"Same sex marriage" What is your opinion?

[Tock]

Good point.............

so lets assume that a gay, or murder, depressed people, all of these have no choice because of the chemical make up in thier brain....

do we treat these as a desease, seeking to fix that which society sees as out of the normal range???


.

[/QUOTE]


Things that do not affect a person's ability to make his way through life, like being gay, you regard as being just another variation in humans, like red hair, left handedness, etc.
If someone suffers a debilatating condition, like depression, that makes him a likely candidate for suicide, you figure out what the cause is (environmental or biological) and treat it accordingly, so he can return to everyday life.

Pretty much, what the medical profession considers a condition that needs treatment, is a condition that impairs the ability of an individual to take care of himself.
As far as normal/abnormal goes, if you compare any individual to everyone else, you'll find something that is unususal. But does that make him abnormal? Well, yes, in a manner of speaking. All of us can be viewed as abnormal (some more than most). But, if we can take care of ourselves, and we don't pose a danger to anyone, we should be left alone to live our lives, not singled out by religious zealots as Heretics and Nonconformists and sent for "rehabilitation" until we beleive in the One True God (which we all know is Allah, yes?) . . .

Hmmmmm . . . .

--Tock

[LM1332]

church what it is today is bull**** the only true christian churches remain today are in Russian. Even though they were practicly destroyd they still kept the tradition and the original bible and it says no union shall be between men, meaning no gay marriage

[Tock]

that's cool bro...I'm leaving for a while also...it got out of hand....

Carlos & Tock...when you guys get a chance, look at my longer post and edumecate me on the issues I brought up.

peace,

ttgb

I think I covered everything in a couple of posts . . . let me know if I missed anything . . .
--Tock

[Tock]

i like street racing, and gay people lol. im not gay, but dont have any quarels with them. but i do hate it when you see the total stereotypical homo. even my gay friends call them fags, and hate when they see people like that cause it reflects on them cause they are gay

That's kinda like saying, "I like blacks and all, but I do hate it when you see the total stereotypical black. Even my friends call them n------."

Not a flame, just making a comparison you might not have thought of . . .
--Tock

[Tock]

A pedophile considers himself normal....would you never judge him either?

peace,

ttgb

Pedophiles involuntarily involve other (young) people.
At issue here are adults voluntarily involving other adults.
Big difference.
--Tock

[Tock]

My issue becomes............. i should never know if a person is gay or not.... What difference does it make... none to me.......

when i see a person walking down the street, i want to see a fellow Man, or woman........... period.... not black/white/rich/poor..........

why do i need to know what your (anyone) sexual orientation is??? Is that the only thing that makes them interesting?? don't they have something else to add that is as interesting???
..

When you go walking down the street with your sweetie hanging on to your arm, it's obvious to everyone but the blind what your sexual orientation is. If you're so adamant about everyone keeping mum about their orientation, you'll have to tell your girl friend to stay 10 paces behind you where ever you go. Maybe just tell her to stay home whenever you go out.

I've never raised the issue of my orientation on this board . . . it's come out a few times as a normal response to someone else's question; I don't flaunt it, because I'm too busy with other stuff.

But if you're easily disturbed by knowing what anyone else's sexual orientation is, you may as well wear blinders, because straight folks sure do make an awfully blatant display of theirs. I don't think you are in a position to criticize the 3% or 4% of Americans who are gay do the same thing.

--Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

Pedophiles involuntarily involve other (young) people.
At issue here are adults voluntarily involving other adults.
Big difference.
--Tock

Hey Tock...it's late and I'm only going to reply to this one post right now...I wasn't challenging anything in the topic of this thread with this post. I was simply challenging the logic of the person that I was replying to. Don't consider my challenge upon his logic on gay marriage to be comparable to my beliefs on pedophiles and/or gay marriage...it was just the way he worded his post that I was challenging and I was using an extreme analogy.

peace,

ttgb

[Tock]

Hey tock....... seriously ........ a question...

1) a civil union is recognized by most insurance agencies??

2) a civil union is recognized by the state in cases of death without a will ??

3) a civil union provides all the "rights" that "marriage" does in the case where the spouse becomes ill???

NOt trying to start something... just want to know.....

1) I don't know. It would depend on how the insurance laws and the laws governing Civil Unions in that particular state were written.

2) same as #1. But a civil union would probably be more susceptable to legal challenge in case of death . . .
Say the two gay guys lived in Vermont, one dies, and the surviving parents (who never approved of the situation) decide they are going to try to get their kid's assets. With a regular marriage, they wouldn't get very far. If the civil union in that state doesn't cover situations like this, then the parents very likely would be able to gain posession of their kid's assets.

