married for love, not to bind two families together and procreate (although that did happen).

Thinker,

Your very arguments cheapen the idea of marriage:

superstitionists and bigots like you who have the atitude --"Weell, see, --sniff sniff-- marriage is holy and SPEESHUUUUL, and only me and other good "decent" people get to enjoy the legal rights accorded by it!"

You need to get past this infantile concept you have of marriage being something "special" or "holy" or profound.

Yet, ironically, you so passionately believe in the right for gays to have access to marriage. If marriage is so cheap to you:

Marriage ***is*** whatever we as a society DECIDE it is.

and not sacred and holy, then why fight so hard to give it to homosexual couples? I find it somewhat difficult to believe you are doing so merely for tax benefits. I do find marriage special, that is why I'm so passionately against the idea of allowing gay marriages.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Really? I got married for love, not to bind two families together and procreate (although that did happen).
Yeah...I know a few people who got married and never had kids, either. They just got married because they loved eachother.

Hmmmm, and what about those women who get married that are INFERTILE? What to do with them?

Echo,

Please read carefully:

Echo, not everyone who disagrees with your position is small minded and infantile, and it's small minded and infantile to think so.

That is not a personal attack, it is merely a statement of fact.

People will disagree on issues, but it doesn't mean that because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them small minded or whatever. It's a statement that I think many on these boards can and should take to heart, both liberal and conservative.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
If marriage is so cheap to you and not sacred and holy, then why fight so hard to give it to homosexual couples?

I am not fighting for it at all.

It will have zero effect on my life if they are allowed it or are not allowed it. (BTW---It will also have no effect on YOUR day to day existence)

I am arguing this point primarily to call attention to the ignorance and the irrationality and the superstition that motivates so many people among us ---like you--- to adamantly DENY them that equal right.

Lionel,

Your very post makes my argument that much stronger. You say you didn't get married for procreation or the binding of families, but that is what happened.

In making my defense for heterosexual marriage. I'm thinking in terms of society (marriage as a basic building block of a community/nation and a stable platform for a new generation) and philososphy (why societies sanction marriage), not personal reasons for getting married.


When you walked down that alter, lionel, I am pretty sure you weren't thinking of marriage in the terms I've posted. But by your own admission, the results fit right in with my definition of marriage. And it's the results that count.

Who decides that marriage is about procreation? You? Really? You get to make that the law for every citizen in America? That’s highly ridiculous and Un-American.

Marriage is for whatever reason you decide it is for. If you want to get married for a child, fine. But you can’t make that the law for EVERYONE. If you are going to allow marriage, you must allow it for all different reasons and for EVERY couple in the United States.

Darth, let me ask you something. I know many married couples who have never had a child. I highly doubt they will ever have a child, for their tubes are tied.

I also know a couple who never got married, but had a child anyway.

So that just makes all of your logic false.

But also, how do you explain the women who are born infertile? They can get married, but they will never be able to create another life. So...umm? Ban marriage for them too? Right? Following your logic of course.

Plus, throughout history (study the Renaissance a bit) they married for improving social status, and wealth. Their parents matched them up with the most suitable husband that would improve their wealth and status in society. Marriage has not always been about procreation, either.

Marriage is about brining forth a new generation of people into the world in a stable secure environment. Marriage binds two families together. Marriage is the very nucleus of every single society on the planet. Marriage is important. It is simply not meant for gay couples.

So, marriage is all these positive things..."stability, security, important"? Then why do you wish for gay couples to have less stable, secure, or important relationships than others, especially when some of them have children?

I keep hearing that "gay people can not have children". But this is clearly false. Not only is there aritficial incemination and adoption, but many gay people have children by having sex at one point with someone of the opposite sex...in many cases they were trying to live this "natural" life in the closet that some of you want them to live and it resulted in children. One of reasons I keep hearing against gay marriage is that it will have a negative effect on the children.

For those of you whose argument against gay marriage is that "it will harm the children", there are basically four options for gay couples who have children....which of the following options do you think is the least harmful to their children?

