Gay Marriage

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by Capri306
Show me two homos that can together create a child and they can get married all they want.

Until then, they can shut the ****** up.

Case closed.

So, by that logic, the only reason to get married is to have kids? Thats pretty stupid man. But hey, you are entitled to your own stupid opinions.

[mustardjohn]

Originally posted by Stang_Girl617
A question about the last post:

Are you comparing Gay Marriage to the DOMINO THEROY!!

No.

Gay Marriage as domino in the cultural wars to change the moral order in America. As the dominos fall the culture changes. School prayer, gay marriage, everyone is a victim law suits, no personal accountability, no honor rolls are a few of the dominos that have or are falling. No one domino, e.g., Gay Marriage, alone affects everyone directly but the sum of the change does.

Sorry you misunderstood me.

[82 GT]

Originally posted by Stang_Girl617
A question about the last post:

Are you comparing Gay Marriage to the DOMINO THEROY!! I am so dissapointed in some of the people on this website. How can one persons personal sexual preferance upset you so much. Just because someone is gay doesnt mean that if people see or associate with the person that they will become gay to *if that makes sense* If you are so scared that you or the rest of the population may be pursuaded by the gay population that just shows that you are infact uncomfortable with your sexuality. If you believe you are heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual whatever your choice may be (personally i would never be in a homosexual relationship) then being associated with a gay or bisexual person shouldnt affect you in any way. You shouldnt be a follower be a leader. Your decison should not be based on what john doe did. And if it is then that just shows what a weak person you are. Once again... if it doesnt affect you WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE! im not saying gay marriage is right... but if 2 people are happy, why bother them. They have rights too.

No, we're not afraid that we will become gay if we are around them. The simple fact is that when most people see gays together it makes us sick to our stomachs!!
For instance...how can any man in his right mind be walking down a beach and see some others guys hairy ass and say "Oh yeah...I gotta have that!!"
Like I said before, homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as one......find away to get rid of it.
Bigred90GT , I guess that's a stupid opinion too.
I guess in your opinion, being heterosexual is stupid. Is that what you are trying to say?
Are you coming out of the closet and admitting you are gay?
Be a leader like stang_girl says and lead your other gay friends out of the closet too. Come on now...don't be afraid...no is going to hurt you(evil grin)

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by 82 GT
No, we're not afraid that we will become gay if we are around them. The simple fact is that when most people see gays together it makes us sick to our stomachs!!
For instance...how can any man in his right mind be walking down a beach and see some others guys hairy ass and say "Oh yeah...I gotta have that!!"
Like I said before, homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as one......find away to get rid of it.
Bigred90GT , I guess that's a stupid opinion too.
I guess in your opinion, being heterosexual is stupid. Is that what you are trying to say?
Are you coming out of the closet and admitting you are gay?
Be a leader like stang_girl says and lead your other gay friends out of the closet too. Come on now...don't be afraid...no is going to hurt you(evil grin)

I am curious where you get that I have the opinion that being heterosexual is stupid? Since you have never met me, and know nothing about me, I truley take no offence to wether or not you think I am gay. But since you think I am, I'll set the record straight now. No, I am not a homo. I have never given a BJ, taken it in the ass, or had any attraction to any male. I just dont understand what everyone is afraid of. What ever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If giving a man a bj makes another man happy, so be it. As long as they arent trying to blow me, its their business. I truely hope they legalize it, and your church (if you go) allows it to happen there. Wouldnt that be somethin?

BTW - Hatred toward others (for no good reason) is a disease also, and those who hate someone because of their personal preferences should be treated as such. Find a way to get rid of y'all.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bigred90gt :

As long as they arent trying to blow me, its their business. I truely hope they legalize it, and your church (if you go) allows it to happen there. Wouldnt that be somethin?

Episcopalians already have. Isn't that precious?

No one said that homosexuals don't have a right to express their sexuality anyway they choose. Your sarcastic comments are assuming something not in evidence. Why do folks always make the leap that equates logical opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage into 'hating' homosexuals? Oh, I know, then they can post stuff like this:

BTW - Hatred toward others (for no good reason) is a disease also, and those who hate someone because of their personal preferences should be treated as such. Find a way to get rid of y'all.