3) again, it depends on how the laws are written in any particular state. I haven't looked in detail at what Vermont or Canada offer, because as I live in Texas, the civil union would not be given any legal weight at all.

--Tock

[Tock]

Being hit on never bothers me... if by a woman, or a guy.......

gay bars have a great floor show............ too much entertainment....50% here are straight, 50% gay in attendance.

and.......I've never met a gay guy that i couldn't get along with.......especially once we get past the "I'm Gay" issue... to see what they really are.. and the interest that they have..

now.. answer my last question.......

Ok, just refresh my mind -- what was the question?
--Tock

[Tock]

Hey Tock...it's late and I'm only going to reply to this one post right now...I wasn't challenging anything in the topic of this thread with this post. I was simply challenging the logic of the person that I was replying to. Don't consider my challenge upon his logic on gay marriage to be comparable to my beliefs on pedophiles and/or gay marriage...it was just the way he worded his post that I was challenging and I was using an extreme analogy.

peace,

ttgb

O I C . . .
Sometimes, in this medium, it's hard to figure out what's what . . . in person, we've got the advantage of speech inflections to help identify stuff . . .
No prob . . .
-Tock

[Tock]

church what it is today is bull**** the only true christian churches remain today are in Russian. Even though they were practicly destroyd they still kept the tradition and the original bible and it says no union shall be between men, meaning no gay marriage

I understand there are several churches who will agree with your position on gays, but the Church of Christ, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Roman Catholic church, Rev. Moon's church, and several others all say that their church is the Only True Way.
You may be right, you may be wrong. Who am I to say? But with over a thousand different Christian denominations and sects out there all claiming to be correct, you're odds aren't very good.
Just a thought to start your day with . . .
--Tock

[Symian]

So why do you guys think the mayor of San Fran allowed it? Because he thinks it is right? Hell, no! It's just political gain that has cemented his next election.

Either way Rosies new "wife" is HOT!

Sym

Edit: What the hell have I created with this post? j/k

[Animal Cracker]

You know which one plays the "man" in that couple!

[Animal Cracker]

I am sure that is "alot of white hanging" when she takes off those over sized clothes!

[spywizard]

I was hoping for a more definaive answer...

It is my understanding.........

1. In a civil union... provided for by many states... male/female is not an issue..

2. Marriage is a ritual completed in a religious environment

3. Employers are the ones that decide to have/offer insurance to employee's and to a great extent.. the conditions where someone qualifies..
( i can expand on this.. but it is very true..)

4. Marriage when created was specifically for a man and a woman in a church.... if the couple did not want to be joined in a church, or the church refused the service.. the couple could still be recognized by the state in a civil ceremony.. thus affording them the "rights" that gays so claim they need..

5. So i conclude that............ Gay's only want "Marriage" for the sake of controversy... since they can already obtain the "rights" that think they are due...

ok.. refer back to #3...

A typical employee copays for insurance in a (family coverage)
Group plan $500 per month.. the employer pays $500 also... there is no qualifing, they accept anyone, any condition...

In a private plan... it cost the employee $55 per month, and $2550 per year in a copay.. deductable.. the employerr pays $55 also.. $6,000,000 max payout
but the insurance company runs medicals on all employees, and family, and can refuse anyone for any conditions.. if the $2550 is not used in the year, it is kept for the employee in a 401 type plan... the $deductable is also kept in an account for the employee and is pretaxable... and accumilates.... and if the employee leaves, the policy goes with them..

So.. if a person has Aids, or HIV or is living a lifestyle that puts them at an increased level of exposure to this danger.. .the cost to insure them is greater... The acturary tables created by insurance companies do this.. not anyone else....

1) I don't know. It would depend on how the insurance laws and the laws governing Civil Unions in that particular state were written.

2) same as #1. But a civil union would probably be more susceptable to legal challenge in case of death . . .
Say the two gay guys lived in Vermont, one dies, and the surviving parents (who never approved of the situation) decide they are going to try to get their kid's assets. With a regular marriage, they wouldn't get very far. If the civil union in that state doesn't cover situations like this, then the parents very likely would be able to gain posession of their kid's assets.

3) again, it depends on how the laws are written in any particular state. I haven't looked in detail at what Vermont or Canada offer, because as I live in Texas, the civil union would not be given any legal weight at all.

--Tock

[Tock]

I was hoping for a more definaive answer...

It is my understanding.........

1. In a civil union... provided for by many states... male/female is not an issue..

2. Marriage is a ritual completed in a religious invironment

3. Employers are the ones that decide to have/offer insurance to employee's and to a great extent.. the conditions where someone qualifies..
( i can expand on this.. but it is very true..)