Option #1. A gay person with a child can take your advice and marry someone of the opposite sex ("like everyone else") which, since they will never be attracted to nor in love with that person, the marriage will probably end. A marriage doomed to end in divorce is not a place I would want to put a child.

Option #2. A gay person with a child can avoid having any relationship altogether, essentially raising the child in a single-parent household. Not good for the child. Plus, they are still being raised by a gay parent.

Option #3. A gay person with a child can "live-in-sin" with another gay person. With this option you get any negative effects that people believe might come with a child being raised by two same-sex parents...but at least they have two parents who will hopefully love each other and stay together, but who knows for how long since they are not married.

Option #4. Instead of "living-in-sin", A gay person with a child can marry that partner. Basically the same as option #3, but since marriage "creates a more stable and secure environment", this would be better for the child than option #3.

Since gay people do have children, and will continue to have children whether gay marriage is allowed or not, then these are your options for the child to be raised in. Now, if gay marriage is not allowed, then most gay parents will probably end up in option #3. So, for those of you who believe that gay marriage will result in the harmful scenario of a child being raised by 2 moms or 2 dads, this "problem" is not going to go away by preventing them from getting married. These same children will still be raised by 2 "moms" or 2 "dads" in option #3....gay couples living-in-sin and raising children, in a less "secure and stable" relationship than if they were married. Is this really what you want?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Lionel,

Your very post makes my argument that much stronger. You say you didn't get married for procreation or the binding of families, but that is what happened.

In making my defense for heterosexual marriage. I'm thinking in terms of society (marriage as a basic building block of a community/nation and a stable platform for a new generation) and philososphy (why societies sanction marriage), not personal reasons for getting married.

Yeah, but if my marriage was just for love and hadn't done those other by-products, it would still be a valid and wonderful marriage.

I'm just not sure that my heterosexual marriage needs defending. If OD and Vile get married (when OD is of age) my marriage will go on, blissfully unaffected by these outside forces. No one is going to go gay because the option suddenly exists.

I kind of like Borg's idea, where general legal marriages are performed by the government, and called something like civil union, and are available to all couples hetero or homo. The traditional marriages on the other hand are performed by individual religious institutions where they are free to deny any couple they find unsuitable to marry.

you know, people try and make this a partisan issue....its not. bush and his party used it, and used it wisely to get votes. but the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of polititians that are gay, and still in the closet. out in front, they will say things, but behind closed doors, these are the guys that were having sex with the pageboys in the senate and cabinet...........republican and dem. some of you die hard supporters would probably die if you found out that your favorite polititian is gay...........and more than likely....he is ! thats why this issue will NEVER be solved in the way that each opposing side thinks...........just my opinion

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Echo,

Please read carefully:

That is not a personal attack, it is merely a statement of fact.

People will disagree on issues, but it doesn't mean that because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them small minded or whatever. It's a statement that I think many on these boards can and should take to heart, both liberal and conservative.

I stand by my statement that people who purposely choose to descriminate against others and purposely try and pass laws that descriminate against others are small minded.

It isn't about disagreeing with me. It's about how they see and treat other people.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
I kind of like Borg's idea, where general legal marriages are performed by the government, and called something like civil union, and are available to all couples hetero or homo. The traditional marriages on the other hand are performed by individual religious institutions where they are free to deny any couple they find unsuitable to marry.
That's exactly what should happen...

That would solve your immediate problem (keeping the word marraige "sacred" - but it will be called marrige in american vernacular. I just don't see people introducing themseles as "civily unioned" They will say, "we are married". And your entire ideal of keeping the word marraige as a special place that only heterosexuals can go will be eventually fall to the wayside.

Originally posted by korg
you know, people try and make this a partisan issue....its not. bush and his party used it, and used it wisely to get votes. but the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of polititians that are gay, and still in the closet. out in front, they will say things, but behind closed doors, these are the guys that were having sex with the pageboys in the senate and cabinet...........republican and dem. some of you die hard supporters would probably die if you found out that your favorite polititian is gay...........and more than likely....he is !
The bolded portion of this quote made me laugh out loud - thanks, Korg...

