What's your take on gay's being given marriage licenses?

i have also seen that gays sare saying that even if they had civil unions that were legally identical to marriage, they want it to actually be called "marriage".

that really shows how petty people can be. both sides want us to agree that a word has the definition they prefer, independent of how they are actually treated legally.

i am sure gays can find a church that would call them "married" as if the using of that word made any difference.

i think the government should tell everyone that if they want to be called "married" they should talk to their church, just as if they want to be baptised.

 

Someone please tell me why it's anybody's business whether gays are "married" or not. After all, legal marriage is nothing but for the convenience of the law, to settle potential arguments in inheritance, property matters, etc.
I wonder if the situation were reversed where gays were in the majority and made the rules if those against them were denied the rights we now deny them would they feel the same way. I wonder how they would feel being denied health care and property rights and all the things pursuant to heterosexual relationships.
Frankly, if we believe that all men are created equal under the law, then how can we justify denying them these rights just because we disagree with their sexual orientation?
I find it odd that most men do not have a problem with watching two women make out but the idea of two men infuriates them. Perhaps we feel our manhood threatened by it.
What people choose to do in their private lives and how they live their lives, as long as they don't harm or threaten others by it, should be absolutely no concern of anyone and everyone should have the right to live as they choose without prejudice or interference from anyone.
So it's okay by me if two guys want to hook up or two gals want to. As long as they pay their taxes and live as good law abiding citizens, it ain't none of my or anybody else's freakin' business!
And please, don't anybody come in here with this garbage about gays "recruiting" kids into the lifestyle because it just ain't so and don't bring the Bible into it because that's between them and God.








:geaux: :helmet: :lsug: :helmet: :geaux:

 

If gays were in the majority it wouldn't be more than a generation before they were no longer in the majority.

 

if humans were dying out because too many people were gay, i would happily volunteer my sexual services to the sexy lesbians of the world in order to further the race.

 

Now that is funny Bengal!
I like the way Mike quickly and almost seamlessly segues from the leave them alone and respect their privacy argument into the endorse their conduct by certifying it argument. Two distinctly different propositions yet with the timetested cliches' he employs it is almost effective.
And I wonder if people realize that the *lesbians* you see on Howard Stern or pay $10 on the motel PPV are definitely not the lesbians that are standing in line in San Francisco. Instead of Jenna Jameson, think Rosie O'Donnell!

 

I would rather think of Jenna.

 

This is more of an attempt by the homosexual community-be it males, females, or transgenders-to obtain benefits from the government and/or private sector employers who have the misfortune of providing employment to those who are hurtling downward on this slippery slope...

The next few weeks you'll see a litany of lawsuits in California and elsewhere, and in the future in Massachusetts...Basically filed by those who have been awarded marriage licenses and who now want their significant others to be awarded health insurance benefits, and other spousal-ie-marriage-benefits in the eyes of their employers health programs and in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service-IE, the federal government.

Also...Who is to say that since gays have a right to marry, that polygamist do not have the right to marry multiple significant others?

If I was born gay, and I shouldn't be hindered in my quest to be afforded the same simple privileges marriage provides, why-if I were a born a polygamist-should I be hindered in my quest to be afforded the same simple privileges multiple marriages provide?

It's not such an apples and oranges argument, if you really think about it.

I agree with the point regarding psychiatrists copping out, and the psychiatric community as a whole just allowing sexual perversion to run rampant and fall out of their control...

I also agree with the point that this institution has survived MILLENIA...and now, in this society, amongst a small minority of our populace, this institution is about to be set upon its ear...

It's like the allegory of the caves theory...

If you capture a man and bring him down below into a cave, and start a fire behind him, and then put a "charade" of a man up on the cave wall, he recognizes the "form" of the man...

If you capture a man while he's still very young, and keep him below in the same cave, and then put him right next to the other man that has been in the world, and he views the same charade, he doesn't recognize it as being a man...

It's the theory of "forms"...A desk could be a rich mohogany one in a corner office on the 36th floor, or it could be a rickety wooden one in Himes Hall at LSU with Greek letters inscribed upon it...

Either form it takes, you have the "form" of the desk in your mind that identifies both instances as being a desk...

The form, or institution, if you will, of marriage-no matter ANYONE's connotation-is between a man and a woman...Bridesmaids...Groomsmen...Bachelor parties...bachelorette parties...

Tuxes...Wedding dresses...Wedding nights...Carrying the wife over the threshold, consummating your relationship (An afterthought these days, albeit), etc...Giving away your daughter...Best man...Maid of Honor...All these things are vestiges of this institution...

Those forms, those ideas...Those component parts of this institution, are afterthoughts...Everyone-when I brought them up-realized that weddings include them...

The "form" of the term marriage naturally, historically, and through societal assimilation via millenia, conjures up thoughts of a man and a woman...

The ancient Mesopotamians, the first civilized society, had no homosexual marriages...Neither did the Egyptians...Neither the Greeks....Neither the Romans...Neither did the Italians in the Renaissance...Neither did Europeans during the Industrial Revolution....Neither did the first American settlers...

Why-and more aptly-where, do the homosexuals of today's age find the impetus for this change? Throughout recorded history, homosexuality has existed...Why now, and what is behind, the decision?

I just don't understand what is wrong with the status they've achieved in this society, in this day and age, that they're still unhappy with their lots in life...

 

i encourage that. who am i to tell people how many ladies they can marry?

why do you believe it is the government's responsibilty to manage relationships?

i could make the same arguments about birthdays cakes and blowing out candles. what does that have to do with the government?

these thing would exist even if the government didnt give you the forms to fill out and the documents to sign. why do you need the government to care about your relationships? i have never been married, but i had long term girlfriends and i never told the government about it. we got along even without federal mandates.

trust me, men and women will still hook up, even if gays get the same legal rights. it wont affect you.

 

Wow...Now there's a shocking admission...

I'll bet you sure were disappointed when Kerry's intern issue fizzled out before it wound up, if for no other reason than you couldn't marry someone as wacky as the woman who married Mr. I change my mind about as often as I change my droors...

On a serious note...

No one is advocating that the government regulate relationships...They already do, my friend...

It's a simple argument you just made for me...

It's the rule of law versus the rule of anarchy in the sheep's clothing of relaxing moral norms in the fight for equality for a minority.

The institution of marriage has not recently, not lately, not frequently been one involving one man and one woman...but PERMANENTLY...IE-since the beginning of time...

It's been defined as do you take this man, and do you take this woman...The rituals differentiate, but never the GENDERS...They never have, and they were never intended to...

Marriage was designed to join a man and a woman officially as a symbol of their commitment to the other...At first, it was the church, which was at that time the only organized authorities on the scene. Later on, other organized authorities doled in legal issues that hitched onto marriage other caveats...but always in relation to MALE/FEMALE relationships, and nothing else...

So, in one form or another, in THIS institution that relates to relationships, whether you want to say that it's religious governing bodies or later the non religious governing authorities throughout the world, governing bodies of some type, and directly, GOVERNMENTS, have been GOVERNING these types of official commitments between a MAN and a WOMAN for MILLENIA. Refute this, please.

Explain what King Edward had to do get his divorce, please?

Marriage was designed to acknowledge a man and woman's love for a member of the opposite sex...for this...and for nothing else...

Please, explain to me how this is untrue...