Gay Marriage

[AtaqKatt]

I see a couple of people from RHC here in this thread, and I have to say my opinion of them has gone up even higher than it was. I also think that some of the other posts in this thread offer some compelling ideas, but I'm surprised by the religious over tones, especially in a society thats all blow and no show.

If christian values actually meant anything to people our society would be a lot different than it is. For instance lets look at the morality and religious values that govern abortion in the US and the rest of the world. Here, just like the gay issue, we say one thing and do something entirely different. Murder is always wrong, and yet we do absolutely nothing to stop it. It's a woman's right to choose by law, right? But is it right? Do we not all turn a deaf ear to this issue? What the hell, it doesn't affect us, right?

How does that relate to the gay marriage issue? The same sex marriage issue is another example of something that we have extremely strong views on, and will likely do NOTHING about. We talk a good game, but ultimately only about 25% of the populace will vote on anything, dooming any Constitutional amendment, and the gays will get some form of union rights out of it.

This bothers me not at all, because it is entirely irrelevant. It does not affect me at all, just like abortion doesn't affect me at all. My relationship will not change, my taxes will not change, and my opinion will not change, but millions of people will have yet another reason to hate someone else in the name of some God that has been retranslated so many times that the original message is nearly gone now.

My little brother is gay. He's been told to his face time and again that he's going to hell for his sins. I firmly believe he'll have a LOT of company. We all talk a good game, but there are damned few people anywhere on this infected mud ball that live up to their professed beliefs.

Beliefs like love thy neighbors as thy self, judge ye not lest ye be judged, and my favorite, all shall stand before God and know him. There are going to be some very suyrprised people I think when they finally meet God, and it won't just be the gays and lesbians getting called on the carpet for sinning. Religion and religious intolerance have caused more wars and bloodshed than any other reason in history.

[srv1]

From all this reading, I conclude that Jim (Mr.5.0) is homophobic. You sir attacked the subject with the upmost discust its not even funny. It proves your hatred for certain "types" of people makes you very biased and closed minded. You would fit in perfectly with the KKK. Your bible belt preaching, republican god fearing asz makes Jim Baker jealous in everyway. I try to understand your personal views and opinions but can't quite grasp the fact that you are closed-minded and can't see any other way except yours. Are you ever wrong? Wait don't answer that, I already know.

James

[jj_jonathon]

******* hell (oh yea, cant write that here, lol).

People need to stop complaining like the world will fall over and we'll all be banaished to the depths of hades for not stopping the homosexuals.

Bottom line, aren't they people? It disgusts me when people debate the topic as if they aren't.

What we need to do is give them the option of a civil union that comes with as many rights as a marriage does. If they can find a church that will "marry" them, then let them have their ceremony in that church, but still call it a civil union.

Wouldn't that make everyone (except those who in their hearts want gays to all spontaneously combust) happy?

-Jonathon

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

From all this reading, I conclude that Jim (Mr.5.0) is homophobic

And I conclude that you are clearly unable to discuss serious issues honestly so you resort to juvenile name-calling in lieu of rational thought. Nothing new here, James.

You sir attacked the subject with the upmost discust its not even funny. It proves your hatred for certain "types" of people makes you very biased and closed minded. You would fit in perfectly with the KKK. Your bible belt preaching, republican god fearing asz makes Jim Baker jealous in everyway.

Your asinine name-calling rant is as lame as it is pointless and simply demonstrates your lack of ability to even begin to discuss 'gay marriage' like an adult. Spare me the 'hate' and 'homophobic' crapola, James. Please. It's knee-jerk name-calling that gets you nowhere when dealing with grown-ups. My opinions on this issue are as valid as yours my friend. Your attempt to drag out all the negative (and irrational) accusations and associations you can think of in some desperate attempt to invalidate my opinion is borderline pathetic but sadly typical of what those who want others to consider them 'tolerant' and 'open-minded' usually do, demonstrating their hypocrisy for all to see. You simply attack my motives with no basis in fact, whatsoever. You call me names and think that's a cogent rebuttal? Maybe on the playground when you were five years old but not in the grown-up world we live in, James. Time to grow up, don't you think?

I try to understand your personal views and opinions but can't quite grasp the fact that you are closed-minded and can't see any other way except yours. Are you ever wrong? Wait don't answer that, I already know.

