50!!!!!!!!!!!

Call it weak if you think it is. No one should ever question if I'm married to a man or a woman. Ever.

You obviously have many masculinity related issues.

You must be very insecure about your own sexuality.

that's kind of a selfish reason to opress a whole huge group of people, dont you think?

50 years ago when Interracial marriage was up for debate, you could have said "No one should ever question if I'm married to a white woman or a black woman. Ever."

Wouldn't that sound dumb to say today?

No.

With this path, Satan can do the job.

:2 cents:

Isnt that like segregation? Its the same rationalization used 50 years ago - that blacks and whites should be entitled to the same education...just not at the same schools. *shrug*

wow, I didnt read the whole posts and it looks like someone literally took the words out of my mouth three posts up. Glad to know there are plenty of intelligent people reading these boards :p

Yes - I feel that every person should have the right to marry who they want... man or woman.

I believe in happiness, if two people of the same sex getting married will make them happy or even happiest, then so be it!

Yeah i supose they should,i don't have problems with that as long as they stay away from me:glugglug

why not? I'd say I'm quite surprised seeing porn webmasters being all shocked because of that, but then I realize it's not surprise at all :(

Yes they should.

I don't mind gays getting married, that means more pussy for me :)

Yes. They should have the same rights as everyone else. Including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

the time will come soon were the questions wont matter.

I question your entire line of "logic".

script:

- yes, they should it is a matter of civil rights
- no they shouldn't they are against nature
- oh give me a break
- they want special rights
- how is it a special right to marry the person you love?
- straight people can't marry the same gender either. So, it is a special right.
- yeah, okay but on my planet people want to marry the people they love. Straight people don't have romantic love for the same gender.
- doesn't matter, it is a special right, let them live together as long as I don't see it but don't call it marriage
- fine, don't call it marriage but then get proper civil unions available
- no, that is wrong
- what the fuck are you talking about? First you don't want marriage but you won't let them have another option.
- there isn't anything they can't do now without the law changing
- what about being able to be by the side of the person you love when they are dying in a hospital or being able to be next of kin.
- that is what wills are for
- do you have a brain? What part of they can - and are- contested do you not understand?
- gays are sick
- don't worry, they don't want to marry your sorry ass
- they should follow california law..if they want to change things they can do it other ways
- ever heard of Ghandi?
- the guy that wore diapers?
- um, yeah..anyway, sometimes you need to fight the law in a non-violent act of civil disobedience
- damn faggots throwing it in front of our face..fat ass rosie doing it it
- you know, 12clicks really is so much better at this than you

etc..

If it were truly about equal rights such as hospital visitation, medical benefits, inheritance, etc. They'd accept civil unions and be done with it. What they really want is to normalize their abnormal behavior in the eyes of society. They want homosexuality to be seen as an equal state of being to heterosexuality. Common sense and biology tells us it's not and can never be. Maybe one day science will find a cure for gayness and this will no longer be an issue.

oh man, I totally have to agree with your sentiment in that statement...


it's the good political theater time of year again...

yes

LOL, that does not compute

Err, no, what they want is EQUAL rights. Geddit? EQUAL. That means the right to get married to the consenting adult of their choice. Giving them the right to a civil union is not equal rights if you are denying them the right to marry.

VERY well done! :thumbsup

true

I don't like the values of the "gay community," but I don't really give two shits about gays or what they do as long as they don't intentionally provoke me or try to influence children to "explore their sexuality."

Here are a few points I feel I have to raise however.

1. Many on the "yes" side are extremely quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as "<b>clearly</b>" frightened and insecure, "<b>obviously</b>" homosexual themselves, without providing any argumentation whatsoever. Look back in this thread for examples.

This is invalid argumentation, and it sounds so fucking stupid and desperate that it is beyond me as to how you get away with it as often as you do. Anyone can say that since someone agrees or disagrees with something, they are "clearly" frightened, "obviously" meaning something else no matter what they say, and so forth. I could say that if you are disagreeing with this very post, it is obvious and perfectly clear that you in effect are just like me, and are just trying to deny your own nature by virtue of the act of disagreeing with me. See my point? Try something else, please. How about some convincing arguments instead of those desperate attempts at "winning" arguments by playing supreme God over what the opposition's arguments "really" means.