Btw, and out of curiosity, just who, exactly, is your "favorite" politician???

Originally posted by Echo2
That would solve your immediate problem (keeping the word marraige "sacred" - but it will be called marrige in american vernacular. I just don't see people introducing themseles as "civily unioned" They will say, "we are married". And your entire ideal of keeping the word marraige as a special place that only heterosexuals can go will be eventually fall to the wayside.
Perhaps, but at least my government won't recognize them as married, and that's all that’s important to me. Marriage is a sacred institution, and not an instrument of governmental designation. Big difference...

Besides, shouldn't there be a separation between church and state? On a side note, you can bet your ass the church was calling it a marriage before our 228 year-old nation was, so as I see it, the word belongs to the church, not our government.

Okay, I keep hearing the fact that we should take marriage out of our Government and keep that only for religious ceremonies. And then we should put in a Civil Union for all Americans. Although, do you honestly believe that this will occur? It’s highly unlikely.
And we need to start dealing with the present issues. Right not homosexual couples are suffering, and we either grant them equal marriage rights (since as of now marriage is in the GOVERNMENT) or we take marriage out ASAP and put in Civil Unions. But will that happen? Will that happen soon? No. So until we do so, we need to grant equal rights to homosexuals in terms of marriage.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Perhaps, but at least my government won't recognize them as married, and that's all that’s important to me. Marriage is a sacred institution, and not an instrument of governmental designation. Big difference...

Sacred, schmacred.

Pure semantics.

A non issue.

Personally, I could care less what it's called as long as all people, no matter their color or nationality or sexual orientation, are granted equal rights in the matter or marriage, especially as it regards their legal rights.

It is an issue of semantics to someone who isn't religious, and with that being said, let's reserve the word for people who actually appreciate what it means and what it stands for i.e. civil unions for everyone. After all, gays aren't religious, and neither are most liberals for that matter, so who really cares if it's referred to as something else because it's just an issue of semantics to you people, right?

I believe marraige was around long before christianity. But if the thumpers want to claim that word all for their own why not let them. It isn't any sillier than many other of the rediculous causes they back out of superstition.

How about gayraige? Then the thumpers can start making rules about treating gayraid couples differently than marraid couples because what gayraid couples have isn't the same historically as what marraid couples have, or isn't as "sacred" as wehat married couples have.


Such petty little minds will always find a way to separate themselves from what they consider to be "below them".

After all, gays aren't religious,

Please explain this statement to all the RELIGIOUS GAY people out there.

so who really cares if it's referred to as something else because it's just an issue of semantics to you people, right?

Actually, I thouth it was just an issue of semantics to you people...how many times have I heard "they can join in whatever kind of union they want, just don't call it marriage"?

How about gayraige?

Gayraige??? It sounds like something you park a car in.

Marriage is a sacred institution, and not an instrument of governmental designation.

But it IS, unfortunately, an instrument of governmental designation...thats why this whole discussion exists.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
After all, gays aren't religious, and neither are most liberals for that matter, so who really cares if it's referred to as something else....

Not me, as i indicated earlier.

Getting hung up on the specific term for a union between two people is pure superstition, in my view.

BTW......do you consider the 50,000,000 people who voted for Kerry to be **liberals**. (I don't, personally. I'm just asking for the purposes of clarification)

Because if you DO consider people who disagree with Republican politics to be **liberals**, it should be pointed out that there are many millions of them in America....

.......and the reason for the request for clarification is that i'm wondering if your assertion is that the majority of the tens of millions of people who come down on the Democratic side of issues are considered by you to be ***not religious***.........??

Echo,

You need to wake up. Other people are not going to agree with you on issues. Marriage is most definately one of them. You can write off those who do not favor gay marriage, but to win your argument with the majority of Americans (which agree with me, I might add), you simply are not going dismiss those with opposing viewpoints as small minded or racist or whatever.