Yeah, I see how hard you try to 'understand my personal views and opinions' by the stream of invective you aimed at me in response to my posts on the issue at hand ('gay marriage'). Real thoughtful analysis there, fella. Tell you what: give us all a break and drop the pretense of being 'open-minded'. You have an opinion on the issue that obviously is in direct opposition to mine. So be it, but don't try to feed anyone here the line that you are in any way 'open-minded'. Your mind is clearly made up up the issue - as mine is - and we disagree. Fair enough. Learn to accept that fact without unleashing a string of pejoratives at people you disagree with in the process of disagreeing with them. It's how serious grown-ups communicate, James. I suggest you consider Trying it sometime. You'll get farther.

[RBatson]

Whoa Jim! Didn't you and mustangjohn just get done calling me a communist in another thread?

Don't get pissed and go anywhere either! I'm still trying to learn from you.

[PKRWUD]

Jim, you're becoming a conspiracy theorist, and you sound scared. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why. You have nothing to fear, you know perfectly well that you can't turn gay because your neighbor is. You surely also know that no matter who else gets married, anywhere on the face of this earth, it couldn't possibly affect the marriage you share with your wife. So what are you afraid of? Why are you so bent on denying others what you, and many other folks have? You've built this up into an 'us versus them' situation, where they're plotting against you, trying to twart your happiness with their hidden agenda. That's so ridiculous, I have trouble believing you'd imply it. No one is trying to take anything away from you. No one is trying to infringe upon your rights. And the only reason the polls and opinions are the way they are is because no one started including homosexuals in their teaching of tolerance until very recently.

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.

The only thing shallow there was the point you were trying to make. The odds are exactly the same that someone would do away with any age requirement for marriage whether gays can get married or not. Don't be ridiculous.

Your arguments are your personal opinions, and just don't make any sense, Jim, which is not like you. You chose instead to ad-lib my post, which was written in plain and simple English. There were no hidden meanings, no ulterior motives, it was just exactly what it was. I tried no "routines", and had no "ploys". Calling your friend an "EX-homosexual" is too funny for words. It's not a light switch under your hair that you can flip at any time. I can't even imagine any circumstances that would make me want to be gay, but with your logic, anyone could, overnight. Sorry, I don't buy that.

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.

Have you read any of the other replies to this post? Don't even blame me for someone else's church telling them that homosexuality is a sin. The author of this thread was alerted to the situation at a meeting at her church. And I'm sorry again, Jim, but that was no "attempt" at anything. I'd prefer you read what I wrote, rather than turning it into some twisted interpretation of it. There was nothing inbetween the lines. This conspiracy thing goes deep with you, it would seem.

You said yourself that religion has nothing to do with this, which is refreshing to hear. Most of the arguments I've seen and heard against gay marriage revolves around someone's interpretation of their God, and what they felt was right and proper. I'm glad to see that you are past that, although that does shoot down most of the other peoples arguments in this thread. You also acknowledged that gay people are 'nice'. lol. I'm guessing that's your way of saying it's not their personalities, or their flamboyant behavior that keeps you objecting to them being allowed to marry. We both know that that would be blatant discrimination, though, so I'm not surprised. They have loud and obnoxious parades because they no longer feel they have to lie about their sexuality. They're proud of what they are. So are the Irish, every March 17th. So what? If you don't like it, don't go to see it. I do my best to avoid both.

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.

I'm heterosexual, and I call it discrimination. And I'm not the only one.

You talk of a long history of marriages being between women and men, but you should also know that in many civilizations, older than ours, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was encouraged. The primary purpose for the union between men and women was for procreation, which brings us to another of your points. I don't recall ever reading where the ability to procreate was a requirement for a marriage license. If that's the case, there's a whole bunch of married couples out there who's license is null and void. And as far as the point of being natural, and of being anatomically compatible, I hate to say it, for many reasons, but gay couples have worked that out, too. There are many heterosexual couples that are no longer "naturally compatible", are they to be denied as well?

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.

Once again, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know how to make it any more clear; EVERYONE should be entitled to the same rights and restrictions.

Any two legal adults, of sound mind, should have the same rights as any other adults of sound mind. And according to the US Supreme Court, in 1964, declared that the freedom to marry was a basic right of all Americans. The constitution protects everyone, not just the majority. When it comes to defining criminal offenses, the majority rules, but under no circumstances can the majority maintain a right while taking it away from the minority. If it's a right for you, it's a right for every other legal adult. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. That's what makes this country as great as it is; EVERYONE of equal status is entitled to the same rights.