Pot, kettle, black syndrome. This self-serving: "I'm so tolerant - and you're not" claptrap is hypocrisy on a stick. You see it when people sneer and rant at anyone who disagrees with them on something as important - and devisive - as 'gay marriage' while they pretend to be 'open-minded'. The same folks will go ballistic over a Christian expressing their beliefs and will post vile comments against 'religion' - but still think they're 'tolerant' because they support gay marriage in the mistaken belief that it won't affect them. Easy to be 'tolerant' when you think it's at no cost to you, isn't it? Take a good look at the severe limits of your own 'tolerance' and what and whom YOU 'hate' before presuming to lecture anyone here on 'hatred'.

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0



Episcopalians already have. Isn't that precious?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by Mr 5 0


No one said that homosexuals don't have a right to express their sexuality anyway they choose. Your sarcastic comments are assuming something not in evidence. Why do folks always make the leap that equates logical opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage into 'hating' homosexuals? Oh, I know, then they can post stuff like this:

You and everyone else that says gay marriage (and gays in general) shouldnt be, are saying just that. Marriage is a form of self expression, showing the world that a person is straight (or in some cases gay). It is a commitment between two people. I have already posted the definition of marriage, marry, husband, and wife, and in none of the definitions does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman. Please show me where the "legal definition" of marriage specifies that it only applies to male/femal unions, and I wont post in this thread again.

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Pot, kettle, black syndrome. This self-serving: "I'm so tolerant - and you're not" claptrap is hypocrisy on a stick. You see it when people sneer and rant at anyone who disagrees with them on something as important - and devisive - as 'gay marriage' while they pretend to be 'open-minded'. The same folks will go ballistic over a Christian expressing their beliefs and will post vile comments against 'religion' - but still think they're 'tolerant' because they support gay marriage in the mistaken belief that it won't affect them. Easy to be 'tolerant' when you think it's at no cost to you, isn't it? Take a good look at the severe limits of your own 'tolerance' and what and whom YOU 'hate' before presuming to lecture anyone here on 'hatred'.

I have been civil until some schmo fired off at me about being gay because I have no problems with gay marriage. I have no problems with relgion, and people's right and abilities to practice it. I was raised in a strong christian family. I went to church twice a week every week. I prayed every day, sometimes several times a day. I made my peace with god, and what did it do for me? Not a whole lot of much. I choose to steer clear of the whole religious thing. Religion is a tool to give the weak minded something to believe in. God (as percieved in the bible) is a fictitional character devised to give the faithless something to have faith in, becaue they have no faith in themselves. That doesnt mean in any way that I have a roblem with people expressing their religious beliefs. And believe me, gay marriages wont affect me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

BTW - Just so you know, because you assume you know me, the only person on this planet that I hate, to the point that if I ever cross paths with him again one of will die, is my ex stepfather. 10 years of hell, and he cheated on my mother for about the last 6 or 7 of those 10, and then threw us out of the house on my graduation day. I am by far not a hateful person. This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bigred90gt

Absolutely.

Somehow I knew you would say that. Advocates and defenders of homosexuality, often religion-haters, are so predictable it's almost funny.

You and everyone else that says gay marriage (and gays in general) shouldnt be, are saying just that. Marriage is a form of self expression, showing the world that a person is straight (or in some cases gay). It is a commitment between two people. I have already posted the definition of marriage, marry, husband, and wife, and in none of the definitions does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman. Please show me where the "legal definition" of marriage specifies that it only applies to male/femal unions, and I wont post in this thread again.

Unfortunately - for your argument - dictionary definitions are not law. The 'discrimination' ploy used by advocates of same-sex marriage is admittedly effective and gives a lot of folks legal as well as assumed moral 'cover' to promote and defend the indefensible. Any sentient being understands that 'marriage' was is and always will be the union of a man and a woman with a family usually not far behind. Millions and millions of marriages over thousands of years attest to that simple fact, now disputed by a tiny group of people. Marriage is not a statement of anyone's 'self-expression'. That's simply absurd. Where do you get this stuff?