Now some here have said that gay marriage 'won't effect them," that may true, but I'm worried about society as a whole and the role of marriage in it. I don't see a role for homosexual marriage in society.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I don't see a role for homosexual marriage in society.
Lets think…

It binds two loving people together? Darth, you believe marriage is about creation. That is your opinion, one that I and many disagree with. But, since gays can already adopt children, no matter if marriage is granted to them or not, wouldn’t it only see fit that we let them get married? So their love is more set in stone, so they have more of a form of commitment in their lives? It’s only better for the children they adopt.

But, since gays can already adopt children, no matter if marriage is granted to them or not, wouldn’t it only see fit that we let them get married? So their love is more set in stone, so they have more of a form of commitment in their lives? It’s only better for the children they adopt.

Not only adopt, but they can (and some already do) have children from a previous heterosexual encounter.

Preventing gay marriage is not going to make gay people with children stop existing or cause gay relationships to stop existing. So, for those families out there where the kids are being raised by two loving gay parents, there are people who would rather not allow them to stabilize their relationship by getting married.

These same people also worry that these kids are being raised in an "abnormal" atmoshpere and having gay parents will cause them scorn and ridicule from others. However, they will have gay parents whether gay marriage is legal or not...making it illegal will just add to the ridicule because it will mean that even the government is viewing their parents as being "abnormal".

Originally posted by mad dog
Because without it there would be sh** all over the bathroom floor :D :D

that's funny, mad dog!!

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
I kind of like Borg's idea, where general legal marriages are performed by the government, and called something like civil union, and are available to all couples hetero or homo. The traditional marriages on the other hand are performed by individual religious institutions where they are free to deny any couple they find unsuitable to marry.

good idea.

you know MANY people racing to the altar have no business ever getting married in the first place, for many different reasons. marriage is about two people joining to become one unit. marriage is all too often thought of too lightly, because we know, if it doesn't work out, that we can always get a divorce. THAT, my friends, is what is wrong with marriage in general, the people who leap with both feet into a situation that takes total commitment and dedication, figuring that there's always a way out. most marriages, because of this way of thinking, don't stand a chance.
whether in the eyes of god or the eyes of the law, marriage should be entered only with the thought of it being "till death do you part". i think that anyone ready to commit to that should be allowed to marry; anyone that's not should be told to go home until they can embrace such a commitment.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Not only adopt, but they can (and some already do) have children from a previous heterosexual encounter.

Preventing gay marriage is not going to make gay people with children stop existing or cause gay relationships to stop existing. So, for those families out there where the kids are being raised by two loving gay parents, there are people who would rather not allow them to stabilize their relationship by getting married.

These same people also worry that these kids are being raised in an "abnormal" atmoshpere and having gay parents will cause them scorn and ridicule from others. However, they will have gay parents whether gay marriage is legal or not...making it illegal will just add to the ridicule because it will mean that even the government is viewing their parents as being "abnormal".

what's sad is, many of these "abnormal" families are much more secure and nurturing than many "normal" families. i'm sure the children that live with the abusive and neglective parents, the alcoholics and addicts, would give anything to have 2 parents (regardless of gender) who were dedicated to giving them the best childhoods they possibly could.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Please explain this statement to all the RELIGIOUS GAY people out there.
Oh, yeah, I forgot...they're a small constituent of the gay republican social committee. Thanks for the reality check.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Actually, I thouth it was just an issue of semantics to you people...how many times have I heard "they can join in whatever kind of union they want, just don't call it marriage"?

Maybe, however, marriage DOES mean something to us, not to those of you out there intent on defiling its origin. Most of you could give a shit about the word, or it’s meaning, so it's logical to assume that any word should suite your purpose. Given this reality, what's the problem with referring to it as something else provided that every legal benefit associated with marriage is bestowed to gay couples as well?

Originally posted by dnamertz
Gayraige??? It sounds like something you park a car in.
Yeah - that, or something a retard would purpose.