IMO, the bottom line here Jim is you personally object to it, for whatever personal reasons you have, but your personal feelings don't justify denying the right of marriage to a gay couple. Everything you may or may not hate and detest about a gay couple being together is going to continue to happen, even in your neighborhood, whether we like it or not. All that is being accomplished by trying to deny the right of marriage to those couples, is denying them equal (not special) rights.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by PKRWUD
They have loud and obnoxious parades because they no longer feel they have to lie about their sexuality. They're proud of what they are. So are the Irish, every March 17th. So what? If you don't like it, don't go to see it. I do my best to avoid both.

LMFAO!!! I have a weak stomach.. I have a problem with the smell of crap.. I can't even clean dog crap off the floor without gagging.. I guess I'm crapaphobic

I can live with that..

[RBatson]

Originally posted by rsampson
Well in my experience most women don't like their man going to a strip club. You can get by with it when you are just a boyfriend. When they are your wife, that is another story all together. You know thou, if I was married, I would not want my wife going to a strip club.

I couldn't care less, as long as she came home to me.

I also heard that you lucked out with the wife. I heard she is a fox.

She is alot more attractive than she gives herself credit for..

[RBatson]

Originally posted by PKRWUD
No one is trying to infringe upon your rights. And the only reason the polls and opinions are the way they are is because no one started including homosexuals in their teaching of tolerance until very recently.

Are you implying that this should be taught at a grade school level?

[RBatson]

Originally posted by AtaqKatt


This bothers me not at all, because it is entirely irrelevant. It does not affect me at all, just like abortion doesn't affect me at all. My relationship will not change, my taxes will not change, and my opinion will not change, but millions of people will have yet another reason to hate someone else in the name of some God that has been retranslated so many times that the original message is nearly gone now.

If it means that much to you, stand up and take a stand.

My little brother is gay. He's been told to his face time and again that he's going to hell for his sins. I firmly believe he'll have a LOT of company. We all talk a good game, but there are damned few people anywhere on this infected mud ball that live up to their professed beliefs.

I live up to mine, why don't you live up to yours? I think the problem you are overlooking is that this country is made up of many people of many different beliefs. Christianity may have been the basis but that doesn't mean that is the norm. Alot of people still do believe it and many believe something else.

Beliefs like love thy neighbors as thy self, judge ye not lest ye be judged

You don't have to be religious to believe that...

[AtaqKatt]

Originally posted by RBatson
If it means that much to you, stand up and take a stand.



I live up to mine, why don't you live up to yours? I think the problem you are overlooking is that this country is made up of many people of many different beliefs. Christianity may have been the basis but that doesn't mean that is the norm. Alot of people still do believe it and many believe something else.



You don't have to be religious to believe that...

I do live up to mine, and I don't see the problem coming from the wide range of beliefs, I see the problem stemming from the rampant hypocrisy in those beliefs.

[srv1]

Like I said Chris closed-minded . He has to be homophobic! He is one of the main reasons why I left this joint when he was moderator. He was an aszhole then and he is still an aszhole now. Really Jim are you that fuked up in the head to realize that their might be more than your beliefs out there? Keeping beliefs to yourself is fine. Telling people they are wrong cause they dont fall into your guidelines of belief is truly pitifull. You can throw all those nifty political slogans at me all you want, what it comes down to is you really dont know your asz from a hole in a ground.

Jim, it looks like "they" have invaded your state!! RUN!!! Go HERE

James

[rsampson]

She is alot more attractive than she gives herself credit for.. [/B][/QUOTE]
Congrats on having a one of the kind woman. In my experience most women who are nice looking, usually know it and are hard to deal with. You must of find that one of the kind down to earth woman that we all dream of having. Hang on to her because you won't find another one like that. They are rare!

Gay oppinion: for everyone, it is out there and you can't change anyone minds. What you may think is not right, might be the right thing for those particular people. It is a way of life.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

Whoa Jim! Didn't you and mustangjohn just get done calling me a communist in another thread?

No, no one called you a 'communist', Rick. I said you appeared to favor socialism. There is a difference as I think you now know.

Don't get pissed and go anywhere either! I'm still trying to learn from you.

Internet tough guys who are too immature to have a civil discussion will always be with us on almost any website. Whether I choose to bother with their nonsense is problematic. I only have so much time to spend on the net each day and I hate to waste it on the belligerently ignorant.

