[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hell, I will even form a union with a guy if he is rich enough and doesn't expect any form of intimate contact whatsoever! How convienient that would be.

Stop making fun of Liza Minnelli. Heterosexual marriage is sacred, you know.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Not everyone lives a porn-type lifestyle.

Yeah, but you can't blame me for trying.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I will rephrase it...it is just silly to argue that since (some) hetero couples have anal sex gays should be allowed to marry.

Makes me wonder...is the foundation of gay marriages sex? If you would argue that since heteros *may* have anal sex gays should be allowed to marry - I would think that from your reasoning.

My reasoning is that the aforementioned anal sex is not a reason to deny them to marry. If you want to deny them marriage, you should at least have a reason that isn't violated by the other side.

It's funny. Whenever this topic comes up, it is always about benefits, rights and sex. Not once do any of you mention love, covenanents, or responsinilities when it comes to marriage or civil unions. Oh, and I forgot the incessant exploitation of blacks.

I'm not the one who brought up sex, you are.

I've always argued that they deserve the right to show their love and commitment for each other in the eyes of the government, just like any straight couple can.

I am not avoiding your question. This is where our core belief differs. I don't believe that you gain rights (or priviledges) by choosing a lifestyle.

Of course, you have to have a belief that they "choose" to be attracted to the same sex.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I believe that NV grants annulments. But, the point I was trying to make, was that although divorces are readily available, there is a reason you have to go before the courts to begin the process. It is a contract, covenant, responsibility, etc. In other words...marriage isn;t a game. It is a serious committment.

And there's no reason why such a contract can't be formed between two consenting adults of the same gender. Gays enter into construction contracts, commercial contracts, etc. Let them also accept the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.

If you said, like Henry VIII, that marriage is only valid for purposes of procreation, then you'd be consistent and I'd take you more seriously. But then, along with gays, you'd have to exclude any couples that were infertile or otherwise didn't plan to have kids. Plus Liza Minnelli.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
[B]My reasoning is that the aforementioned anal sex is not a reason to deny them to marry. If you want to deny them marriage, you should at least have a reason that isn't violated by the other side.

fair enough. but neither is it a reason to allow homosexuals to marry

I'm not the one who brought up sex, you are.

You do win on that one.

I've always argued that they deserve the right to show their love and commitment for each other in the eyes of the government, just like any straight couple can.

Why do you refer to homosexuals as "they", "them," and "their"?
Those people deserve to get married. Hmmm...interesting!

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
fair enough. but neither is it a reason to allow homosexuals to marry

Once again, we're both starting from a different point. As I see it, they are entitled to the same priveledges as everyone else, so I leave the burden to the (govt.) as to why they aren't allowed to do so.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do you refer to homosexuals as "they", "them," and "their"?
Those people deserve to get married. Hmmm...interesting!

You know what? You make a good point. That said, I think we are a victim of our own innate penchant for categorizing each other.

Further, I would argue that those who seek to deny homosexuals civil marriages are the ones who created the difference, made them a 'they'.

So, with your reminder, I rephrase myself: "I believe anyone should be able show their love and commitment for each other in the eyes of the government, regardless of sex, religion, or race."

Why is that so wrong?

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

No. For that to be true. You'd have to show me where we stopped the blacks from marrying each other.

No, for it to be true -- and it is -- the issue is one of consenting people not being allowed to marry one another. Which indeed happened with regards to interracial couples.

dcolton--

this will give me the opportunity to have a union with some person so I can get some tax benefits.

You're saying that you can't get married now purely so as to receive tax benefits? Well, the fact is that you can. Marriages of convenience have been around forever. In fact it's only fairly recently that people even began to take seriously marriages for love. Most marriages throughout history have been made with an eye on finances. That's why they were arranged.

Rome (which incidently began its downfall when they accepted homosexuality as the norm).

I would posit that Rome began its fall when the Republic was supplanted by the Empire, and perhaps before then as the Republic weakened. And I'd say that there were a lot of factors involved -- not enough checks on the military, overextended resources, failure to modernize, corruption, etc.

