Gay Marriage

[RBatson]

No one has said anything about this, that I've noticed. I for one don't really care if there are same sex marriages, they don't effect me. The only thing I could think of was the insurance companies. If same sex marriages are recognized then the insurance companies will have to cover the same sex spouse.. that may effect me. When the insurance companies start having to pay for the AIDS treatment these folks tend to get, will that make my rates go up?? I'm certain it will. I'm all for people being happy as long as it doesn't effect me. I think all people should be happy, live your own life.. as long as it doesn't effect the rest of the population.

[MissBlondie]

I don't agree... God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[RBatson]

While I agree with what you are saying... what do I care what Adam and Steve are doing? I don't. If it makes them happy and doesn't effect me, I couldn't care less.


LOL! You're cute.

[1989GT]

I don't agree... God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Exactly!

[bigred90gt]

I agree partly with RBatson, if they want to get married, so be it. Its none of my, or anyone elses, business what they do with their lives. The other part about the "AIDS treatment these folks tend to get", I dont buy into the whole "AIDS is a gay disease". It rationally just doesnt make any sense.

[joe4speed]

I couldn't care less either. To me, there are just way too many other, more important, things to worry about.
Live and let live, they don't bother me.

I dont buy into the whole "AIDS is a gay disease".

Me either. AIDS is a worldwide epidemic that EVERYONE has to worry about. Scary thing.

[d_lyp]

Originally posted by MissBlondie
I don't agree... God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Which is exactly why they should be able to. Marriage is a legal act, and as such the bible, and your, or any other God, aren't permitted to affect the laws of the land. Something about the separation of church and state.

Not allowing two consenting adults to marry because of their sexual preference, race, or religious background is nothing more than discrimination. Athiests can get married, why not a couple of queers that truly love each other? 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, so if you want to tackle the issue religiously, go after the "bad" 50% first.

[mustardjohn]

Mostly about recognition and acceptance. But also about social security, taxes and other legal things that come to married couples like pension survivor benefits and good IRA treatment on death of a partner. All of the latter affect us in a monetary way.

[MissBlondie]

Originally posted by d_lyp
Which is exactly why they should be able to. Marriage is a legal act, and as such the bible, and your, or any other God, aren't permitted to affect the laws of the land. Something about the separation of church and state.

Not allowing two consenting adults to marry because of their sexual preference, race, or religious background is nothing more than discrimination. Athiests can get married, why not a couple of queers that truly love each other? 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, so if you want to tackle the issue religiously, go after the "bad" 50% first.

I'm not attacking anything, RBatson asked how we felt, and that's how I feel. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I also believe that taking the covenant of marriage between a man, a woman, and God and bringing homosexuality into it is a joke. Fine if you and your same sex partner want equal rights as a married couple, but then call it something else, don't squander the word marriage.

See below the definition of marriage...

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by MissBlondie :

I'm not attacking anything, RBatson asked how we felt, and that's how I feel. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I also believe that taking the covenant of marriage between a man, a woman, and God and bringing homosexuality into it is a joke. Fine if you and your same sex partner want equal rights as a married couple, but then call it something else, don't squander the word marriage.

I agree. In my opinion, homosexuals are seeking forced societial approval for their choice of sexual expression via the courts, stealing the mantle of 'civil rights' (from African-Americans, who's race truly is immutable, with the exception of Michael Jackson, apparently) to gain supporters who hear: 'civil rights' and leap to defend 'gay marriage'. Homosexuality is not genetic and not innate. Therefore, homosexuals not being included in the legal definition of 'marriage' is not 'discrimination' or in any way a 'civil rights' issue. Homosexuals do not have a 'civil right' to be legally married and this tactic, while successful with many, is a bogus claim. That they (and their many supporters) instantly charge anyone not buying into their demands for the re-definition of marriage to include homosexuals as: 'bigots', 'homophobes' and 'haters' is pretty cheesy but sadly common with the so-called 'gay lobby'. This tactic effectively shuts down any rational debate and simply 'demonizes' the opposition with no basis in fact. As I said, an all-too-common ploy, today.