Glad if I can help educate anyone, Rick. I wanted to help the BOL come back to life but I won't do so at the expense of having to tolerate drivel from internet bully-boys who haven't a clue and just parrot the latest PC lines. Life is too short to put up with this kind of BS from the 'Bevis and Butthead' crowd.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Jim, you're becoming a conspiracy theorist, and you sound scared. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why. You have nothing to fear, you know perfectly well that you can't turn gay because your neighbor is. You surely also know that no matter who else gets married, anywhere on the face of this earth, it couldn't possibly affect the marriage you share with your wife. So what are you afraid of? Why are you so bent on denying others what you, and many other folks have? You've built this up into an 'us versus them' situation, where they're plotting against you, trying to twart your happiness with their hidden agenda. That's so ridiculous, I have trouble believing you'd imply it. No one is trying to take anything away from you. No one is trying to infringe upon your rights. And the only reason the polls and opinions are the way they are is because no one started including homosexuals in their teaching of tolerance until very recently.

You know Chris, I had almost forgotten how good you are are turning arguments inside out and getting your opponent on the defensive by erecting strawmen. I'm not 'scared' (that's a great tactic too use, though...bravo to you for coming up with it) nor do I fear 'turning gay' so let's drop the schoolyard nonsense, shall we, Chris? Please. It's me, not some high school kid you can pull this over on by inferring that their opposition to homosexual 'marriage' stems from a perceived threat to their masculinity. Lame, Chris, really lame but I suppose it's worked for you in the past so you had to give it a try, here. As I've stated, the emotional approach ("they just want to be haaaapppppy') is a waste of time. Pedophiles and poygamists just 'want to be happy', too. So what? Marriage is an ancient social structure intended to confer social approval on a man and a women committing themselves to each other with the expectation that they will bear and raise children and contribute to the greater good of society by doing so as they further the species. Homosexuals simply do not qualify for that designation and rightly so. Attempts to attack my motives and pretend that I'm a conspiracy-theory nut is beneath you, Chris. At least I thought it was. It's obvious that social and legal acceptance for a sexual devient behavior is at the heart of the 'gay marriage' movement. Once homosexual sex is considered legally equal to hetrosexual sex and their couplings are considered equal to hetrosexual marriage we have started down a path that will lead to true corruption of our society as we cannot throw away all social mores and expect to remain intact as a people. History shows this. Allowing sexually deviant behavior to be considered legally equal to heteosexual marriage and to base it on the faulty premise of 'non-discrimination' is absurd. It''s sad how intelligent people like you are so easily drawn into this and eager to defend it, while criticizing opponents with false accusations and a misguided attack on their motives. Poygamists want to have a dozen 'wives'. is it 'discrimination' to not allow it? I think not.

The only thing shallow there was the point you were trying to make. The odds are exactly the same that someone would do away with any age requirement for marriage whether gays can get married or not. Don't be ridiculous.

Really, Chris? Twenty years ago anyone claiming that two homosexuals should have the right to be legally married would have been laughed out of the room. Now, it's being vigoriously defended by folks who should know better, like you. NAMBLA is quite serious about the age of consent being lowered and will probably prevail in a few more decades, just as the homosexuals prevailed to get their sexual couplings called 'marriage' by the law. It just takes time, good PR and calling it 'discrimination' long enough and loud enough until a majority of mushy-headed but well-intentioned people buy into it.

Your arguments are your personal opinions, and just don't make any sense, Jim, which is not like you. You chose instead to ad-lib my post, which was written in plain and simple English. There were no hidden meanings, no ulterior motives, it was just exactly what it was. I tried no "routines", and had no "ploys". Calling your friend an "EX-homosexual" is too funny for words. It's not a light switch under your hair that you can flip at any time. I can't even imagine any circumstances that would make me want to be gay, but with your logic, anyone could, overnight. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Of course you don't Chris. If you did, it would destroy your whole argument, wouldn't it? Self-serving at best but I understand your position and how you have to defend it by your denial that homosexuality is anything less than innate, even if no proof is ever shown to back that up. I called your post as I saw it, just as you have mine. We're even on that point, we just disagree.

Have you read any of the other replies to this post? Don't even blame me for someone else's church telling them that homosexuality is a sin. The author of this thread was alerted to the situation at a meeting at her church. And I'm sorry again, Jim, but that was no "attempt" at anything. I'd prefer you read what I wrote, rather than turning it into some twisted interpretation of it. There was nothing inbetween the lines. This conspiracy thing goes deep with you, it would seem.