Of course what I find to be really funny is that you basically just claimed that Christianity, which wasn't fond of homosexuality, despite spreading throughout the Empire, could not save it, nor the Eastern Empire. That's not really impressive.

MacNStein--

Uh no, it'll simply be an annulment. Happens all the time when people get married illegally (bigamy, underage, etc.)

The problem is that they _did_ get married legally.

And certainly it's an awfully disturbing thought: that the government could just break anyone's marriage if they felt like it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
You're saying that you can't get married now purely so as to receive tax benefits? Well, the fact is that you can. Marriages of convenience have been around forever. In fact it's only fairly recently that people even began to take seriously marriages for love. Most marriages throughout history have been made with an eye on finances. That's why they were arranged.

I was referring to the French model where civil unions are created and absolved by no more than a signature in front of a magistrate.

I would posit that Rome began its fall when the Republic was supplanted by the Empire, and perhaps before then as the Republic weakened. And I'd say that there were a lot of factors involved -- not enough checks on the military, overextended resources, failure to modernize, corruption, etc.

Among many other reasons. Perhaps the weakened moral standard of Roman society was the "root cause" of your above mentioned reasons.

Of course what I find to be really funny is that you basically just claimed that Christianity, which wasn't fond of homosexuality, despite spreading throughout the Empire, could not save it, nor the Eastern Empire. That's not really impressive.

I think it is funny that you don't think there is a lesson to be learned.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

I was referring to the French model where civil unions are created and absolved by no more than a signature in front of a magistrate.

Fair enough, but you still ought to remember that marriages for economic reasons have historically been the norm. And anyway, you can marry and divorce pretty quickly stateside; ever been to Vegas?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
dcolton--


Fair enough, but you still ought to remember that marriages for economic reasons have historically been the norm. And anyway, you can marry and divorce pretty quickly stateside; ever been to Vegas?

That is where you are reaching to justify gay marriage. 1st of all, we are talking about contemporary times...I don't care if nobles married in the 1500's to secure land or for whatever reason. It is called evolving as a people. For the most part...marriage is taken seriously...and damn those who don't - gay or str8!

As for Vegas, it is still a process to get a divorce. They have "quickie" marriages but divorces are a different story. Besides, I wouldn't exactly use Vegas as an example of mainstream America or as a source of a moral and ethical society.

[Dakar]

dcolton - could you please respond to my earlier post (if you're going to) ?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Once again, we're both starting from a different point. As I see it, they are entitled to the same priveledges as everyone else, so I leave the burden to the (govt.) as to why they aren't allowed to do so.

You know what? You make a good point. That said, I think we are a victim of our own innate penchant for categorizing each other.

Further, I would argue that those who seek to deny homosexuals civil marriages are the ones who created the difference, made them a 'they'.

So, with your reminder, I rephrase myself: "I believe anyone should be able show their love and commitment for each other in the eyes of the government, regardless of sex, religion, or race."

Why is that so wrong?

Sorry, thought I did. Let's see...

I think it is funny that you blame your hidden predjudice on "the ones who created tghe difference..."

I don't quite follow, but if I understand your statement correctly, I would say that homosexuals are responsible for their actions and how people percieve them - whether negative or not.

As for your statement, "I believe anyone..." I once again state that choosing a gay lifestyle does not entitle anyone to special rights.

[TheMosco]

The Institution of marriage is changing, and that's ok. Institutions exist for the people, people do not exist for Institutions

- Byron Rushing (Rep. in MA)

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
As for your statement, "I believe anyone..." I once again state that choosing a gay lifestyle does not entitle anyone to special rights.

I can't stand this, If i were to say that homosexuality is a genetic, I would have Zimp all over me about that yet you continue to call it a choice when you have no proof of that, just as I only have natural observations to come to my conclusion. How do you come to yours?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Sorry, thought I did. Let's see...

I think it is funny that you blame your hidden predjudice on "the ones who created the difference..."

I don't quite follow, but if I understand your statement correctly, I would say that homosexuals are responsible for their actions and how people percieve them - whether negative or not.

