The Great Gay Debate

What a crock of @!$%#, this is ridiculous, I mean who really cares? I actually have gay friends and we all know this will go the byways of former questions of whose acceptable or not in polite society. Women's rights went the same way as did the civil rights movement. This will all go away with time as our children are taught that there is no real difference and acceptance becomes umbiquitious to the point that they will think it's unbelievable that there was a question in the first place. We have several deeper questions to occupy our time, these types of unanswerable questions just waste our time as if it means anything to our current concerns that have meaning and pertain to our society's well being and the future of our chldren. in twenty years you will have a hard time explaining to your children why it was ever an issue.

Forest

there was once an institution in this country called marriage and it served an important societal function until a small group of people decided that it had to mean something else entirely. So now it doesn't mean anything.

Ah, so if it deviates at all from what it's meant in the last few decades, then it totally doesn't mean anything anymore?

Interesting.

Again, our country's been through this with interracial marriage.

It's like saying "If we say trucks can be cars, then 'cars' loses all meaning!"

Why do you keep comparing same sex unions to interracial marriage? Male/Female marriages have been recognized as marriage for thousands of years, regardless of the national origin of the participants. There is no historical reason to extend the definition of marriage to same sex unions.

Because the SAME arguments were used to keep interracial marriage illegal for many years.

Male/Female marriages have been recognized as marriage for thousands of years, regardless of the national origin of the participants.

...as long as they were both White. It is quite the same things.

...as long as they were both White. It is quite the same things.

You know that people of all nationalities have married for thousands of years. There have been marriages of people of different nationalities for thousands of years. The argument is invalid.

What are you going on about? It has always been looked down upon by society until the last century! I know that there isn't an emphasis on world history in America, but clearly you know that Blacks and Whites didn't marry in this nation until perhaps the sixties.

Marriage is among the varying sacraments for most western religions. In that regard, government has no role in it. Ceremonial butchering of livestock is a religious rite in some creeds. Should that be incorporated into the law?

Or is the law a majority win thing---just an arm wrestling contest, where the strongest at any given moment get to put their religious sacraments into the law and impose them on the minority?

Mixing religion and politics is like mixing salt and water: you always end-up loosing one and ruining the other.

The state's role in marriage is limited to the public interest. That interest does not extend to validating someone's religious viewpoint. Why pick and choose what religious doctrines warrant coercive enforcement by the law? Why not establish an American sharia? The extension of the state into private individual unions is a vestage of the ancient incorporation of canon law into common law. We need to focus on it, see it for what it is and get the state out of that business.

It was as recent as thirty years ago (the 1970s), that the Supreme Court was striking down laws against interracial marriage based on religious doctrines that men like Jerry Falwell defended as "God's Will." A good part of the modern conservative movement is built on the ignorance and hate of such people. It has so permiated that even people of good will don't question their own assumptions even when they would lead to the use of coercive state power to impose their own religious doctrines on others.

The public interests protected by marriage laws concern care of children, property rights and the benefit the unions of marriage offer to community stability. All three of these state interests are served by extending the advantages of marriage laws to homosexuals. Stable homosexuals can provide great loving homes for children now bouncing around in foster care. Why should homosexuals be barred from having their joint property dealt with under family laws rather than contract or real property law? The same benefit to community stability that comes from stable hetrosexual relationships runs from stable homosexual relationships.

Here's what I'd do: Expunge the word "marriage" from all American statute law and replace it with the word "union." It need not be called a "civil" union because as far as the state interests goes all unions, hetero or homo, are civil. The state is not in the religion business--it is just too poor and unfit an enterprise to deal with matters as important as those religion deal with. Let's de-confuse the issue by clearly stating again the point of first importance in James Madison's mind: preservation of the freedom of conscious require that the coercive power of the state never be picked up and used for religious purposes.

If we kept that point clear, those who are concerned about the moral slippery slope could quit worrying about other people's religion and find that living up to their own is just as challenging and infinately more rewarding.

To make a passing point--marriage has always been a state law issue. It must be noted that "conservatives" have elevated it into a federal statutory matter. Is that anti-national police power?

I missed Kucinich's speech! I am so for anyone who takes a stand, who cares if they "lose votes" these people are supposed to represent the gamut of the population.

I agree with you Henry about Kucinich - however, I believe he was one of the few who didn't show up for the debate.

Which debate? Kucinich was at the Logo debate. Here's a video: http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/video-dennis-kucinich-rewind/.

Opposition to gay marriage is not about homosexuality, it's about marriage. To support SSM requires the ability to ignore or dismiss what marriage is.

No, it requires you to allow others to have their own definition. You do not get to dictate what words shall mean for the American people. You simply don't have that power.

If you asked an analyst what marriage's most important function to society is, what do you think that person would say?

Hmmm, seeing where the divorce rate is... you tell me.

It's surely not for having children anymore, else people would have no problem with having "serious intent to have children" as a prerequisite for a marriage license.

So, you tell me.

I'm not the one championing my own definition, so I'm not the one trying to dictate new meanings for the American people.

You're championing an imaginary god's definition. The "traditional" definition.