Tell you what: lets look at how we got to where we are today with this issue:

Each state has it's own legal definition of marriage. It's not a federal law but a law specific to each state. State marriage law, as in Massachusetts, never mentions anything but 'man' and 'woman' when outlining the requirements to be legally married. It was obvious to all, for centuries, that only a man and a woman married or even qualified for marriage. Now, homosexuals have decided that they should be included in the legal definition of 'marriage'. They have no basis for this demand other than that to not do as they say is 'discrimination'. They went to court and were rebuffed, as homosexuality is not an inate condition, such as race, and as such, it is not 'discrimination' to disallow homosexuals to 'marry'. Finally, the liberal Supreme Court of Appeals of Massachusetts, in a 5-4 decision, granted that the marriage law in Massachusetts had to include homosexuals because to not do so would be 'discrimination' and contrary to the state constitution. In short, homosexuals found a loophole in the law. Since it didn't specifically exclude homosexuals (but inferred that marriage meant a man and a woman) to not include homosexual 'partners' as eligible to be defined as married was now called: 'discrimination'. The court then ordered the state legislature to change the law.

Even in liberal Massachusetts, the majority of the citizens disagreed with this too-cute play on words and legal end-run around the democratic legislative process, not to mention the violation of the Separation of Powers act. The Massachusetts legislature is attempting to change the state constitution to specifically state that marriage in the state of Massachusetts is limited to a man and a woman - but that will take a few years. Meanwhile, homosexuals will be legally allowed to marry in Massachusetts starting next week.

I have been civil until some schmo fired off at me about being gay because I have no problems with gay marriage. I have no problems with relgion, and people's right and abilities to practice it. I was raised in a strong christian family. I went to church twice a week every week. I prayed every day, sometimes several times a day. I made my peace with god, and what did it do for me? Not a whole lot of much. I choose to steer clear of the whole religious thing.

I always know what's coming when a poster starts to offer a long autobiography about how he or she was raised in a 'religious' home. An attack on 'religion' and religious people. Here it comes, right on schedule:

Religion is a tool to give the weak minded something to believe in. God (as percieved in the bible) is a fictitional character devised to give the faithless something to have faith in, becaue they have no faith in themselves. That doesnt mean in any way that I have a roblem with people expressing their religious beliefs. And believe me, gay marriages wont affect me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Atheism is a tool to give the weak-minded something to replace the God they know exists but that they refuse to honor, much less acknowledge because they wish to do as they please and set their own standards of morality and right and wrong, changed to suit their situation and whims. They have faith in themselves as long as everything goes well and they can take credit for it but blame the God they say they don't believe in if anything bad happens to them. I've seen this happen and it's as sad as it is amusing.

I have no problem with atheists expressing their disbelief and, FYI, I've never used 'religion' in my arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage. You must have missed that.

BTW - Just so you know, because you assume you know me, the only person on this planet that I hate, to the point that if I ever cross paths with him again one of will die, is my ex stepfather. 10 years of hell, and he cheated on my mother for about the last 6 or 7 of those 10, and then threw us out of the house on my graduation day. I am by far not a hateful person. This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

I don't assume to know you at all but I know the mind-set same-sex marriage advocates usually have, which is a deep animosity toward anything remotely 'religious'. You just proved me correct.

The personal situation you describe going through is a tough one and I can understand your anger but the fact remains that you and many that hold the same views as you do on same-sex marriage are quick to label any opposition to to it as based in 'hate', a very strong word, usually misused. I don't 'hate' anyone either, including relatives, atheists or homosexuals. My opposition and the opposition of millions to legalizing same-sex marriage is based on a belief that such legalization is detrimental to the institution of marriage, to society and ultimately to our nation. Marraige was never intended to be anything but a joining of a man and a woman on the basis that this is both biologically normal (society acknowledging what already exists) and a benefit to building a strong society of families, something homosexuals cannot do (without adoption - which depends on hetrosexual procreation). The generally accepted belief in your crowd seems to be that opposition to same-sex marriage is (a) religion-based and, (b) if same-sex marriage law is enacted, that it won't effect anyone but homosexuals are both mistaken, as I've gone to great lengths to point out in my many long posts on the issue on this thread. I see no need to re-argue the point all over again again with you. My posts are there to read, if you wish. If not, so be it. Whether you happen to agree with it or not, my point has been made.

[82 GT]

Originally posted by bigred90gt
Absolutely.