I disagree. Most of the people have come into this with their own perceptions of homosexuals -- promiscuous, AIDS ridden heathens, or narcassistic sexual deviants.

The fact that they are trying to show their 'softer' side, those couple which have been monogamous but unmarried for years or decades, has only begun the change that public perception.

As for your statement, "I believe anyone..." I once again state that choosing a gay lifestyle does not entitle anyone to special rights.

What makes you think it's a choice?

If it isn't a choice, would you agree they are entitled then?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
I can't stand this, If i were to say that homosexuality is a genetic, I would have Zimp all over me about that yet you continue to call it a choice when you have no proof of that, just as I only have natural observations to come to my conclusion. How do you come to yours?

Until it is PROVEN to be genetic, it must be choice. How about I quit saying choice and adopt the idea that it is a disease or mental illness. If it is genetic, why are their bisexuals, is that a different gene? If it is genetic, why are some gays "reformed"? I would imagine that people can't change their genes.

So, I will continue to use choice...if you choose to say it is genetic, that is fine...the difference is that everything points to homosexuality as being a choice, not genetics...and even commissioned junk science can't prove otherwise.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Until it is PROVEN to be genetic, it must be choice. How about I quit saying choice and adopt the idea that it is a disease or mental illness. If it is genetic, why are their bisexuals, is that a different gene? If it is genetic, why are some gays "reformed"? I would imagine that people can't change their genes.

So, I will continue to use choice...if you choose to say it is genetic, that is fine...the difference is that everything points to homosexuality as being a choice, not genetics...and even commissioned junk science can't prove otherwise.

hahahahahahahahahahaha


How am I supposed to know about bisexuals? How am I supposed to know about the supposed "reformed" gays(if they were even really gay to begin with)? I don't know and you don't know either, so to restrict the rights of some people based on a assumption is stupid.

Everything points to it being a choice? Hardly, maybe just the evidence you want to accept....

Read my quote from Byron Rushing, the guy is awesome. He is a black Episcopal minister who is a member of the MA house and made one of the best speeches for gay marriage. I really need to find the transcript. He talked about everything from banning catholics from voting in MA during the early MA history to MA being the first state with no slaves. He also touched on the US not being a theocracy and that no one would choose to live in a country were freedom of religion is outlawed and therefore religious morals should no way affect the government.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
hahahahahahahahahahaha


How am I supposed to know about bisexuals? How am I supposed to know about the supposed "reformed" gays(if they were even really gay to begin with)? I don't know and you don't know either, so to restrict the rights of some people based on a assumption is stupid.

So if someone decides to denounce their "gayness", they weren't really gay to begin with? Sounds like choice to me!

Eitherway, lifestyle does not afford special rights

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:

I know, cheap shot. Sorry, couldn't resist

I disagree. Most of the people have come into this with their own perceptions of homosexuals -- promiscuous, AIDS ridden heathens, or narcassistic sexual deviants.

The fact that they are trying to show their 'softer' side, those couple which have been monogamous but unmarried for years or decades, has only begun the change that public perception.

Yeah, there has been quite a PR push over the last decade. We are already starting to see the negative effects

What makes you think it's a choice?
If it isn't a choice, would you agree they are entitled then?

See above.

If it is PROVEN to be a genetic defect, I would support research to fix the defect. But it is a moot point, because gays have been trying to prove it is genetic for years...to no avail.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So if someone decides to denounce their "gayness", they weren't really gay to begin with? Sounds like choice to me!

Eitherway, lifestyle does not afford special rights

I think i might have worded it wrong or said it wrong completely. but whatever... I concede that i messed up what i was trying to say.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I think it is funny that you blame your hidden predjudice on "the ones who created tghe difference..."

I don't quite follow, but if I understand your statement correctly, I would say that homosexuals are responsible for their actions and how people percieve them - whether negative or not.

As for your statement, "I believe anyone..." I once again state that choosing a gay lifestyle does not entitle anyone to special rights.