I am not dictating any new meanings. I am simply stating that you have no power to determine what a marriage is to someone else. If two homosexuals want to define it as between two people, rather than a man and a woman [or a man and women, as in the bible] - Let them be.

How hard is that?

Why do you think that society, through government, issues marriage licenses?

Marriage licenses are issues so that certain property rights can be contractually set up properly. It isn't because society has an interest in making babies. It's because divorces would be even messier without them. It's because married people seek to give certain rights over their lives to their partners. That is why government offers marriage licenses.

Why do you think that society, through government, issues marriage licenses? The top dog reason. The main purpose. Societies interest in it. The long-term impact we strive for. If you asked an analyst what marriage's most important function to society is, what do you think that person would say?

The Pew Center actually just did a survey on this:

"Indeed, children have fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of items that people associate with successful marriages – well behind "sharing household chores," "good housing," "adequate income," "happy sexual relationship," and "faithfulness." Back in 1990, when the American public was given this same list on a World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance.

The new Pew survey also finds that, by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children.""

So words should mean what we want them to mean as opposed to their actual definition? I guess grammar is out the door now. Where do we stop with this one? Ignore the actual meaning of a word and apply your own context if it is convenient to the user of the word?

This issue is about the use of a particular word who's actual meaning with regard to the union of humans is;

1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4.a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

So design another word for homosexual union. Call it garriage. I still have yet to understand what the deal is with calling homosexual union a civil union. If you have the same rights under a civil union as you do with a marriage, what is the problem? Just because something is tradition does not make it wrong. As some traditions are harmful, others are not. Some tradition's ideals are more advanced than their modern counterparts. Comapring this to the racial divide is amounts to nothing but attempting to apply a stigmatism to the issue. You can't actually derive at a rational reason for your argument, so you throw up a smoke screen to cloud the issue.

Again, if homosexuals are given the same rights under a different term other than marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman, than how is this impeding upon homosexual's civil rights?

To Epictetus

(Comapring this to the racial divide is amounts to nothing but attempting to apply a stigmatism to the issue. You can't actually derive at a rational reason for your argument, so you throw up a smoke screen to cloud the issue. )

I only need one reason for the argument for gay-marriage: I am a human being, not a political agenda, not an anti-american, just a simple man. Their is no reason that 2 men or women should not be allowed to marry, it has not been shown to destroy any fabric of the societies, who have allowed SSM, that we are supposedly so much advanced over, such as South Africa. Tradition is not always a bad word, but here it is indeed a bad concept in this context. The argument on proponents makes since, I want the same 1138 rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy. I do not want a seperate but equal doctrine, or have we not learned anything from American history?

And please don't lecture on this not being like the racial divide, because you clearly have no idea what your talking about. I am a gay black man, and I can tell you that barring interracial marriage & gay marriage are parallels. The very same arguments are being recycled from the former to the latter. Discrimination is Discrimination.

They refused to go to Fox News with good reason. It would be like having Jon Stewart host a debate for the Republicans.

Marriage is not only a religious ceremony any more than eating is a religious ceremony. That said, government should sanction all marriages or no marriages. That's all there is to it.

That's all there is to it.

Not so much. That is a gross oversimplification.

Only to the bigoted.

If by "gross oversimplication", you mean "self-consistent position", then yes.

Ah, so I am bigoted. Nice argument.

The government has no business telling the church how to run marriage anymore than the church has telling the government who it can offer civil unions to.

No one is saying that all churches would have to allow gay marriage. We simply want the churches that would like to do so be able to provide members of the same sex with the same benefits provided to married couples. Why do you oppose choice?

I don't understand how what you are saying and what I am saying differ.

Whoa, hold up here. Slow down, mah librul bruthas.

I agree with Bodhi1. Whole-heartedly. I'm shocked that I agree with Bodhi1 on something -- anything -- especially something having to do with homosexuality, but I agree with Bodhi1 completely on this. In fact, so do most of my omg gay friends.

The government should get the hell out of the marriage business. Why is that so hard to understand? If marriage is a religious institution, then leave it as a religious institution. Get the church out of the state and the state out of the church. Isn't that what we've wanted?

The issue here isn't the religious part of marriage. We already won that fight. We won that fight years ago. There are churches all over the country who will happily welcome gay couples who want to get married. We won that one. The religious aspect of this debate is moot.

The issue here is the state, and the way that the term 'marriage' has saturated through law. Through tax codes, health care, immigration law, inheritance, even hospital visitation -- so much is governed by spousal relationships. If we simply remove the government from the marriage business and institute civil unions -- for everyone, heterosexual and homosexual -- and alter the law such that legally, civilly united partners are eligible for the same benefits no matter what gender they are, then what's the problem?

If you want to be married in a church in a religious ceremony, be married in a church in a religious ceremony. If you are homosexual and the church in question believes that homosexuality is a sin and will not sanction the marriage, fine. That's their prerogative, and they have the right to practice religion according to their beliefs. Go to a different church and get married there.