4. Marriage when created was specifically for a man and a woman in a church.... if the couple did not want to be joined in a church, or the church refused the service.. the couple could still be recognized by the state in a civil ceremony.. thus affording them the "rights" that gays so claim they need..

5. So i conclude that............ Gay's only want "Marriage" for the sake of controversy... since they can already obtain the "rights" that think they are due...

ok.. refer back to #3...

6) A typical employee copays for insurance in a (family coverage)
Group plan $500 per month.. the employer pays $500 also... there is no qualifing, they accept anyone, any condition...

In a private plan... it cost the employee $55 per month, and $2550 per year in a copay.. deductable.. the employerr pays $55 also.. $6,000,000 max payout
but the insurance company runs medicals on all employees, and family, and can refuse anyone for any conditions.. if the $2550 is not used in the year, it is kept for the employee in a 401 type plan... the $deductable is also kept in an account for the employee and is pretaxable... and accumilates.... and if the employee leaves, the policy goes with them..

7) So.. if a person has Aids, or HIV or is living a lifestyle that puts them at an increased level of exposure to this danger.. .the cost to insure them is greater... The acturary tables created by insurance companies do this.. not anyone else....

1) True. However, in states where both marriage rights and civil union rights are offered, gays are excluded from marriage rights, and the civil union rights are not as encompassing as the marriage rights.

2) The definition of the word "Marriage" is not all that clear.
If "marriage" is as you say (and I'm inclined to agree with you) a religious thing, then, since governments have as much reason to perform baptisms as any other religious ceremony, marriage should be the sole province of churches, and civil unions providing legal standing in contracts and other law should be the sole province of government.
Some people feel that the legal aspect of marriage (the marriage license), which is overseen by the government, is more important than the religous aspect, so they feel that the word Marriage should be kept for what the government does, and screw the church.
Other folks have a poor grasp of the difference between Marriage and Civil Union, and they think they are identical (which they are not, as the same rights are not conferred) and feel that if gay people have the same label put on their coupleship as straight people do, then that somehow diminishes the significance of their own marriage. They usually don't mind if gays have the same rights, but they just want the term "marriage" reserved for straights.

Ya, one of the most significant factors contributing to the controversy is the definition of the word "marriage," and the dispute over who gets to use it.

IMHO, the easy solution is for the government to issue Civil Unions to everyone, extend the same legal rights to everyone, and then if a couple wants to be "married" as well, then they can obtain the services of any church willing to provide them.
But some folks don't even like this solution, because they object to the idea of gays having the same legal rights as straight people. This is one reason why they're pushing for the anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution.


3) In some cases, yes, as in company provided health insurance. In other cases, no, as in automobile insurance.
For instance, if I had a sweetie, he could add his car to my insurance policy and get a substantial discount over what he would ordinarily pay on his own.
Or, consider the case of two small businesses, a gay-owned donut shop and a straight owned pet shop. Mr and Mrs Pet Shop owner could get a joint health insurance police with the 2nd person added at a discount, while Mr. and Mr. donut shop owner would have to get two individual policies, paying more for the same identical coverage.
Extending the same rights that straights have to gays would eliminate that situation.

4) I think folks were shacking up together long long before marriage was ever thought of. For instance, who married Adam and Eve? No one. Who married Og and Jugs, the cavepeople? No one. After jillions of years, someone figured they should announce that Mr and Mrs were an "item" and the Mrs was off-limits to any other horny bastard. As people created religions, ceremonies were created to formalize and announce the relationship.
Now gays and lesbians want in on the legal and financial advantages that modern folks get. Traditionalists say, "No, it's never been done that way before," and Progressives say, "Yes, society has updated its attitudes in lots of other things (slavery, women voting, child labor, etc) and now it's time to move forward on this issue as well."

5) I have no idea how you can reach that conculsion based on your four blurbs. Seems more likely that you had that conclusion before this thread even started, and you are trying to find data that fits your opinion. Am I right, or am I right?

6) It doesn't work this way everywhere. Again, consider self-employed people. Consider un-employed people. Consider retired people with no company insurance.