Homosexuals don't like it but the serious scientific studies on 'What makes a homosexual' came to the conclusion that while there are many factors involved, almost all are enviromental and none are demonstrably genetic in nature. I happen to believe there is a proclivity in a tiny minority of people, male and female, for an attraction to the same sex, but that it is usually outweighed by other factors and can be reversed via therapy. This happens more than the homosexual advocates want you to know. In most cases, any ex-homosexual who goes public with his story is generally declared by the homosexual advocy groups as a 'fake' and either ignored or demeaned as being 'in denial' or simply as someone who was never really homosexual to begin with. Few ex-homosexuals need or want that kind of rejection and vilification so they keep quiet and just get on with their lives, often marrying and fathering children, leaving the 'gay' lifestyle far behind them. They are mostly invisible.

Meanwhile, the homosexual advocates trumpet the lie that homosexuality is immutable and as such, 'normal', as they push for more and more recognition by the law, now including the legal right to 'marry'. In my opinion, homosexual activists care little about actually being 'married' but a lot about forcing social acceptance of homosexuality on the public. It appears that this time, after decades of unbroken successes, the homosexual activists may have gone a bridge too far.

Like most reasonable people, I don't wish to stop those who wish to express their sexuality by engaging in same-sex relationships from doing so. I have no interest in being part of the Sexual Police Force. Let them do as they please with other consenting adults in the privacy of their homes, as the cliché goes. I do wish they would pay for their own AIDS treatments more often instead of pushing the expense (sometimes inevitable) unto taxpayers for what amounts to a preventable disease, same as drug addiction, alcholism and the many other non-fatal sexually transmitted diseases. However, that's a separate issue.

Like you, 'Miss Blondie', I hold no animus for any homosexual, although in all candor, I also disapprove of homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. That's my personal point of view and I have as much right to it as any homosexual activist (or anyone else on this board) does to his or her view. I believe the homosexual activists have little real grounds to make their insistence that we change the long-established law to appease their demands, which are emotional, not legal or sometimes even logical. So, I stand opposed to this latest attempt to re-define marriage in America. It has always been reserved for the (logical and rational) legal uniting of a man and a woman. This makes sense and always has. Now, after thousands of years, w're being asked to abandoned the traditional and logical definition of marriage to suit a tiny minority of people who go against the sexual norms and then demand to be called 'normal' by virtue of having their sexual relationships called a legal marriage. I think not.

That's what I think about it.

[mustardjohn]

guys and girls it is about money. Sure there is the accepatance thing but these folks are smart as everybodyelse and there are financial benefits that acrue to married people as stated in my last post. Don't get all emotional over this. Consider the benefits of pension suviorship, IRA treatment, Social Security benefits, etc.etc. There are tangable things at stake here. Groups rarely cause disturbances over purely moral issues, abortion being the exception to this generality. There have been gays since the begining of time.

Hey lets get a thread going on abortion now that's one you can take sides on without financial benefit getting in the way.

[MissBlondie]

Here's some food for thought.... I just got back from night service at my church, and it was ironic that this topic of being gay or lesbian came up. We were informed that a local school district this Wednesday will have a day of silence for gay and lesbians. This is what happens when we stand aside and say it doesn't affect me so I won't worry about it. So these kids are being FORCED to have gay and lesbian "silence day" shoved down their throats when they probably don't understand it at all. It's very sad and disturbing that this school board is going through with it.

[xxxBlakexxx]

I can't imagine living life saying that something is ok if it does not affect me. That is ridiculous. That is how animals think, not sentient human beings. Besides, your life position will change over time and your "personal" situation changes.

Wake up folks! Gay marriage today and tomorrow it will be OK for a 55 year old man to be married to an 11 year old boy on the grounds that curremt laws dicreminate. Don't laugh, this defense has already been tried.

[tireburner163]

Originally posted by RBatson
While I agree with what you are saying... what do I care what Adam and Steve are doing? I don't. If it makes them happy and doesn't effect me, I couldn't care less.

agreed.