Originally posted by dnamertz
But it IS, unfortunately, an instrument of governmental designation...thats why this whole discussion exists.
And I've stated in prior conversations, we should dump the word at the governmental level in its entirety, for they have no business using it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Oh, yeah, I forgot...they're a small constituent of the gay republican social committee. Thanks for the reality check.
I have a gay liberal friend, Danny and he’s a Christian…

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Maybe, however, marriage DOES mean something to us, not to those of you out there intent on defiling its origin.
That’s a laugh. Marriage means something to maybe HALF of the heterosexuals. The rest of you just end it in divorce and chaos. Basically ripping apart what makes marriage so wonderful.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Most of you could give a shit about the word, or it’s meaning, so it's logical to assume that any word should suite your purpose.
I give a shit about it. I want to marry the person I love, who I care for, who I would die for. I want to get it signed in a court of law and recognized by the state.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And I've stated in prior conversations, we should dump the word at the governmental level in its entirety, for they have no business using it.
So, how do you propose we do this? Take every person who was married outside of the church, and give them no rights that go along with marriage? That would cause so much chaos. So please, elaborate on the way you would go about doing this.

Oh, yeah, I forgot...they're a small constituent of the gay republican social committee. Thanks for the reality check.

Wrong again.

Maybe, however, marriage DOES mean something to us, not to those of you out there intent on defiling its origin.

And wrong yet again. It DOES mean something to me. My parents have been happily married for 39 years now and I have been married for 6 years and it means a lot to me...thats why I don't want to exclude others from this great institution just because their sexual oreintation does not match mine. I'm not "defiling" it.

And I've stated in prior conversations, we should dump the word at the governmental level in its entirety, for they have no business using it.

I agree with that, but no one on either side is proposing that...I hear no constitutional amendment propopsals about getting government out of marriage. So until then it IS a governmental issue.

You know what I like about you, Dna...you're really level headed. However, you seem to miss this point, and don't feel bad - a lot of people seem to struggle with this.

thats why I don't want to exclude others from this great institution just because their sexual oreintation does not match mine. I'm not "defiling" it.
I DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE ANYONE FROM THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE, I JUST WANT THE WORD RESERVED FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEEMED WORTHY BY THE CHURCH.

For Christ's sake, the word has its roots embedded in religious interpretation, and who are you to come along and pie the face of that reality? I'm far from a zealot, but for the love of God, lets call a spade, a spade, shall we?

I hear no constitutional amendment propopsals about getting government out of marriage.
Then maybe that's what we should be arguing for...

Originally posted by Overdose
I have a gay liberal friend, Danny and he’s a Christian…
Is he Karen's son?

Originally posted by Overdose
That’s a laugh. Marriage means something to maybe HALF of the heterosexuals. The rest of you just end it in divorce and chaos. Basically ripping apart what makes marriage so wonderful.
So your argument here rests on the fact that if certain people have no respect for what marriage stands for, then everyone should be given the opportunity to sully its worth? The problem with this reality is when two men step in front of God to be married, the concept of "marriage" has been marred enough. It's a de facto debauchery, and nothing more. Just pick another word, PLEASE.

The county courthouse will be happy to unionize you for the betterment of you financial status, or whatever it is you keep saying that marriage is good for outside of love.

Originally posted by Overdose
So, how do you propose we do this? Take every person who was married outside of the church, and give them no rights that go along with marriage? That would cause so much chaos. So please, elaborate on the way you would go about doing this.
Here we go again with the "rights" argument. To save me from typing the same explanation, please refer to my prior post.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Is he Karen's son?
Errr. sure.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
So your argument here rests on the fact that if certain people have no respect for what marriage stands for, then everyone should be given the opportunity to sully its worth? The problem with this reality is when two men step in front of God to be married, the concept of "marriage" has been marred enough. It's a de facto debauchery, and nothing more. Just pick another word, PLEASE.
No, that isn't my only argument. And it's not "certain" people, it's half of the "people" in America. You claim that you guys have respect for marriage, when that just isn't so.