7) One of the biggest expense to insurance companies is maternity bills. Most women have kids. It's expensive as all get out to have one, and if there's a problem birth, expenses for incubators and surgery and etc etc usually reach millions of $$$.
Treatment for HIV, in contrast, runs about $6000 a year. With any luck, that expense will continue to drop over time, and with a lot of luck, a cure can be found with a simple vaccine, reducing the cost to a few hundred $$$. Maternity, on the other hand, will most likely keep getting more and more expensive.
The really big expenses for medical care are looming over the horizon . . . what do you think will happen once all of us Baby Boomers start retiring? We're gonna get old, have heart and liver and pancreas and prostate problems, have lots of operations for that stuff, and someone will be harping about "Why should we pay for all those old folk's medical bills? Social Security isn't going to be around for us when we get old!" . . . just something to consider . . . Baby Boomer's medical expenses are going to make HIV treatment look like a gnat on an elephant. Get ready for it; you'll be asked to pay for it.

Anyway, you state:

"if a person has Aids, or HIV or is living a lifestyle that puts them at an increased level of exposure to this danger.. .the cost to insure them is greater... The acturary tables created by insurance companies do this.. not anyone else..."

Ok; if the cost to insure them is greater, how do you know this is the case?
And if the cost is indeed greater, can you tell me who is cheaper to insure? Would pregnant women fall in this category? Pregnant women who smoke or drink? Kids who live in gang-infested, violence-prone neighborhoods? Old people who drive? Skydivers? Bodybuilders on lot of anabolic steroids?
Yah, if you know that the cost to insure gays is greater than the cost to insure other folks, I'd like to know (a) who those people are and (b) where you get your data.

I guess that's it . . .
Got some stuff draining in the next room, and it stinks . . .
--Tock

[Tock]

It is my understanding......... ..

BTW . . . good post. You're getting better at this . . .
--Tock

[Tock]

Just a few words from the editorial dept of the Boston Globe .. . fyi . . .
--Tock

-------------

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Bush's marriage war
2/26/2004

THE UNITED States Constitution has not been amended to address the rights of citizens in 33 years. Like other adjustments, the 26th Amendment expanded those rights -- in that case, of 18-year-olds to vote. It is a sad day when the president of the United States supports restricting civil rights in the Constitution simply to deny equal justice to Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian.

Luckily, it is not easy to amend the Constitution. It requires a two-thirds vote of Congress and 38 states to ratify. The Founders knew something Bush has forgotten: that the essential truths of our nation should be shielded from the heat of emotion or the imperatives of political campaigns.

Most Americans seem to understand this distinction. Though such questions should not be decided by poll results, majorities in most polls currently say they oppose gay marriages, but majorities also say they oppose ripping up the Constitution to ban them.

Bush's claim, made Tuesday, that marriage cannot be severed from its "cultural, religious, and natural roots" betrays an essential misunderstanding. Marriage is primarily a secular legal institution, not a religious one. Bush's statement invalidates millions of American marriages performed in city halls and by justices of the peace without benefit of religious imprimatur. Religious blessings are important to many people, but they are not required for a marriage to be legal.

Bush argues that court actions in Massachusetts have sown confusion, requiring federal clarity. But what is the crisis, exactly? Gay and lesbian couples want to participate in a fundamentally conservative institution. It is Bush and fellow opponents who are creating confusion and crisis by appealing to base prejudice, distracting voters from other concerns and fighting the inevitable tide of justice that will eventually embrace us all.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

[spywizard]

I still am not convinced...

I think it comes down to ..."Marriage" is a ceremony.. there is a license provided by the state...

with the license (which has no restrictions as to sex) you can have a civil ceremony, or a religious one..

in the end the same health/legal aspects and benefits that go along with it a
apply to the persons that are now together, and recognized by the state..

Thus... the conclusion presents itself that gays simply are looking for the drama that confrontation gives them.... case in point Rosie O....

In a relationship... going along........... then...... insist on participating in an illegal act.. (yes it is) to draw attention..

Like tree hugger chaining themselves to a tree to stop cutting..


DRAMA............

Final conclusion........

I'm happy... everyone should be.......bias against people that are different.. is wrong... being different, and demanding special treatment because you are different is wrong......

in the end........ no matter what.......... people suck....

1) True. However, in states where both marriage rights and civil union rights are offered, gays are excluded from marriage rights, and the civil union rights are not as encompassing as the marriage rights.

2) The definition of the word "Marriage" is not all that clear.
If "marriage" is as you say (and I'm inclined to agree with you) a religious thing, then, since governments have as much reason to perform baptisms as any other religious ceremony, marriage should be the sole province of churches, and civil unions providing legal standing in contracts and other law should be the sole province of government.
Some people feel that the legal aspect of marriage (the marriage license), which is overseen by the government, is more important than the religous aspect, so they feel that the word Marriage should be kept for what the government does, and screw the church.
Other folks have a poor grasp of the difference between Marriage and Civil Union, and they think they are identical (which they are not, as the same rights are not conferred) and feel that if gay people have the same label put on their coupleship as straight people do, then that somehow diminishes the significance of their own marriage. They usually don't mind if gays have the same rights, but they just want the term "marriage" reserved for straights.