Attempts to demean logical and rational opposition to a bad idea are not all generated by fear and hate, as you would have us believe. I resent the implication.

You said yourself that religion has nothing to do with this, which is refreshing to hear. Most of the arguments I've seen and heard against gay marriage revolves around someone's interpretation of their God, and what they felt was right and proper. I'm glad to see that you are past that, although that does shoot down most of the other peoples arguments in this thread. You also acknowledged that gay people are 'nice'. lol. I'm guessing that's your way of saying it's not their personalities, or their flamboyant behavior that keeps you objecting to them being allowed to marry. We both know that that would be blatant discrimination, though, so I'm not surprised. They have loud and obnoxious parades because they no longer feel they have to lie about their sexuality. They're proud of what they are. So are the Irish, every March 17th. So what? If you don't like it, don't go to see it. I do my best to avoid both.

I hold no animus toward homosexuals as people and care not what they choose to do in private. That should be obvious by now. That does not mean that I wish to change the law defining what marriage is to make them happy with me, either. It's a bad idea and emotional attempts to cast gays as 'victims' fall flat with me and many others.

I'm heterosexual, and I call it discrimination. And I'm not the only one.

You've bought into the 'gay discrimination' ploy quite fully, that's clear. Getting what you demand and calling it 'discrimination' if you don't works well, today, in our PC nation. I don't buy it.

You talk of a long history of marriages being between women and men, but you should also know that in many civilizations, older than ours, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was encouraged. The primary purpose for the union between men and women was for procreation, which brings us to another of your points. I don't recall ever reading where the ability to procreate was a requirement for a marriage license. If that's the case, there's a whole bunch of married couples out there who's license is null and void. And as far as the point of being natural, and of being anatomically compatible, I hate to say it, for many reasons, but gay couples have worked that out, too. There are many heterosexual couples that are no longer "naturally compatible", are they to be denied as well?

Another lame 'gay marriage' talking point. 97% of married couples have children. The few who do not are often aunts and uncles and sometimes surrogate parents to relatives - or even foster parents. The fact that marriage is universally assumed to mean hetrosexuals having children isn't undercut by the few hetrosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children. Nice try.

Once again, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know how to make it any more clear; EVERYONE should be entitled to the same rights and restrictions

Any two legal adults, of sound mind, should have the same rights as any other adults of sound mind. And according to the US Supreme Court, in 1964, declared that the freedom to marry was a basic right of all Americans. The constitution protects everyone, not just the majority. When it comes to defining criminal offenses, the majority rules, but under no circumstances can the majority maintain a right while taking it away from the minority. If it's a right for you, it's a right for every other legal adult. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. That's what makes this country as great as it is; EVERYONE of equal status is entitled to the same rights.

Nice try at flag-waving in defense of gay 'marriage' Chis but you're still wrong. If 'marriage' as a word and an institution as well as a social foundation is to retain it's meaning, it has to have some borders. Hetrosexuality is a natural one. Don't even try to drag the black civil rights argument into this Chris, as not allowing 'negros' to marry whites was a shoddy segregationist tactic and has no relation to homosexuals, as homosexuality, unlike race, is not innate or immutable.

IMO, the bottom line here Jim is you personally object to it, for whatever personal reasons you have, but your personal feelings don't justify denying the right of marriage to a gay couple. Everything you may or may not hate and detest about a gay couple being together is going to continue to happen, even in your neighborhood, whether we like it or not. All that is being accomplished by trying to deny the right of marriage to those couples, is denying them equal (not special) rights.

Still beating the dead horse of attacking my motives, eh, Chris? Too bad. I had hoped for better. You've disappointed me here. Oh well, live and learn. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and let it go at that as this could go on forever. Feel free to have the last word here, as I know you will. I'm about finished with this for now.

[srv1]

......And people wonder why their is hardly ever any regulars around here anymore.....

Internet tough guys...hmmm Seems like we have an internet politician on our hands

You know everyone here who replied was cool enough to agree and disagree without being an asz. Why do you have to take peoples words and twist them around and make them sound like they dont know jack? Always have to be the know it all of this forum ever since I got here. I got to admit, Chris and others did a wonderful thing by creating RHC. I don't have to deal with a tool like you Jim. I stood back and watched for awhile now and then you have the nerve to attack Chris's post being that he is a very helpful person to this site and still is, you treat him like some newbie or an idiot.