Now to throw a little tireburner on the subject. Homosexual's are gay!!!



-Josh, aka the tireburner

[Crazy Horse GT]

i am not hating, but i just want to throw this out there, when a gay couple can -- naturally produce a baby?? fine- bwahahaha, but in the meantime, i really could care less what they do!!, it's thier own prison, lol.

[PKRWUD]

Jill, I read your article on RHC, and didn't read anywhere in it that young, impressionable kids were being forced to do anything against their wishes. I did read where students of all ages, through college, were choosing to support the issue. I guess it just goes to show how the same words can be interpreted so differently.

Hi Jim, long time, no see!

Personally, I find this whole topic rather scary. Marriage, while a religious union to some, is a legal union to everyone else. As long as it involves legal ramifications, religious opinions should remain just that; opinions.

I used to feel the same way as most people do these days. In fact, I was even worse. I actually hated gay people, or at least I thought I did. It took me actually meeting a few, and becoming excellent friends with one, to realize how stupid I had been.

I have never met a gay person that "chose" to be gay. I've met several that wish they weren't, but there's nothing they can do about it, including therapy. The funny thing is they each came from different backgrounds and environments, too. I learned a lot by becoming good friends with a gay guy. I learned that the world is a very insecure place. I learned that if you're not gay, being around someone who is isn't going to change you. In fact, if you are secure in your sexuality, nothing is going to change you. It's not going to change your kids, either. I also learned that it wasn't "gay" people that I hated, it was the stereotypical flamboyant behavior that so many seemed to embrace. The idea that just makes me laugh, however, is that being gay is a choice. If you really believe that, then you've obviously never been good friends with someone that happens to be gay. But, for the sake of argument, lets say that particular opinion is 100% correct. Every single one of us woke up one day, and said 'hmmm, I guess I better decide if I'm gonna be gay or straight'. Well, I never had to make any choice because I've been straight as far back as I can remember. Do you remember making that decision? Still, let's say that's correct. So what? If they are over 18, it's their right. We don't have to like it, but just because we don't like it doesn't give us the right to make it illegal for them to be married. It is discrimination. Discrimination against someone that's gay is no different than discrimination against someone that's black. Or anything else, for that matter. Besides, how is it going to affect your life? What in your world will be different as a result? The AIDS argument is pretty weak, because married couples rarely cheat, and if they don't cheat, they won't be able to contract or spread AIDS, do of simply being gay. In that case, the whole AIDS argument should actually be in favor of gay marriages.

Now, the idea of a couple of guys physically getting together still makes me sick, and I haven't hung around my gay friend when his boyfriend is around. That would make me uncomfortable simply because it's repulsive to me. But regardless of my feelings about it, I do believe they have as much right as anyone else to marriage. If the idea offends you for religious reasons, then gather with your congregation and have a group hate, but don't try to justify religious beliefs getting any further into the law books then they already are.

BTW, my understanding of the legal issue at hand is that they are constitutionally guaranteed the same rights. It's those opposed that want to "change the laws", and pass amendments, not the other way around.

All I can say is I truly wish that the same thing will happen to you that happened to me, and you become good friends with someone that's gay. You'll be shocked that you were ever able to feel the way you do now. Really.

Differing opinions aside, it was good to see you again, Jim. I hope your wife is well, and life is treating you fantastic!

Take care,
~Chris

[MissBlondie]

Originally posted by PKRWUD
Jill, I read your article on RHC, and didn't read anywhere in it that young, impressionable kids were being forced to do anything against their wishes. I did read where students of all ages, through college, were choosing to support the issue. I guess it just goes to show how the same words can be interpreted so differently.

Chris the school by me that this is affecting is Plainfield school district. This Wednesday in that district those students will go to school, and not be taught a single thing. These aren't college students, and the majority of them won't be high schoolers, they'll be grade school/middle school. They will sit in the classrooms the entire day in silence. That is forcing them, they are not choosing. The article I posted was a general one for the state on the issue. These students are 10 years old?!? They have no idea what homosexuality really is! We can't teach the bible in schools, but we can teach why Adam is screwing Steve!