Ya, one of the most significant factors contributing to the controversy is the definition of the word "marriage," and the dispute over who gets to use it.

IMHO, the easy solution is for the government to issue Civil Unions to everyone, extend the same legal rights to everyone, and then if a couple wants to be "married" as well, then they can obtain the services of any church willing to provide them.
But some folks don't even like this solution, because they object to the idea of gays having the same legal rights as straight people. This is one reason why they're pushing for the anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution.


3) In some cases, yes, as in company provided health insurance. In other cases, no, as in automobile insurance.
For instance, if I had a sweetie, he could add his car to my insurance policy and get a substantial discount over what he would ordinarily pay on his own.
Or, consider the case of two small businesses, a gay-owned donut shop and a straight owned pet shop. Mr and Mrs Pet Shop owner could get a joint health insurance police with the 2nd person added at a discount, while Mr. and Mr. donut shop owner would have to get two individual policies, paying more for the same identical coverage.
Extending the same rights that straights have to gays would eliminate that situation.

4) I think folks were shacking up together long long before marriage was ever thought of. For instance, who married Adam and Eve? No one. Who married Og and Jugs, the cavepeople? No one. After jillions of years, someone figured they should announce that Mr and Mrs were an "item" and the Mrs was off-limits to any other horny bastard. As people created religions, ceremonies were created to formalize and announce the relationship.
Now gays and lesbians want in on the legal and financial advantages that modern folks get. Traditionalists say, "No, it's never been done that way before," and Progressives say, "Yes, society has updated its attitudes in lots of other things (slavery, women voting, child labor, etc) and now it's time to move forward on this issue as well."

5) I have no idea how you can reach that conculsion based on your four blurbs. Seems more likely that you had that conclusion before this thread even started, and you are trying to find data that fits your opinion. Am I right, or am I right?

6) It doesn't work this way everywhere. Again, consider self-employed people. Consider un-employed people. Consider retired people with no company insurance.

7) One of the biggest expense to insurance companies is maternity bills. Most women have kids. It's expensive as all get out to have one, and if there's a problem birth, expenses for incubators and surgery and etc etc usually reach millions of $$$.
Treatment for HIV, in contrast, runs about $6000 a year. With any luck, that expense will continue to drop over time, and with a lot of luck, a cure can be found with a simple vaccine, reducing the cost to a few hundred $$$. Maternity, on the other hand, will most likely keep getting more and more expensive.
The really big expenses for medical care are looming over the horizon . . . what do you think will happen once all of us Baby Boomers start retiring? We're gonna get old, have heart and liver and pancreas and prostate problems, have lots of operations for that stuff, and someone will be harping about "Why should we pay for all those old folk's medical bills? Social Security isn't going to be around for us when we get old!" . . . just something to consider . . . Baby Boomer's medical expenses are going to make HIV treatment look like a gnat on an elephant. Get ready for it; you'll be asked to pay for it.

Anyway, you state:

"if a person has Aids, or HIV or is living a lifestyle that puts them at an increased level of exposure to this danger.. .the cost to insure them is greater... The acturary tables created by insurance companies do this.. not anyone else..."

Ok; if the cost to insure them is greater, how do you know this is the case?
And if the cost is indeed greater, can you tell me who is cheaper to insure? Would pregnant women fall in this category? Pregnant women who smoke or drink? Kids who live in gang-infested, violence-prone neighborhoods? Old people who drive? Skydivers? Bodybuilders on lot of anabolic steroids?
Yah, if you know that the cost to insure gays is greater than the cost to insure other folks, I'd like to know (a) who those people are and (b) where you get your data.

I guess that's it . . .
Got some stuff draining in the next room, and it stinks . . .
--Tock

[Carlos_E]

I think it comes down to ..."Marriage" is a ceremony.. there is a license provided by the state...

with the license (which has no restrictions as to sex) you can have a civil ceremony, or a religious one..

in the end the same health/legal aspects and benefits that go along with it a
apply to the persons that are now together, and recognized by the state..

Thus... the conclusion presents itself that gays simply are looking for the drama that confrontation gives them....

Wow, Tock wrote that long ass post and you still don't get it.

Gays are looking for the same health/legal aspects and benefits that go along with and apply to persons that are now together, and recognized by the state.

That's what they're looking for. How you jump to the conclusion it's just for drama sake I don't get. I guess it's the way you choose to see it.

[Tock]

1) I still am not convinced...