Does gay marriage "effect" anyone here in any way, shape or form? If it does, explain.

James

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

You know everyone here who replied was cool enough to agree and disagree without being an asz.

Except you, James. You erupted at me with a string of name-calling that added nothing to the discussion except to demonstrate your inability to communicte intelligently.

Why do you have to take peoples words and twist them around and make them sound like they dont know jack?

It's called: 'deconstructing your opponents argument', James and it's a standard form of debating. Chris uses the same tactics so there is no inequity.

Always have to be the know it all of this forum ever since I got here. I got to admit, Chris and others did a wonderful thing by creating RHC. I don't have to deal with a tool like you Jim.

Still name-calling in lieu of an intelligent response, I see. Ah well. Some things never change. If you love Chris and RHC so much, why are you even here? To whine? You claim to be so annoyed with me yet you continue to reply to my posts, even when they are not addressed to you. Interesting bit of schizophrenia you're demonstrating here.

I stood back and watched for awhile now and then you have the nerve to attack Chris's post being that he is a very helpful person to this site and still is, you treat him like some newbie or an idiot.

I 'treat' Chris like someone I disagree with and I reject most of his arguments for 'gay marriage' with my own cogent points. Guys like you personalize everything on the internet and get bent out of shape when you can't sustain an argument. Chris is more mature than that and understands that we're just two strangers on opposite sides of the country posting messages on a Mustang messageboard. Neither of our reputations, friendships or self-images are in any danger if we have a disagreement over some culture-war issue and whether we agree or disagree, we are not changing the course of history here, just exchanging our views. Sarcasm is the coin of the realm on the net, James. Get used to it.

Although I find his liberal, anti-religion, hedonist attitudes to be sadly typical of many today, I do respect Chris' mechanical talents and his years of help to others on this site. You apparently forget that I also spent over five years here as a moderator and administrator and answered hundreds of questions as moderator of the Windsor Power forum, helping many in the process. I gave many hours to this site as a volunteer and whatever respect I've received from anyone here, I've earned, as has PKRWUD. We are quite equal there, too. You simply don't realize that. Your loss.

Does gay marriage "effect" anyone here in any way, shape or form? If it does, explain

.

I already have, in detail. You are apparently unable to grasp it. Your loss, again.

[XR1stang]

I just want to weigh in on one comment that was made in defense against gay marriage:


"However, I fail to see why expanding the ancient and time-tested legal definition of marriage to now include same-sex couples is going to do one thing to strengthen the institution of marriage"


Let us not forget that not too long ago that very same "time-tested legal definition of marriage" also precluded white folks marrying black folks, black folks marrying asian folks, and asian folks from marrying white folks. Also that same definition (but a little earlier in time) precluded people of different national origins from marrying each other, and let's not even bother to touch on the subject of arranged marriages. So personally I think that argument is full of more holes than swiss cheese.


Oh one other thing I wanted to touch on. Someone hinted at "looking at the flowers and animals" because they got it "right". I would like to point that poster to the fact that sea lions, sea gulls, grey wolves and numerous other animals have been known to have homosexual relationships. Heck, I could point you to the fact that your common domesticated dog will hump ANYTHING regardless of whether it's alive or inanimate, male or female, or even of a DIFFERENT species all together. There are also certain flowers that have been found to only propagate through the interaction of pollen from TWO female flowers of that species... oh, and what about all the androgynous/asexual species of animals/insects that are out there? Care to touch on that subject?

[srv1]

Jim, you hurt my feelings I'm going to cry now you internet bully. You wait and see, I will get my internet friends after you! Just because you answer alot of questions and helped people out doesnt mean you are correct. Anyone can spout out crap. I rather be a schizo than homophobic. Well water ever floats your boat, bully I really do hope that gay marriage gets accepted across the U.S. so they can have a gay wedding right in your home town and you can chase them with your bible

Oh yeah just because you were administrator, moderator or aszkisser, that doesnt mean squat. That doesnt prove your knowledge or anything else for the matter. One more thing, dont talk shit about Chris. He has made one if not the best, forum on the net, than any place I have been so far and has made more friends in the past year than you probably in your whole lifetime. He has a wonderful personality something you lack highly of.

Have a good day!

James

[TARZAN]

I do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry. That would IMHO, degrade the entire "family" unit that this country supposedly holds so dear.

-Will