[tireburner163]

Originally posted by MissBlondie
They will sit in the classrooms the entire day in silence. That is forcing them, they are not choosing.

Yea yea, that's right. The school board is forcing kids not to talk for 7 hours. Yea sure. 5-10 mintues yea..........but no way the whole ******* day. There did you hear this at? The beauty parlor?



-Josh, aka the tireburner

[MissBlondie]

Originally posted by tireburner163
Yea yea, that's right. The school board is forcing kids not to talk for 7 hours. Yea sure. 5-10 mintues yea..........but no way the whole ******* day. There did you hear this at? The beauty parlor?

-Josh, aka the tireburner

Yeah the lady almost messed up one of my nails when she told me this. WOOOO close call!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Hi Jim, long time, no see!

Indeed.

Personally, I find this whole topic rather scary. Marriage, while a religious union to some, is a legal union to everyone else. As long as it involves legal ramifications, religious opinions should remain just that; opinions.

I can argue against 'gay marriage' all day without ever mentioning religion, I only added that aspect of my position to my previous post as a form of 'full disclosure'. I find it rather 'scary' that 'marriage' - in all cultures all around the world - has been understood and defined (legally and culturally) as a union between a man and a woman throughout human history and suddenly, in 2004, in America, that simple and totally logical definition is now called 'discrimination' - by homosexuals. Sorry Chris, I don't buy it for a moment. That's simply a self-serving ploy to call marriage what it is not and never has been. Marriage is the cornerstone of any civilization and simply recognizes human biology and behavior. Homosexuals do not fit the definition of marriage in any way. The very fact that male homosexuals (the vast majority of the homosexual population) cannot reproduce should be reason enough to preclude their sexual relationships from being included in the definition of marriage. Saying that you 'love' someone isn't good enough, either. If that were the sole critera for marriage, pedophiles could marry children, sisters could marry brothers and some folks would marry their dog or cat. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but only to make a point as how shallow some of the arguments for so-called 'gay marriage' really are. Marriage is about families (97% of hetrosexual married couples have children at some point) and homosexual couples cannot naturally have children, although they may adopt in some states. Homosexualty is far from 'gay' and to socially and legally endorse it by re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples is a huge mistake and one a majority of Americans are not ready to make. That's why the homosexuals seeking to re-define marriage to include their couplings have to use the activist courts to obtain what they cannot obtain by votes. I believe that using the courts to impose a legal redefinition of marriage on the population (state or nation) is wrong and very un-democratic. It also shows the fallacy of the contention that homosexuals not being included in the definition of 'marriage' are somehow being 'discriminated' against. BS on a stick, in my opinion and that of many Americans who resent being forced-fed a re-definition of a major social construct that has stood for millenniums.

I used to feel the same way as most people do these days. In fact, I was even worse. I actually hated gay people, or at least I thought I did. It took me actually meeting a few, and becoming excellent friends with one, to realize how stupid I had been.

Chris, we are not dicussing the personalities and relative niceness of homosexuals here and your sideways attempt to portray moral opposition to homosexuality as 'stupid' is unwelcome and unnecessary.

I have never met a gay person that "chose" to be gay. I've met several that wish they weren't, but there's nothing they can do about it, including therapy. The funny thing is they each came from different backgrounds and environments, too. I learned a lot by becoming good friends with a gay guy. I learned that the world is a very insecure place. I learned that if you're not gay, being around someone who is isn't going to change you. In fact, if you are secure in your sexuality, nothing is going to change you. It's not going to change your kids, either. I also learned that it wasn't "gay" people that I hated, it was the stereotypical flamboyant behavior that so many seemed to embrace. The idea that just makes me laugh, however, is that being gay is a choice. If you really believe that, then you've obviously never been good friends with someone that happens to be gay.