2) I think it comes down to ..."Marriage" is a ceremony.. there is a license provided by the state...

3) with the license (which has no restrictions as to sex) you can have a civil ceremony, or a religious one..

4) in the end the same health/legal aspects and benefits that go along with it
apply to the persons that are now together, and recognized by the state..

5) Thus... the conclusion presents itself that gays simply are looking for the drama that confrontation gives them.... case in point Rosie O....

6) In a relationship... going along........... then...... insist on participating in an illegal act.. (yes it is) to draw attention..

7) Like tree hugger chaining themselves to a tree to stop cutting..


DRAMA............

Final conclusion........

8) I'm happy... everyone should be.......bias against people that are different.. is wrong... being different, and demanding special treatment because you are different is wrong......

9) in the end........ no matter what.......... people suck....

1) I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, just conversing with you. Your mind involuntarily arrives at conclusions based on the info presented to it. So, your opinion is your opinion.

2) Well, congratulations. This is one definition of "marriage" I have never heard before. "Marriage" is a ceremony. But let me ask you this: If marriage is a ceremony, can a ceremony be considered to be a marriage? Personally, I don't think so, but I'd like to see your response on this . . .

3) With the license (still legally available only to straights), yes, you can have either a civil or a religious ceremony.
Without the license, you can't have a civil ceremony, and very few religious organizations will perform a religious ceremony. Maybe some wacko cults, but certainly not your local Methodist, Catholic, or Babtist churches.

4) Yes . . . only for straight people.

5) Your conclusion does not follow, at least not logically.
You say, "Marriage is a ceremony, for which a license is provided by the state."
Then, "With the licence, available to either sex, you can have a ceremony."
Then, All the benefits of marriage applly to people with a license and a ceremony.

From this you conclude, "Gays are looking only for drama."

The problems in your logic are as follows:
a) marriage is not a ceremony. It is a bond between 2 people granted by the state and often sanctified by a church.
b) The license is available to either sex, but not to 2 people of the same sex. So ceremonies are legally meaningless.

So, when you conclude "Gays are looking only for drama," you err, because, as has been repeatedly stated, gays are looking for the same legal rights and privileges that straights have. Currently gays are denied marriage licenses. In states that provide civil unions, gays still do not have the same rights as straights.
You are free to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but your difference of opinion will be based on faulty reasoning.

6) Huh? Can you re-phrase that?

7) OT, but, oh well . . .

8) Agreed. Bias based on the sort of differences we've been discussing is inappropriate. Agreed, also, that "special" rights are similarly inappropriate.
I challenge you, however, to demonstrate that what gays and lesbians are asking for (the same legal recognition of gay relationships that straights have) is anything "special."

9) Don't know what to make of that last line . . . lots of my best friends suck. I'm sure that lots of your favorite girlfriends suck. As far as I'm concerned, it's ok if they suck, I just don't want them to inhale.

Best,
--Tock

[Tock]

I guess that's it . . .
Got some stuff draining in the next room, and it stinks . . .
--Tock

Gee, I'm a pretty good cook . . . lol . . .
--Tock

[Mart651]

Sorry just could not resist.

A dad was watching his daughter play in the back yard. He thought how sweet it was that she was just out there playing. He noticed she was sitting there looking at something and had to go see.


He walked up to her to see what she was doing and noticed she was watching toi spiders mate.

She asked her father what the spiders were doing?

He said they are mating.

She asked what do you call the spider on top?

Daddy said, It is called a grand daddy long leg.


The daughgter said, so the one on the bottum is a grand mother long leg?


Daddy said, No it is called a grand daddy long leg also.


She stopped. looked and then stomped om both of them.
She said that stuff may be ok in California but it aint ok in Georgia.


I just read this on another board and thought everyone would think it is kind of funny.

[Terinox]

I have not read this entire thread, cause basically it's too **** long,

Anywho, IMO, times change, EVERYTHING changes, and usually it is older people who were raised more strictly that are against gay/lesbian marriage. If they don't want to call it "marriage" then change the name, but I don't see why it isn't fair. Like people mentioned, the main problem is the definition of "marriage." However, a lot of good things come out of being married (legally), so it only seems fair that if two gays or lesbians love each other and wanna be together, they get to share in those legal benefits.

In terms of religion, I'm against it. It gets very complicated, although before I was more athiest, I wouldn't really call myself athiest these days, but I still 100% disagree with religion (the most), and the TERM "God." People use that word the wrong way (IMO), and although I believe a "supreme being" or some sort, or even some "energy force," to actually NAME it something like "God" and that thing is something that just floats around in the sky is ridiculous to me.