And as for your concept of "God" being with "marriage", that's funny. Ever heard of the separation of church and state? If marriage means being married before God, then it shouldn't be in the state. And right now it is in the state, so it should be open to everyone in America (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Here we go again with the "rights" argument. To save me from typing the same explanation, please refer to my prior post.
It is a right. To get married, and get it recognized by the state. It's a right to get it signed in a courthouse and getting the equal benefits that marriage entails.

Overdose - You completely missed my point. I don't want to restrict anyone’s rights, and I wasn't trying to tie the word God to marriage in the sense in which you took it. Marriage is a word that belongs to the church, not our government. Hell, I agree with you: there should be a distinct separation between church and state, and what I'm purposing is that we remove the word ENTIRELY from all forms of government - Federal and state, period. As far as getting tax benefits, social security, and other breaks, nothing would be effected with my proposal, I'm just saying that there should be a recognized union for any couple willing to spend the rest of their life with one another at the STATE and FEDERAL level. My church doesn't give that title to just anyone, and neither should my government when it's my church's word - not theirs.

Here's the problem I see with this: I suspect that certain homos out there would find their panties in a bunch because it's not JUST equal rights they're looking for, but they want use of the actual word, “marriage”, and my proposal would kind of serve as a type litmus test with regards to their real intentions.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Marriage is a word that belongs to the church, not our government. .....My church doesn't give that title to just anyone, and neither should my government when it's my church's word - not theirs.

Right.

Your church **owns** the word marriage.

And you wonder why religionists are viewed as bigoted, ignorant people who imagine themselves superior to all people not of that religion.

Okay FT, who used it first - the Catholic Church or the US Government? Just answer the question...

Originally posted by The Praetorian

Here's the problem I see with this: I suspect that certain homos out there would find that their panties in a bunch because it's not JUST equal rights they're looking for, but they want use of the actual word, “marriage”, and my proposal would kind of serve as a type litmus test with regards to their real intentions.
Okay. Come up with a way to transfer all the people who have already been married (outside of the Church) into whatever else you think of. How do you propose we do this? My parents were married in a Church, but what happens to those who got a marriage lisense outside of the Church? We would have to change theirs, or take their marriage lisence from them. That's the only way to make it fair. And wouldn't that cause massive amounts of chaos? And no one is even proposing it. SO FOR RIGHT NOW, HOMOSEXUALS DESERVE THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE UNTIL YOU GET A PLAN FOR YOUR WAY TO WORK

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay. Come up with a way to transfer all the people who have already been married (outside of the Church) into whatever else you think of. How do you propose we do this? My parents were married in a Church, but what happens to those who got a marriage lisense outside of the Church? We would have to change theirs, or take their marriage lisence from them. That's the only way to make it fair. And wouldn't that cause massive amounts of chaos? And no one is even proposing it. SO FOR RIGHT NOW, HOMOSEXUALS DESERVE THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE UNTIL YOU GET A PLAN FOR YOUR WAY TO WORK
What are you talking about??? It's really not that complicated. My point is when the government is involved, everyone gets THE SAME TREATMENT: Unions for EVERYBODY. However, I understand your point about no one proposing it currently, and soon enough, I hope that'll change.

heres my solution, which kills both the gay marraige and some of the seperation of church and state birds with one stone: the government takes no part in marriage, it only does civil unions, which give equalk privleeges to all consenting adult partners, regardless of gender. (and i would say number but i think we've made enough progress for now and shouldn't anger the conservativies too mcuh, right wingers are people too). since marriage is so sacred and holy, it can be left to religous organizations. sound ok?

That's exactly what I've been saying now for a while. Oh, and...

right wingers are people too

Thanks for the recognition...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That's exactly what I've been saying now for a while. Oh, and...



Thanks for the recognition...

hey, what are us socialists for if not that?

Originally posted by WhammyBar
hey, what are us socialists for if not that?
"We." "We socialists," not "us."