What a joke. The guy who regards homosexuals as immoral is accusing others of hidden prejudice because the word "they" was used to describe them as a group. Then he says that it's the homosexuals' fault that people perceive them negatively. Then he complains that homosexuals are asking for "special" rights, when they're only asking for the same legal rights as others. Once again, dcolton's logic has my head spinning and I need to lie down. Anybody have an aspirin?

This is Alice In Wonderland stuff, but not surprising from a person who calls a someone a "terrorist" just because he doesn't think his children should have to pledge allegiance to God.

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Until it is PROVEN to be genetic, it must be choice. How about I quit saying choice and adopt the idea that it is a disease or mental illness. If it is genetic, why are their bisexuals, is that a different gene? If it is genetic, why are some gays "reformed"? I would imagine that people can't change their genes. So, I will continue to use choice...if you choose to say it is genetic, that is fine...the difference is that everything points to homosexuality as being a choice, not genetics...and even commissioned junk science can't prove otherwise.

Let me see if I understand you. One's sexuality is defined by choice. You chose one day to be a heterosexual. How did you make that decision?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
If it is PROVEN to be a genetic defect, I would support research to fix the defect. But it is a moot point, because gays have been trying to prove it is genetic for years...to no avail.

So if it's genetic, it must be a "defect," and if it's not genetic, it's immoral. I like your reasoning - I feel the same way about people who listen to Smooth Jazz.

[Lerkfish]

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say brain transplants are possible. One day, you go the hospital for a gall bladder operation, and through a clerical error, you wake up and you're in an unfamiliar body. You rush to the mirror, and there you are in a body of the opposite gender!
Let's say these operations are irreversible, and you have to make the best of it.
If you were originally a heterosexual male, do you now start dating men? Can you "choose" to do it? Or do you become a lesbian so you can make love to women?

How much of what turns you on is unchangeable, and how much of it is really a choice?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No. For that to be true. You'd have to show me where we stopped the blacks from marrying each other.

All that's changed between the two is first we said african amercians didn't have the same rights as others, because they were a minority (and the courts upheald that for years).

Now it's the same to homosexuals. They are the minority, and according to American society, we by law must limit their rights.


-------

Regarding this BS about ruining family life... that's a load of BS. Majority of marriages turn into divorses quick.

Secondly. There are millions of people in America who are older and married, but don't live with their spouse. IN many cases it's merely a legal technicallity. Your 50, your spouse dies, your children don't talk to you, they only want to know when you die... so they get your house and cash. Your good friend of the opposite sex is in the same position.

If you like the many, you get married, declare both houses as yours, and each live in 1. No change in lifestyle, but by law your married. Have the security and control over what happens when you become sick (kids only want to unplug you and collect). Your friend can visit you when your sick, etc.

There are many people over the age of 50 in this position.


Then you have many who are married, but want a divorse. Since divorse is expensive and a legal nightmare, they just stay married, but live separate lives. We all know people like this. By law they are married, but they live single lives. Separate homes, boyfriend/girlfriend, perhaps even spend time in different states if they have homes in other states.



Ultimately, it comes down to a simple question Do you believe in Equal rights?

Nothing else. That's what the ultimately Congress and the Senate will have to vote on. If the idiology of Equal Rights violates the constitution, or is protected by it. There's reason to back both, that the constitution conflict with the idiology of equal rights, and it would be unconstitutional to not have segregation (people argued this during the civil rights movement, and womens suffrage movement), and there are some who say that's the intent of the constitution.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I know, cheap shot. Sorry, couldn't resist



Yeah, there has been quite a PR push over the last decade. We are already starting to see the negative effects



See above.

If it is PROVEN to be a genetic defect, I would support research to fix the defect. But it is a moot point, because gays have been trying to prove it is genetic for years...to no avail.

So now you are putting a time-limit on scientific discovery?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
So if it's genetic, it must be a "defect," and if it's not genetic, it's immoral. I like your reasoning - I feel the same way about people who listen to Smooth Jazz.