IMO, the bible was written many many years ago by some rich people who wanted to do several things. 1. Control people, 2. Make money. As everyone knows, in the past, politics and religion were mixed 100% together, and THAT is the only reason it was started to begin with. It was an excuse for the King to be able to do whatever he wanted, and claim that HE spoke directly with God and bull**** like that. People back then would believe anything, especially religiously. So if the high Priest comes and says, "GOD HAS TOLD OUR KING TO ATTACK (enter country here)" EVERYONE would go ape **** and go, yes, that is the will of God, let's DO EEEEET!!!

What pisses me off the most is how the hell did so many MIRACULOUS things occur in the past, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, Moses, Jesus, etc... BUT NOW, suddenly when there is a great population, and there is virtually a witness around every corner, and the MAJORITY of people own a picture camera or video camera, NOTHING SUPERNATURAL ever occurs. I don't get that. How can people believe ALL those things that happened in the past?!?! They all sound too crazy. And don't they find it ODD nothing like that has EVER happened since the invention of a simple thing called a "camera." People realize now they can't get away with ****, so they don't make up stories anymore, because that is the only thing the Bible is, a bunch of stories, made up by some very creative people.

Anywho, those are all just my opinions, and I took it into religion, intead of the whole same sex marriage. Hahaha. Well, I know virutally nobody will have read this post anyways, it's too long, and near the end of the thread, so who gives a FOOK wut I write. I could even slip in a (F.U.C.K YOU ALL, and no one would even realize it, dumbasses)

Bottom line, IMO, same sex marriage should be allowed, nothing wrong with it. Times change, people change. And in a sense WHY DO YOU CARE?! If something doesn't affect you personally, then WHY complain?! WHO ARE YOU TO STAND IN THE WAY OF LOVE HUH?!!!!! I say go worry about other ****, like...

1. The President having an AFFAIR on his wife.
2. The Liberal party losing QUARTER OF A BILLION dollars.
3. Murderers and rapists roaming your neighbourhood.
4. Guns falling into the hands of children and gangs.

ETC...................................

Bite me

[Carlos_E]

Well, I know virutally nobody will have read this post anyways, it's too long, and near the end of the thread, so who gives a FOOK wut I write.

I read the entire thing. F uck you to buddy!

[mass junkie]

I read the entire thing. F uck you to buddy!

lmao......your busted carlos

[JDMSilviaSpecR]

F*ck gay marriages. NO NO and... HELL NO. Marriage is between MAN and WOMAN. It should stay that way. I hate Bush, but I like the fact that he is gonna get rid of gay marriages with ARNOLD. Gay Fa**ots are messing with my beautiful state on CA...

[Red Ketchup]

I honestly don't care one way or another...

If 2 people love each other and want to make it permanent and benefit from it, then so be it... I don't give a rat's a$$ if they are male, female, animal, vegetable or freakin mineral.

As for the religious interpretations of marriage, well I'll leave that to folks who believe in those stories... in my opinion "gays can't marry because religion, god, the bible or whatever said so" is just another attempt to control other peoples lives.

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

Red

[abstrack]

F*ck gay marriages. NO NO and... HELL NO. Marriage is between MAN and WOMAN. It should stay that way. I hate Bush, but I like the fact that he is gonna get rid of gay marriages with ARNOLD. Gay Fa**ots are messing with my beautiful state on CA...

That is just asinine! why would in reference to gay marriages you would only imply Faggots or 2 men?? what about the rights of gay women? I suppose their messing up California also.

[abstrack]

I have not read this entire thread, cause basically it's too **** long,

Anywho, IMO, times change, EVERYTHING changes, and usually it is older people who were raised more strictly that are against gay/lesbian marriage. If they don't want to call it "marriage" then change the name, but I don't see why it isn't fair. Like people mentioned, the main problem is the definition of "marriage." However, a lot of good things come out of being married (legally), so it only seems fair that if two gays or lesbians love each other and wanna be together, they get to share in those legal benefits.

In terms of religion, I'm against it. It gets very complicated, although before I was more athiest, I wouldn't really call myself athiest these days, but I still 100% disagree with religion (the most), and the TERM "God." People use that word the wrong way (IMO), and although I believe a "supreme being" or some sort, or even some "energy force," to actually NAME it something like "God" and that thing is something that just floats around in the sky is ridiculous to me.