2. Disallowing the misuse of a concept/ritual invented by and for straight people to mean something special to them isn't oppression or denying anyone any rights. If "denying" this to gays is denying them their rights (how and where did they earn this right?), then <b>by the exact same logic, single people and people who want to marry a group of people or even a plant/baby/child/picture/object/soul/animal are also being denied "their" right and thereby "oppressed."</b> And what about urinals for men? Aren't women oppressed and denied their rights by not getting urinals installed in womens' bathrooms? After all, some woman do prefer to stand while peeing. Who are we to say that they can't have urinals? Denying them their rightful urinals is not humane! Et cetera.

I suggest the gays stock up on some of that "sensitivity" and "tolerance" they are so quick to preach about, and put some thought into whether they really want to change the meaning of marriage for everybody, when in fact they are just a vocal little minority. But I guess sensitivity and tolerance doesn't apply that way, right? Hypocricy at its best.


I have more points about this issue, but I have spent enough time on this for now. Thanks for reading.

CLIFFNOTES: 1) Explanation of own stance. 2) A bunch of interesting little analogies and facts sum up to ownage of one of the sides to this discussion. 3) The question of whether the sensitivity and tolerance being preached is applicable in more than just the way in which it is beneficial to politically correct groups is raised.

There are so many things I could talk about in regards to your post. But I thought I would just "settle" on this point for now.

I find it interesting when a majority group tells a minority group to be "SENSITIVE" and "TOLERANT" of their views/opinions.

I could take your reference to "gays" and change it to "blacks" or any other minority because you are basically telling ANYONE in a minority group to "not rock the boat" because you like it in the MAJORITY group.

THAT'S JUST THE POINT! The majority group have become so "settled" with "the way things are now" that you are the very "creature" you are talking about when there is a need to be "sensitive" and "tolerant".

PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE..what you preach!

I don't care its not my business, if they love eachother, then why not I'd say. Afterall, life is only 70/80 years average.

So you should enjoy your life, not pretend to be different then you really are.

I doubt women prefer peeing standing up because I think the pee would tend to dribble down their legs and leave an unsightly trail of urine . I don't ever recall trying to pee standing up, but my guess is that this is what would happen. Men can project their penis and aim at a certain spot while that's not possible for women.

well said


:thumbsup :thumbsup

i gotta admit, im not really sure how i feel about this. but i guess mainly i just wouldnt want to be raised by two guys or two girls ... sure this is ignorant but, i have had limited exposure to this lifestyle so ... i am ignorant about it.

Ill say yes im for it since im sure Bush and the 'Moral Majority' is against it.

Marriage for gays :thumbsup - cant be worse than the state of male/female marriages these days. Men see women as a car to trade in after they put too many miles on it - makes me sick. Im serious, doesnt anyone love anyone? how many people have parents that are still together? Its been 18 years and im still sick over my parents divorce.

They should have every right to be just as miserable as straight people!

Looking at the same face every freakin morning for the rest of your life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:Graucho

Of course they should.

gay people are fucking sick..... they should be beaten in the streets not married. :mad:

They can gain equal rights through civil unions or de facto type relationships. Their agenda for Marriage is little more than their attempt to further force their lifestyles in peoples faces. Do I care if someone is in to scat? Not particularly. Do I want to see it (or constant references about it) in my face, on TV, and taught at my children's school? Nope.

of course they should.

Sure if they want!

sure

NP

I find it kind of amazing how many Porn Peddlers feel that gays do not have the right to be married.

Yep, merely asking the question means you are a moron. I've been married 20 years to the most beautiful and exicting woman on the planet. To deny that sense of well being and happiness to anyone else is stupid, mean, and senseless.

Who gives a fuck who marries who? For all I care my dog can marry your sister and your mother too; I don't give a flying fuck if all 3 consent.

Actually the question was asked to gather others opinions, and had you readm the original question before posting you would have seen that I DO beleive they have the right, so i guess that would make you the moron then:1orglaugh

don't count the lesbians out...they can put up one hell of a fight

<img src="http://www.solsup.com.au/greenman/femaleurinal.jpg">

Ok...I actually liked your post. It was well written and seemed to follow a logical pattern in argument. But can you please explain to me how you, or any other straight person, "earned" the right to marry...and any gay person did not????

Here's how I see the issue. Marriage is really only a commitment ceremony between 2 (or in Utah more) consenting adults that is recognized by government to allow for certain legal protections and benefits. Allowing civil unions, but not allowing "marriage" is the purest form of segregation. Last time I checked, segregation was illegal.