That is how I respond to loaded questions.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say brain transplants are possible. One day, you go the hospital for a gall bladder operation, and through a clerical error, you wake up and you're in an unfamiliar body. You rush to the mirror, and there you are in a body of the opposite gender!
Let's say these operations are irreversible, and you have to make the best of it.
If you were originally a heterosexual male, do you now start dating men? Can you "choose" to do it? Or do you become a lesbian so you can make love to women?

How much of what turns you on is unchangeable, and how much of it is really a choice?

Hypothetical...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say brain transplants are possible. One day, you go the hospital for a gall bladder operation, and through a clerical error, you wake up and you're in an unfamiliar body. You rush to the mirror, and there you are in a body of the opposite gender!
Let's say these operations are irreversible, and you have to make the best of it.
If you were originally a heterosexual male, do you now start dating men? Can you "choose" to do it? Or do you become a lesbian so you can make love to women?

How much of what turns you on is unchangeable, and how much of it is really a choice?

Your supposed to change your will so all your money goes to the Republican party and commit suicide by driving a truck bomb into a Mosque screaming "Bush Cheney 2004".

Or at least, that's what the Bush campaign website said the other day.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yeah, there has been quite a PR push over the last decade. We are already starting to see the negative effects

What's negative? People openly admitting they're gay, and having a reduced fear of violence and discrimination being brought against them? Is commercialism targeting them as an emerging consumer group negative?

Originally posted by dcolton:
If it is PROVEN to be a genetic defect, I would support research to fix the defect. But it is a moot point, because gays have been trying to prove it is genetic for years...to no avail.

Covering both bases, are we?
Being gay is a gentic defect as much as being inclined towards math instead of language is a genetic defect.

Tell me, if it really is a choice, when did you decide to be straight?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
What's negative? People openly admitting they're gay, and having a reduced fear of violence and discrimination being brought against them? Is commercialism targeting them as an emerging consumer group negative?


Covering both bases, are we?
Being gay is a gentic defect as much as being inclined towards math instead of language is a genetic defect.

Tell me, if it really is a choice, when did you decide to be straight?

It is the forcing of gay values as the norm. It is the commercialization of sodomy and telling kids it is 'alright' to experiment. Tell me this, if it is ok to 'experiment' wouldn't that be excercising a choice.

It is creating a culture where being 'gay' and different is popular among kids or where kids claim to be gay for acceptance or to avoid teasing from other kids because claiming gay instantly affords a person special rights.

And how is being gay an emerging consumer group...did they all of a sudden decide to purchase products because they are gay? Are you implying thay homosexuality is on the rise because of the "gay" agenda? If that is the case, doesn't that just popularize sodomy and pretty much support the case that being gay is a choice?

As for when did I decide to be str8, that is the most sophmoric response out there. There is no choice, heterosexuality is inborn to all men and women. If being gay were inborn, anal sex wouldn't be so detrimental to the body and woman would have an extra appendage. The human body is the biggest key here...it doesn't give you a choice.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It is creating a culture where being 'gay' and different is popular among kids or where kids claim to be gay for acceptance or to avoid teasing from other kids because claiming gay instantly affords a person special rights.

I am 17 and I am fairly "in the know" about what is cool and what isn't. Where are you basing this off of? I have never heard anyone my age or even freshman at my school say anything like that.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

I doubt dcolton knows much about what is cool with da kids.
I also doubt he personally knows ANY homosexuals.

But I may be wrong.

I'd bet my right button eye I'm not though.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by dcolton:
As for when did I decide to be str8, that is the most sophmoric response out there. There is no choice, heterosexuality is inborn to all men and women. If being gay were inborn, anal sex wouldn't be so detrimental to the body and woman would have an extra appendage. The human body is the biggest key here...it doesn't give you a choice.

You've got sex, reproduction, and love all mixed up here.

No one is genetically compelled to have relationships. Sex is about what turns your crank and your body holds exactly zero "keys" and certainly doesn't dictate choice. In fact, your body doesn't know the difference between an anus, vagina, your left hand or the 14th hole at Whispering Pines Resort.

Gay people get in relationships for the same reason straight people do--and it has almost nothing to do with biology. Love is blind to gender as well as most other things.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It is the forcing of gay values as the norm.