This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

I'm assuming you're refering to me. I don't recall ever saying to "abolish" or suggest "genocide" to any group of people.
Hitler tried that approach and it didn't work out...did it?
I'm suggesting to find a way to fix the "short circuit" that makes people gay. That's the disease I was referring to.
Admit it...there's a problem somewhere in the brain that makes people gay just like people who are insane, pedifiles, retarded, alcoholics....the list goes on.
Should we keep those people the way they are or find a way through modern science to help them?
Let's face it...a mans genitalia was meant to go into one place and that's not up another mans ass.
Am I right or am I wrong?

[srv1]

Oh well people can believe what they want to believe. Fact is gay people will most likely be here until the sun burns out. My suggestion; deal with it!

James

[joe4speed]

Man... such hatred in this thread. The bottom line is, gays are PEOPLE. Human beings. Just like you and me. Let them live their lives, without having to be morally or religiously unacceptable. Life is hard enough all by itself. Who knows... some day, someone YOU care about may "come out of the closet". Will you hate them and abolish them like all those other gays? I hope not. It's a shame to see so much hatred, makes me sad. I am not gay, and I also do not want to hear or see what they do in private. But these are people, with feelings, dreams, and emotions, like all of us. Why should it bother you what they do with their own lives?
Like I said before, live and let live.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I will not be replying again. I know that my opinion will never be changed like yours won't, so it is senseless to banter back and forth about this.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by joe4speed :

Man... such hatred in this thread.

Man...such nonsense in this post. Once again, logical and clear opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage is instantly equated to 'hate'. I'm so sick of the uninformed making this knee-jerk assumption despite manifest evidence that it's a lie. Maybe if the same-sex marriage advocates keep saying it enough it'll seem like a fact to them but that won't ever change reality.

The bottom line is, gays are PEOPLE. Human beings. Just like you and me.

Brilliant observation and a wonderful example of stating the obvious. Of course, no one ever said that 'gays' were not PEOPLE....human beings. We said that the legal definition of marriage should not be changed to include same-sex couplings. Apparently you missed that part in the six pages of posts on the subject.

Let them live their lives, without having to be morally or religiously unacceptable.

Excuse me? Religion and morality have not been a part of this discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned, but to say religion (and it's natural by-product, morality) should simply ignore the Bible, Koran or whatever source they use for their basis of belief, is simply absurd and beyond naive. I'm sure you mean well but you have no idea of what you're proposing so I'll assume you have little grasp of the core beliefs of 'religion', especially Christianity.

Life is hard enough all by itself. Who knows... some day, someone YOU care about may "come out of the closet". Will you hate them and abolish them like all those other gays? I hope not.

Yes, life is hard enough but we all make our choices and in America, homosexuals have some rights hetrosexuals don't have. Financially, they are generally in the upper-income brackets. Few gays have a 'hard time', today, unlike decades ago. They are legally protected on every level and socially accepted in almost all quarters of society. Even the schools promote 'acceptance' of homosexuality. From 'Queer Eye For The Straight Guy' to 'Will and Grace', the homosexual is far, far from oppressed in this country and their 'life' is not all that 'hard' for them. I'm fine with that but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with their demands for legalizing 'gay marriage'. You apparently failed to grasp that fact.

It's a shame to see so much hatred, makes me sad.

Boo hoo and as a former president once said: "There you go again!" Equating opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage with 'hate'. Do you even have a clue here or do you just post the standard PC babble with no thought to what you're actually stating?

I am not gay, and I also do not want to hear or see what they do in private. But these are people, with feelings, dreams, and emotions, like all of us. Why should it bother you what they do with their own lives?
Like I said before, live and let live.

Thanks for sharing your sexuality with us, not that anyone asked. Homosexuals live as they please...who's stopping them? From the many gay bars in every big city to the excesses of NAMBLA they are free to do as they wish. Your continued reminder that they are PEOPLE is a Non Sequitur and means little in the context of the issue at hand.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I will not be replying again. I know that my opinion will never be changed like yours won't, so it is senseless to banter back and forth about this.

Hit and run, eh? Well, I can see why. I disagree with your contention that debating the issue won't change anyone's mind. Maybe, maybe not but it's worth having the discussion, as I see it. I will agree with you that that continued re-stating of the same basic points - pro or con - again and again is mostly a waste of time. Unfortunately, after all the posts here, you still ignore the reality that opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage is not automatically a manifestation of 'hatred' toward homosexuals. That's truly sad and why I replied to your post. What you and others who are falling all over themselves to show how open-minded they (think) they are seem to forget, often willfully, is that tolerance (of homosexuality) does not mean acceptance (of gay marriage) and mere opposition (to gay marriage) is not 'hate'. I hope that some day you'll get that. At least try to think about it.