This thread has offered some good arguments for both sides of this issue, but even more half-assed attempts at trying to spout rhetoric that amounts to nothing more than self-important bullshit...also on both sides of the issue. As far as changing the deffinition of marriage itself...how is it that anyone else who marries has any effect on your own marriage. If that's the case, shouldn't you be equally as offended by the fact that cousins can marry in some states? What if somebody thinks you are married to your cousin. What about people who get married simply because they've gone and knocked themselves up...or for welfare money...or inheritance??? Seems to me these ceremonies should be just as offensive, but they are not in debate.

Where children are concerned...now this issue touches a little deeper I think, for all of us. Yes, I believe the best way possible to raise a child is with a loving father and a loving mother, both financially stable enough to provide a good warm home and an empowering education. Both intelligent enough to explain life at age appropriate intervals. Both concerned enough to participate in life and lead by example. There are many many requirements for "ideal parenthood" but what percentage of American families do you think really fit this mold? Oddly enough, when I came out to my family, my aunt expressed deep sorrow for me that I would never be able to have children as her son was better for her than she ever could have imagined, and she wanted me to be able to feel that kind of joy. When I asked her why she thought I couldn't/wouldn't have kids she firmly espoused the evils of bringing up a child in such a situation. Here's the kicker...my aunt got pregnant...didn't even know she was pregnant for the 1st 4 months of the pregnancy because she drank too much to notice. When she told the "father" he skipped town. As it turns out...when my cousin was 2 YEARS old...we discovered that the man she originally thought was the father wasn't and that the father was somebody else entirely. Now...I know she loves him with her entire being, but can anybody explain to me how that can be better for a child than being raised by 2 loving parents, of any gender, who have sacrificed and designed their lives for the specific purpose of adoption. People who are caring for children before they even have them...not people who happen to fuck up in a moment of drunken lust. This is just one small example.

The other day I dropped a friend off to visit some people he knew. There were 2 sisters, both with x husbands either in jail or on the run...and 6 children living in a 2 bedroom trailer so full of shit that you litterally had to tiptoe past the front door. Whew! I sure am glad those people "earned" their right to marry. What a great future those kids are facing! On a personal level...growing up gay is hard. Nobody, not even any gay parents I know, raises children with an understanding of what it's like to be gay. This leaves countless teens, struggling with the usual pressures of adolesence, with the added burden of wondering what's wrong with them. It's hard. There should be open dialogue and discussion and places for kids to go when they don't understand their own emotions/sexuality. There needs to be a place kids can be comfortable enough to confront those issues and maybe even get some guidance. Human sexuality is not a "disease" in need of a cure.

I'm honestly not trying to "pick on" unfortunate people or circumstances, but merely pointing out that, as humans, we all have certain rights...but the most basic is the right to choose. Those people all were able to choose whether or not to marry. They chose whether or not to have children. Now really, for better or worse, any person, by virtue of his/her humanity should have the right to choose for him/herself. It's a good damned thing Hitler didn't let the Germans marry the Jews...just think how fucked up the world would be now if they'd gotten an earlier start!

I know I've gone on way too long already, and there are pages more I could write. But for now I'll stop and thank anyone who has actually taken the time to read and consider any of this.

Ok, case closed then. :glugglug

Well, it's 5:40 on the 11th and NBC just ran a factual answer to why civil unions don't cut it -- the big hangup is the federal government only recognizes marriage. There are over 1100+ places where federal benefits are limited to persons in, or children of persons in, a legal Civil Marriage. Civil Unions are limited to benefits of the state issuing that contract. Note: Civil Union, Civil Marriage -- not Religious Union, Not Religious Marriage. That's where most of the 'upset' comes from -- use of the term 'gay marriage' as if it would mean every pastor and every congregation would have to accept any same sex couple that say's 'marry us'. THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING ASKED!! No law in the US can dictate to any religion -- and vice versa is suppose to be true. We live in a secular democracy not a Christian one.

As to your belief of what the true 'agenda' is -- abnormality is in the eye of the beholder. For sure, biology is not telling 'us' anything other than there is stronger and stronger scientific proof that homosexuality can be inborn just like lefthandedness. Check this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ience_sheep_dc -- Homosexual sheep!!

That's their right.

Sure they can. If all the guys/gays team up together it leaves more single women free for the rest of us.

No they shouldn't and they won't fuck the haters.

Personally i find it disgusting, but then again I'm not gay. I don't think its fair to deny th right though, just as long as I'm not part of it.

my idea..it's 2004 for christ sake