Nice try at the 'gays are just like us' routine Chris but guess what? I HAVE worked with and been social friends with homosexuals and I also know an EX-homosexual (he lived the 'gay' life, 24/7 for over ten years). The "If you only knew some gay people..." ploy isn't going to work with me, although I'm sure it may be convincing to the more naive and inexperienced among us. I will stipulate right here and now that homosexuals are 'nice' people. Fair enough? That still doesn't give them the right to be legally 'married' to each other.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say that particular opinion is 100% correct. Every single one of us woke up one day, and said 'hmmm, I guess I better decide if I'm gonna be gay or straight'. Well, I never had to make any choice because I've been straight as far back as I can remember. Do you remember making that decision? Still, let's say that's correct. So what? If they are over 18, it's their right. We don't have to like it, but just because we don't like it doesn't give us the right to make it illegal for them to be married. It is discrimination

I totally disagree with the 'discrimination' argument you and the gay activists put forth, as I've already pointed out. Homosexuals can do as they please but calling their sexual couplings a 'marriage' and giving it equal legal ststus with hetrosexual marriage is wrong. They do not fit the logical and biological definition for marriage. That is common sense, not discrimination.

Discrimination against someone that's gay is no different than discrimination against someone that's black. Or anything else, for that matter. Besides, how is it going to affect your life? What in your world will be different as a result? The AIDS argument is pretty weak, because married couples rarely cheat, and if they don't cheat, they won't be able to contract or spread AIDS, do of simply being gay. In that case, the whole AIDS argument should actually be in favor of gay marriages.

AIDS has nothing to do with it. What you're claiming is that any minority group that says it wants something changed to suit them (like the definition of marriage) and doesn't get it are being 'discriminated' against. That's ridiculous. NAMBLA has been promoting the lowering of the legal age of (sexual) consent for years. That's a fact. Are pedophiles being discriminated against because legislators haven't complied with NAMBLA's demands? I think not. The 'discrimination' argument is lame, in my opinion and that of many other Americans who wish homosexuals no ill will but do not believe that re-defining marriage is inecessary. Homosexual couples can obtain all the legal benefits they need or want without the country redefining the legal meaning of marriage to suit their demands.

Now, the idea of a couple of guys physically getting together still makes me sick, and I haven't hung around my gay friend when his boyfriend is around. That would make me uncomfortable simply because it's repulsive to me. But regardless of my feelings about it, I do believe they have as much right as anyone else to marriage. If the idea offends you for religious reasons, then gather with your congregation and have a group hate, but don't try to justify religious beliefs getting any further into the law books then they already are.

Once again, the canard that tries to equate logical opposition to homosexual marriage as some sort of religious-driven' hate'. That's a bogus argument and I, for one, am sick of it and resent it. We know you're a macho straight guy Chris and you don't have to tell us how repulsed by homosexual behavior you are to prove it but the lame attempt to connect religious rejection of homosexuality (not in all churches, by the way) with 'hatred' of gays is bull.

BTW, my understanding of the legal issue at hand is that they are constitutionally guaranteed the same rights. It's those opposed that want to "change the laws", and pass amendments, not the other way around.

Homosexual activists for 'gay marriage' are attemting to use the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. It prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances and this is where the homosexual argument falls down, in my opinion. Homosexuals are not 'equal' to a man and a women entering into marriage for obvious, biological reasons. The Equal Protection Clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals but only "equal application" of the laws. Naturally, homosexual activists are trying to use the Equal Protection Clause to implement gay marriage by claiming that a state not allowing them to marry is 'discrimination' It's a circular argument.

All I can say is I truly wish that the same thing will happen to you that happened to me, and you become good friends with someone that's gay. You'll be shocked that you were ever able to feel the way you do now. Really.

No, I won't Chris as I have had homosexual friends in the past, as I pointed out to you. They were all nice guys but that doesn't change my opinion that they do not fall under any logical definition of what constitutes marriage.

Differing opinions aside, it was good to see you again, Jim. I hope your wife is well, and life is treating you fantastic!

Thanks for the good thoughts, Chris and differing opinions aside, as you said: I appreciate it. My wife is O.K. and life is treating me well enough but not quite to the fantastic level, yet. Thanks for the concern. Take care, yourself.