[82 GT]

In all honesty, if people get offended by some of the replies made in these posts then maybe they should think twice before starting a thread like this one.
If you can't handle the personal feelings and opinions which are sometimes outright cruel and unfair then why even bother asking how the rest of us feel...especially a controversial one like gay marriages?
We(all of us) get pisssed off at someone who makes a remark we might not like or agree with and what do we do......start bashing on that person because he/she put their two cents in.
I admit...even I've done it.
That's why I don't start controversial threads like this because I know how cruel the replies can be and quite frankly would be afraid to hear some people's opionions.
My advice to anyone in the future about posting highly debatable subjects like this one is to put your bullet proof vest on befoe you do because this can be a very tough board.

[joe4speed]

Dammit... I didn't want to reply, but just had to say, I am not offended at all. It doesn't really bother me about what you guys think, chances are very slim that I will ever meet you anyways, and even if I did, the differences we have on this topic would never influence my judgement of you.

Jim, dude, why do ya have to pick apart everything that everyone says?? Maybe I am misinformed, sorry about that. I merely stated my opinion and didn't ask for yours(just like you didn't ask for my sexuality), I already know your opinion after 6 pages. 6 pages that I skimmed through alot, which apparently made me "misinformed". I knew I should have said I didn't read through the whole thread when I wrote that. I am not picking a fight, there's nothing to fight about. Sorry my post was such "nonsense", so "uninformed", "absurd and beyond naive", and full of "PC babble". After all, it was just my opinion.

I have thought about the things that you have said here. I think you have some very valid points, but it still doesn't change my opinion. I hope you'll just respect it, and leave it at that.

And I really didn't want to reply again either. I have to say though, Jim, you have a great talent for working someone up! I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

[82 GT]

Originally posted by joe4speed
I have to say though, Jim, you have a great talent for working someone up! I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

I love it when someone gets me "worked up"!! That's the best part. It's what gets my juices flowing!!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by joe4speed :

Dammit... I didn't want to reply, but just had to say, I am not offended at all. It doesn't really bother me about what you guys think, chances are very slim that I will ever meet you anyways, and even if I did, the differences we have on this topic would never influence my judgement of you.

There is a distinct difference between opposition to your opinions and a personal dislike of you. A big difference. We're all at least semi-anonymous on the web and as you say, will probably never know each other face to face so a personal animus is almost impossible. What's debated here are opinions, not personalities.

Jim, dude, why do ya have to pick apart everything that everyone says?? Maybe I am misinformed, sorry about that. I merely stated my opinion and didn't ask for yours(just like you didn't ask for my sexuality), I already know your opinion after 6 pages. 6 pages that I skimmed through alot, which apparently made me "misinformed". I knew I should have said I didn't read through the whole thread when I wrote that. I am not picking a fight, there's nothing to fight about. Sorry my post was such "nonsense", so "uninformed", "absurd and beyond naive", and full of "PC babble". After all, it was just my opinion.

Joe, dude, why are you surprised that when you post your opinion on a public messageboard those who disagree with you will deconstruct your contentions? You made the standard PC equasion that any opposition to so-called 'gay marriage' automatically means that one opposed to it 'hates' homosexuals. That's a foolish fallacy I'm tired of seeing in these arguments and I no longer sit still for it or chalk it off to ignorance. You should consider your words carefully when you post and be prepared to defend any broad-brush smears you choose to make here or on any message board. You casually threw around the word 'hate' as your reaction to the posts. I saw no 'hate', only opposition and some revulsion with the physical act of sodomy and the homosexual 'lifestyle' but no one claimed they 'hated' homosexuals. That was a knee-jerk assumption YOU made, with little to no basis in fact and I resented it. I'm certainly not 'looking for a fight' either, just some honesty and civility instead of PC babble about 'hate' whenever anyone objects to changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex 'partners'.

I have thought about the things that you have said here. I think you have some very valid points, but it still doesn't change my opinion. I hope you'll just respect it, and leave it at that.