Carry on. Dirty commie. :)

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Carry on. Dirty commie. :)
:)

I DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE ANYONE FROM THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE, I JUST WANT THE WORD RESERVED FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEEMED WORTHY BY THE CHURCH.

Apparently, almost every state has chosen that the "word" is more important than granting some people the "legal benefits of marriage". In some states they even voted against civil unions...the word marriage wasn't a part of that.

Unitl the issue of having the government stop using "your word" gets resolved, I would expect people like you to be more concerned about granting these people their benefits for the time being than you are about "the word".

Okay FT, who used it first - the Catholic Church or the US Government?

I would guess it was neither of them.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Apparently, almost every state has chosen that the "word" is more important than granting some people the "legal benefits of marriage". In some states they even voted against civil unions...the word marriage wasn't a part of that.
And that's sad. I hope people come to their senses on that issue.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Unitl the issue of having the government stop using "your word" gets resolved, I would expect people like you to be more concerned about granting these people their benefits for the time being than you are about "the word".
And I am. I don't think any American should be deprived of a right the majority of us enjoy utilizing.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I would guess it was neither of them.
Perhaps, but you and I both know that the church indoctrinated it before our country used it as a generic label, and that was my point.

Perhaps, but you and I both know that the church indoctrinated it before our country used it as a generic label, and that was my point.

I am positive that the Catholic church used the word before our country. But I'm not sure they invented the word, and I don't know that it was invented and used 1st by a religion or by some society somewhere, so its origins might not be based in religion.

i bet alot of the reason why being homosexual is seen as bad by the catholic church is because it historically has run hand-in-hand with devil worship....

errrr.....okay

Originally posted by Decka
i bet alot of the reason why being homosexual is seen as bad by the catholic church is because it historically has run hand-in-hand with devil worship....

that's a stretch, don't you think, decka?

ummm not really....historically most homosexuals in biblical times also worshipped the devil, maybe thats how they got their bad rap.

ummmm.........prove it

Originally posted by Decka
ummm not really....historically most homosexuals in biblical times also worshipped the devil, maybe thats how they got their bad rap.

but don't you agree that maybe the information we have from that era may not be completely accurate? maybe ?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Okay FT, who used it first - the Catholic Church or the US Government? Just answer the question...

The Catholic Church.

My point about the bigotry and ignorance of religionists who think they OWN the word ***marriage*** still stands.

Originally posted by Decka
historically most homosexuals in biblical times also worshipped the devil

ROTFL.

WHERE do you dream this stuff UP?!?!?!?!?

Can you quote ANYTHING from the Bible supporting --in any way-- your allegation that most homosexuals in Biblical times worshipped the devil?!?!?!?

Can you quote anything from any OTHER historical record or tome supporting your allegation that most homosexuals in Biblical times worshipped the devil?!

First off....don't think that this is some strong conviction i stand by, its just a historical reoccurance i notice....i'll go dig some up when i have time, but for instance they just run hand-in-hand when describing people who used to be in cults and worshipped the devil, they also practiced homosexuality.

I am in NO way saying it stands today, and i in NO way am hinting that homosexuals are "more apt" to worship the devil....im saying that historically its what I noticed, and maybe that is where some of the bad rap came from........

i did a quick search on yahoo just for kicks.....

LMAO..look at this site!!!

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/r/drw177/

Wow, that's fairly fucked up, however, I can't get any of the links on that particular site to work. Perhaps it's my server, but somehow, I seriously doubt it. Personally, I'd never heard of a connection between homosexuality and Satanism, but you learn something new everyday. You know those people must wear some pretty elaborate cassocks. I find mentally picturing a bunch of angry homos ceremonially engaged in the sacrifice of rabbits and deer to be an exercise of laughter restraint.

the only thing i've heard about homosexuality from the bible is that it's an abomination of god.

Perhaps that's exactly why they're proned to worship the Devil. The bible is pretty clear on it's aversion to homosexuality, and that may be the only motivation certain gays need to jump on the satanic bandwagon.