[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.