Forcing gay values as a norm? No. Pushing them to equal status as a peoples? Yes.

It is the commercialization of sodomy

Commercialization of sodomy? What the hell is that?

Originally posted by dcolton:
and telling kids it is 'alright' to experiment. Tell me this, if it is ok to 'experiment' wouldn't that be excercising a choice.

Heaven forbid we allow kids to think and decide matters for themselves. Just because I try something doesn't necessarily mean I like it/endorse it/will continue do it. Further, there's no way in hell I'm going to try sodomy because the thought repulses me. To do so would indicate incredible fortitude/curiosity or predesposition to it.

Originally posted by dcolton:
It is creating a culture where being 'gay' and different is popular among kids or where kids claim to be gay for acceptance or to avoid teasing from other kids because claiming gay instantly affords a person special rights.

I could care less whether someone is homosexual or not. Tell me, how do they know if the kids are only claiming to be gay, and are actually straight?

Originally posted by dcolton:
And how is being gay an emerging consumer group...did they all of a sudden decide to purchase products because they are gay?

*lol* Watch Fox News sometime. Apparently they have gay cruises and vacation firms. Certain states are advertsising themselves as gay-friendly.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Are you implying thay homosexuality is on the rise because of the "gay" agenda?

I'm not claiming homosexuality is on the rise at all. I do claim tolerance of that group is on the rise.

Originally posted by dcolton:
If that is the case, doesn't that just popularize sodomy and pretty much support the case that being gay is a choice?

See above.

Originally posted by dcolton:
As for when did I decide to be str8, that is the most sophmoric response out there.

No, I'm making a point. I didn't make a choice to have a fascination with breasts. I just have a fascination with breasts. Why does the opposite seem too fantastic to believe?

Originally posted by dcolton:
[B]There is no choice, sexual orientation is inborn to all men and women.

Modified for content.

Originally posted by dcolton:
If being gay were inborn, anal sex wouldn't be so detrimental to the body and woman would have an extra appendage. The human body is the biggest key here...it doesn't give you a choice.

The natural argument again? Please. And if we had been meant to fly, God would have given us wings...

[cpt kangarooski]

TheMosco--

I can't stand this, If i were to say that homosexuality is a genetic, I would have Zimp all over me about that yet you continue to call it a choice when you have no proof of that, just as I only have natural observations to come to my conclusion. How do you come to yours?

I think that the best thing to do is to not have the nature/nurture issue be part of the debate.

To some extent this is possible if we consider some choices to be so fundemental that it would be just as inappropriate to discriminate on that basis as it would an inherent characteristic. Religion is already a well known example of such a thing -- of course people can change their religion, but they should never have to do so in order to warrant equal treatment by the government. I think that likewise people shouldn't be subject to being told by their government that they had better be of a particular orientation in order to be treated like everyone else.

If we can do this -- then there's no difference whatever the origins of sexual preferences are, and we don't have to waste time bringing them up.

dcolton--

Eitherway, lifestyle does not afford special rights

And what special rights are being asked for?

To be treated equally is by definition to not have special rights; it is to have the same rights as everyone else.

It is the forcing of gay values as the norm.

I'm sorry, and what are these values, and where are they being forced on people as being _the_ norm. Maybe it's just me, but I'm reading that as to mean that 'gay values' are supplanting 'straight values.'

Personally, I think that there's nothing particularly abnormal about being straight, gay, or bisexual. Sure, one of these is more common than the others, but that's not anything of note. There are more right handed people than left handed or ambidexterous people, but no one really cares these days. Same with racial characteristics, or being a twin, or hair or eye color, or whatever.

Once upon a time, left-handed people were associated with evil, and might get stoned. But we've pretty much outgrown that sort of idiocy, and no one seems to go around to day bitching about how left-handed kids are going to our schools and left-handed values are being imposed on us.

The sky isn't falling.

It is the commercialization of sodomy

Well, I'll grant you that one. I was just at the grocery store the other day, and they had a 2 for 1 special on in-store sodomy if you had your shopper's card. I'm investing in it. I think it's gonna go industrial age -> electronics age -> information age -> sodomy age.