IMO, the bible was written many many years ago by some rich people who wanted to do several things. 1. Control people, 2. Make money. As everyone knows, in the past, politics and religion were mixed 100% together, and THAT is the only reason it was started to begin with. It was an excuse for the King to be able to do whatever he wanted, and claim that HE spoke directly with God and bull**** like that. People back then would believe anything, especially religiously. So if the high Priest comes and says, "GOD HAS TOLD OUR KING TO ATTACK (enter country here)" EVERYONE would go ape **** and go, yes, that is the will of God, let's DO EEEEET!!!

What pisses me off the most is how the hell did so many MIRACULOUS things occur in the past, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, Moses, Jesus, etc... BUT NOW, suddenly when there is a great population, and there is virtually a witness around every corner, and the MAJORITY of people own a picture camera or video camera, NOTHING SUPERNATURAL ever occurs. I don't get that. How can people believe ALL those things that happened in the past?!?! They all sound too crazy. And don't they find it ODD nothing like that has EVER happened since the invention of a simple thing called a "camera." People realize now they can't get away with ****, so they don't make up stories anymore, because that is the only thing the Bible is, a bunch of stories, made up by some very creative people.

Anywho, those are all just my opinions, and I took it into religion, intead of the whole same sex marriage. Hahaha. Well, I know virutally nobody will have read this post anyways, it's too long, and near the end of the thread, so who gives a FOOK wut I write. I could even slip in a (F.U.C.K YOU ALL, and no one would even realize it, dumbasses)

Bottom line, IMO, same sex marriage should be allowed, nothing wrong with it. Times change, people change. And in a sense WHY DO YOU CARE?! If something doesn't affect you personally, then WHY complain?! WHO ARE YOU TO STAND IN THE WAY OF LOVE HUH?!!!!! I say go worry about other ****, like...

1. The President having an AFFAIR on his wife.
2. The Liberal party losing QUARTER OF A BILLION dollars.
3. Murderers and rapists roaming your neighbourhood.
4. Guns falling into the hands of children and gangs.

ETC...................................

Bite me

Good post Terinox!







P.s.

F -U too!

[Terinox]

I read the entire thing. F uck you to buddy!

[Terinox]

Good post Terinox!

P.s.

F -U too!

Thanks bro (for the post comment)

Those were just all IMO of course. No offense to anyone, all entitled to their opinions mmm kay?

[Tock]

Good post Terinox!


P.s.

F -U too!

Ya, I liked it, too.
I'll pass on the FU, though. Don't care for the problems that come with messing with straight men.
--Tock

[Tock]

Actually, if God didn't intend for men to be gay, why did he make them so good looking?
--Tock

[motocross308]

I would say so. Just like mass murders, depressed people, neurotic people. Something is chemically unbalanced in their head. My brother is mentally handi-capped and becasue of his chemical unbalance he is a 8 yrd old in a 41 yr old body. Does he have a choice also??

[
[

You probably will never ever understand because you're not gay.[/QUOTE]so , saying that , we should accept mass murderers ? if its a genetic problem then ther should be a way to isolate this in dna ...

[spywizard]

Silly rabbit........... suck...meaning a bad thing........... not the good thing...but you already knew that.... sarcasim........ sorry i was being Facetious

Hope all is well with you.............





9) Don't know what to make of that last line . . . lots of my best friends suck. I'm sure that lots of your favorite girlfriends suck. As far as I'm concerned, it's ok if they suck, I just don't want them to inhale.

Best,
--Tock[/QUOTE]

[spywizard]

Hey............. did you notice that over 50% of the members on this board... don't support either.......... same sex marriage, or same sex civil unions.........

Just information......................

[abstrack]

.so , saying that , we should accept mass murderers ? if its a genetic problem then ther should be a way to isolate this in dna ...

I have already addressed this quote. Just read through the thread and find the reply.

[Umberto]

Marriage is an institution designed to hold society together. It is a family raising institution where a child can be raised with a woman and a man. This is by far the most healthy situation emotionally and physically. Men and women are different and they need to be raised by a man AND a woman for optimal mental health.

I have no problem with civil unions as long as gays dont get any kind of tax, insurance
or any other benefits reserved for straight people. These INCENTIVES were created to help hold marriages together for the CHILDRENS sake. AND SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES.

Society, family and the economy will suffer if Homosexuals are allowed these benefits.

I must say: I am opposed morally and ethically to homosexuality.That being said:

They do SHOULD have the right to live together, love one another (as much as I believe its wrong, It is not my place to judge) and not be the recievers of bigotry or hate. They are human beings too. They deserve respect and judgement based on their character aside from their sexual orientation.

[Carlos_E]

Hey............. did you notice that over 50% of the members on this board... don't support either.......... same sex marriage, or same sex civil unions.........

Just information......................

I think you mean 50% of the members who voted. 30 people is not the entire board.