Of course, just as you'll equally respect my diametrically opposed opinion, I'm sure. I only present the case against 'gay marriage'. What you do with it is your decision. It's a messageboard, not a court and no one 'wins' or 'loses' here.

And I really didn't want to reply again either. I have to say though, Jim, you have a great talent for working someone up! I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

Here's a tip I've learned over many years of posting on controversial topics on internet messageboards: Never say you won't post again on a thread. It's the 'kiss of death' and almost guarantees you WILL post again. Been there, done that. I don't suffer fools gladly but I try to be civil and reasonable unless I'm attacked; then I attack right back in kind. I always know that no matter how hot the exchanges get they'll be mostly forgotten in a few days and few will remember them at all in a month. After all, it's just the internet.

[srv1]

Originally posted by joe4speed
I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

You know I thought it was just me. Guess not.

You know Jim in real life I bet your one of the nicest guys to meet who is open minded, right? Hmmm...

Another question I wanted to ask you. If gay marriage was legal today, how would it affect you?

James

[82 GT]

Originally posted by srv1
Another question I wanted to ask you. If gay marriage was legal today, how would it affect you?

James

One could expect the price of health insurance to go higher......

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by 82 GT
One could expect the price of health insurance to go higher......

And why would that be? And dont even pull out the BS card about AIDS being a gay disease. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

You know I thought it was just me. Guess not.

Consider my messages to you as a learning experience that will help you be better informed on current issues.

You know Jim in real life I bet your one of the nicest guys to meet who is open minded, right? Hmmm...

Yes, James, I am. I have some liberal friends who know I'm conservative in my politics (and a Christian) but they don't discuss these issues with me. We usually talk about cars, instead. I don't go around broadcasting my opinions on same-sex marriage or telling people about my spiritual beliefs unless I'm asked or I'm already part of a conversation where the subject comes up. I'm sure that when people talk about their religion and how glad they are to be a Christian or say they'll vote for Bush in November you, the open-minded guy that we all know you are (because you tell us so) just smile and remain 'open minded' about it. Yes, I'm sure you do.

Another question I wanted to ask you. If gay marriage was legal today, how would it affect you?

It would dilute the meaning of the term and thus weaken the importance of being married in the legal sense. When any two adults, no matter what their sex or relationship to each other can be called 'married' then in effect, the term is rendered near-meaningless. Of course my personal life would not be harmed by a change in the legal definition of marriage but then, thoughtful adults don't support or oppose important issues simply on the basis of what may or may not affect us, personally. Allowing adults to legally have sex with 10 year olds wouldn't affect me, either, but I would still oppose it. What you obviously fail to understand (in your self-centered world) James, is that some things are too important to ignore simply on the basis of how it personally affects me. Some day, you'll understand that. Well, one hopes.


bigred90gt:

Contrary to your uninformed blustering, CDC statistics show that homosexuals represent the majority of AIDS patients (50% - out of less than 3% of the total population) so of course health insurance rates will most certainly go up as same-sex couples are given health coverage by law. Although the death rate for AIDS has dropped considerably, the drugs needed to sustain good health for a person with AIDS cost big bucks and the treatments literally never end. Homosexuals also are the biggest carriers (and spreaders) of STD's with around 75% of homosexuals having some form of STD, primarily syphilis (60%). Homosexuals are also one of largest groups of Hepatitis 'B' ('gay bowel syndrome') carriers and have other intestinal diseases not normal to most hetrosexuals. On the other hand, the average age at death for homosexual men is 42 while an average hetrosexual married man in America lives to be 75. Homosexuals can propagandize all they want but the cold, hard statistics don't lie and prove that actions still have consequences.

Before you start calling people 'stupid', you might want to stop believing gay propaganda that tells you AIDS is not a predominantly 'gay' disease and check out a few documented facts, first. Your absurd contention that AIDS is not a 'gay disease' is dead wrong and makes you look 'stupid' for trying to sell that fallacy here. Wise up.

[mustardjohn]

Maybe we could argue this from the other side for a while. If gay marriage in a legal sense is not important and dosen't affect anyone, why would someone want to have it? Normally, people want things that do matter, legally.

And lets don't argue the moral or emotional side of this lets stick to the legal side. So why would some one want to make someting that does not affect them or is not important to others legal. There must be a legal reason. What would it be?