Lerkfish--

Let's say brain transplants are possible. One day, you go the hospital for a gall bladder operation, and through a clerical error, you wake up and you're in an unfamiliar body. You rush to the mirror, and there you are in a body of the opposite gender!

Boy, it's a good thing that I already managed to have my gall bladder removed without ending up in a woman's body.

No, wait. That's not good at all. Dammit!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[BBoy, it's a good thing that I already managed to have my gall bladder removed without ending up in a woman's body.

No, wait. That's not good at all. Dammit! [/B]

Your brains in a woman's body would be HOT HOT HOT!!

Great post, you great, big, sexy, gall-bladderless man, you!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
And there's no reason why such a contract can't be formed between two consenting adults of the same gender. Gays enter into construction contracts, commercial contracts, etc. Let them also accept the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.

If you said, like Henry VIII, that marriage is only valid for purposes of procreation, then you'd be consistent and I'd take you more seriously. But then, along with gays, you'd have to exclude any couples that were infertile or otherwise didn't plan to have kids. Plus Liza Minnelli.

Actually, procreation is one of the main reasons for marriage, but I didn't bring it up because pro-gays always come up with sophomoric arguments about the low percentage of hetero's that cannot reproduce and try to use that as a justification for their union of convienience. AND...most people don't realize that they are infertile until after they are married. I have brought it up many times before.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Actually, procreation is one of the main reasons for marriage, but I didn't bring it up because pro-gays always come up with sophomoric arguments about the low percentage of hetero's that cannot reproduce and try to use that as a justification for their union of convienience. AND...most people don't realize that they are infertile until after they are married. I have brought it up many times before.

And it's no more relevant now. Small percentage of infertile heterosexuals. Small percentage of the population is gay. Either way, there is no impact on what anyone else does with their marriage.

The simple fact is that whatever rationale you create, no marriage is adversely affected by the existance of any other marriage. If John and Steve or Carol and Mary down the road get married, it will not compel Bob and Brenda to get divorced. Nor will it stop Phil and Patricia from marrying if they want to.

Unless, of course, Phil is one of those pathetic closet cases who thinks getting married to a woman will make him straight.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And it's no more relevant now. Small percentage of infertile heterosexuals. Small percentage of the population is gay. Either way, there is no impact on what anyone else does with their marriage.

The simple fact is that whatever rationale you create, no marriage is adversely affected by the existance of any other marriage. If John and Steve or Carol and Mary down the road get married, it will not compel Bob and Brenda to get divorced. Nor will it stop Phil and Patricia from marrying if they want to.

Unless, of course, Phil is one of those pathetic closet cases who thinks getting married to a woman will make him straight.

Why do you guys insist on using the shortcomings of a covenent between a man and woman as justification to create special rights for gays (that would be marriage)?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do you guys insist on using the shortcomings of a covenent between a man and woman as justification to create special rights for gays (that would be marriage)?

Because that's what equality is about.

To put it another way, why do you insist on ignoring heterosexual shortcomings on the matter as justification to deny homosexuals marriage?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Because that's what equality is about.

To put it another way, why do you insist on ignoring heterosexual shortcomings on the matter as justification to deny homosexuals marriage?

I am not ignoring hetero shortcomings when it comes to marriage. If it were up to me, marriage would be much more difficult to attain and a divorce would be 100 times as hard to achieve.

Pro-creation is one of many wonderful benefits and responsibilities to a marriage. Besides, medical treatment can, and has advanced to a point where infertiles can reproduce. But biologically, william and william will never be ever to procreate together. Neither will mary and Mary.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am not ignoring hetero shortcomings when it comes to marriage. If it were up to me, marriage would be much more difficult to attain and a divorce would be 100 times as hard to achieve.

However, once again, you're looking to limit people actions based on your ideals.

If you admit there's unfair shortcomings, how does it make it right to deny homosexuals equal rights on the basis you just gave?

Originally posted by dcolton:
Pro-creation is one of many wonderful benefits and responsibilities to a marriage. Besides, medical treatment can, and has advanced to a point where infertiles can reproduce. But biologically, william and william will never be ever to procreate together. Neither will mary and Mary.

That's nice, but never say never. Cloning used to be an impossibility. I don't see why hybrid genetics should be.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am not ignoring hetero shortcomings when it comes to marriage. If it were up to me, marriage would be much more difficult to attain and a divorce would be 100 times as hard to achieve.

Pro-creation is one of many wonderful benefits and responsibilities to a marriage. Besides, medical treatment can, and has advanced to a point where infertiles can reproduce. But biologically, william and william will never be ever to procreate together. Neither will mary and Mary.

and who cares? Don't we have a large enough population as it is?
I did NOT marry my wife to have children, I married her because I loved her. If we had no progeny, I would still be be in love with her and still married to her. Marriage is not a contract to produce offspring....if it ever was, that would be sick.

I think the desire to keep harping on that is a fruitless path. Because if you SUCCEED in establishing that requirement for marriage, you're going to have to FORCE straight, childless couples to divorce.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do you guys insist on using the shortcomings of a covenent between a man and woman as justification to create special rights for gays (that would be marriage)?

Reread what I said. I said that a gay marriage would have no effect on existing or potential straight marriages. They are completely unrelated. Just as unrelated as a marriage in the US is to a marriage in another country. Each marriage consists of two people. How successful their marriage is doesn't depend on definitions, and isn't hurt or hindered by any other marriage.

Please demonstrate the causal relationship between a gay couple getting married and a straight couple either getting divorced, or deciding not to get married. If you can't do that, then you have not even an arguable basis to deny them that right.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and who cares? Don't we have a large enough population as it is?
I did NOT marry my wife to have children, I married her because I loved her. If we had no progeny, I would still be be in love with her and still married to her. Marriage is not a contract to produce offspring....if it ever was, that would be sick.

I think the desire to keep harping on that is a fruitless path. Because if you SUCCEED in establishing that requirement for marriage, you're going to have to FORCE straight, childless couples to divorce.

Refer to my post earlier...this is why I didn't bring up procreation to begin with. It is one of MANY reasons.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Reread what I said. I said that a gay marriage would have no effect on existing or potential straight marriages. They are completely unrelated. Just as unrelated as a marriage in the US is to a marriage in another country. Each marriage consists of two people. How successful their marriage is doesn't depend on definitions, and isn't hurt or hindered by any other marriage.

Please demonstrate the causal relationship between a gay couple getting married and a straight couple either getting divorced, or deciding not to get married. If you can't do that, then you have not even an arguable basis to deny them that right.

Now this is where you guys are unclear on my postion. I am not saying that gay marriages would hurt hetero marriages...I am saying that gay marriages would hurt society. And before you guys ask why or how, do a search, I think this has been covered before. If you are lucky, I might post some more later tonight...if I am bored enough.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Refer to my post earlier...this is why I didn't bring up procreation to begin with. It is one of MANY reasons.

It shouldn't be ANY one of the reasons.

Not that any of the other reasons are valid, either, but that one certainly is illogical.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Now this is where you guys are unclear on my postion. I am not saying that gay marriages would hurt hetero marriages...I am saying that gay marriages would hurt society. And before you guys ask why or how, do a search, I think this has been covered before. If you are lucky, I might post some more later tonight...if I am bored enough.

If it doesn't hurt hetero marriages, how could it possibly hurt society?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
However, once again, you're looking to limit people actions based on your ideals.

If you admit there's unfair shortcomings, how does it make it right to deny homosexuals equal rights on the basis you just gave?

That's nice, but never say never. Cloning used to be an impossibility. I don't see why hybrid genetics should be.

What part of *IF* didn't you understand?

You are beating a dead horse...there is no justification. You are the one trying to justify the shortcomings of real marriages to allow gays to justify their lifestyle. So tell me this...are you saying gays should be allowed to marry because they will help to further represent the negative aspect of normal marriages?

Cloning...yep, there is the answer.

Spring Break over yet?