The religious ceremony isn't the battle we're fighting. We're fighting for equal treatment from the state. If all couples, hetero and homo, received the same sort of civil union license from the state, and that union entitled all of us to the same benefits and protections under law...where's the problem, and why are we arguing with Bodhi?

There is the larger issue that traditional marriage benefits society. If you prefer to call that traditional 'civil union', that is OK too. But when you expand the legal status of marriage to same sex couples, you negate the reason their are legal structures for marriage. When you begin redefining marriage, you also must deal with multiple partner relationships and the attendant legal problems when individuals enter/leave multiple partner relationships.

At any rate, such issues belong to the states and should be resolved at the state level.

I don't understand how what you are saying and what I am saying differ.

You approve of allowing government sanctioned marriages for traditional couples, whereas I feel that government should do noting of the sort - or offer it to everyone.

There is the larger issue that traditional marriage benefits society.

No, it doesn't.

I think Henry, Bodhi, and Pev are actually in pretty close agreement.
I concur, as well.

jpark:

There is the larger issue that traditional marriage benefits society.

Show me how. The divorce rate doesn't support that assertion.

But when you expand the legal status of marriage to same sex couples, you negate the reason their are legal structures for marriage.

So why are their(sic) legal structures for marriage?

When you begin redefining marriage, you also must deal with multiple partner relationships and the attendant legal problems when individuals enter/leave multiple partner relationships.

Ah yes, I see. Same-sex marriage is the gateway drug to the heroin of polygamous marriage and maybe even the cocaine of interspecies marriage. Hmmm, funny how the same argument was made against interracial marriage not long ago.

Further, what's so terrible about polygamy - other than that your "holy book" supports it?

All societies historically have sanctioned male/female marriages. None have sanctioned same sex marriages. The reason is that male/female marriages stabilize families and produce offspring, among other reasons. A traditional family will more likely produce citizens with traditional values -- a stabilization factor in societies.

Jack,

Ah yes, I see. Same-sex marriage is the gateway drug to the heroin of polygamous marriage and maybe even the cocaine of interspecies marriage. Hmmm, funny how the same argument was made against interracial marriage not long ago.

Any time you allow a redefinition of a legal structure, you open the door to further redefinition. It is not certain that further redefinition would ensue, but you have provided the opportunity.

Any time you allow a redefinition of a legal structure, you open the door to further redefinition. It is not certain that further redefinition would ensue, but you have provided the opportunity.

Ohhh. So to be clear, then, you don't support legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act or the proposed Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? Because those redefine marriage, which -- despite your completely erroneous statements to the contrary -- is an arrangement that has been in flux since humans started joining each other in caves.

Whatever. Boring. Bring Bodhi back.

It seems like the argument is a semantic one. But churches don't own the word "marriage" and the whole discussion of same sex marriage is about civil marriage, not religious.

None have sanctioned same sex marriages.

Ancient Greece did sanction man-boy love, though.

So what does the "all societies do so-and-so, no societies do such-and-such" argument show? Ah... absolutely nothing.

The reason is that male/female marriages stabilize families and produce offspring, among other reasons.

Over half of marriages end in divorce. That's a fahn stabilizer, right thar.

They produce offspring... so you'd be fine with disallowing marriages of people who don't intend to have kids, or are you going to cop out of that with your "among other reasons" trailer?

A traditional family will more likely produce citizens with traditional values -- a stabilization factor in societies.

Yeah, because as we all know that interracial families produce subpar offspring.

Tradition is simply whatever the status quo is.

Are tradition and stability really such virtues as you make them out to be?

I find progress to be far better for society.

Jack Huang,

I understand you don't care for traditions, but laws generally grow from the traditions of the citizens.

The fact that no society has historically sanctioned same sex marriage says something about the undesirability of the concept. If it benefited society, at least some societies would have recognized it.

jpark, what do you want to say about the fact that the vast majority of societies relied on arranged marriages, often arranging marriages between prepubescent children for gains in property, power, or status...and that this practice is still in effect in many societies today? Oh, and that this practice is far more widely backed up by the Bible than homosexuality is condemned or even mentioned?

Or is it just that 'tradition' only means what you want it to mean, when it's convenient for you?

Please. Dig into a big steaming bowl of The Real World, where laws adapt to suit the society they govern.

Arranged marriages were certainly an aspect of many societies and are still an aspect of societies today. However, marriages for property, power or status affect only a small fraction of a society, the largest portion of which has neither money, power or status.

How about turning the question around?

How does same sex marriage benefit society?
If you find that it does benefit society, why has no society historically availed itself of this benefit?

Virtually every society prior to the nineteenth century had suppressed women. It certainly was "traditional" throughout the Western world. Tradition is a pretty horrible reason, alone, to maintain a practice of limiting rights for people. Why did women's rights spread? A few places tried it out, the world didn't end, and more and more people realized it was fundamentally unjust.

The argument against gay marriage might hold more water if places that had implemented gay marriage had found any negative societal impact after doing so. But none have. The marriage rate actually went up slightly in Scandinavia. And so what we see is that a few places have tried it out, the world didn't end, and more and more people are realizing the disparity is fundamentally unjust.

At the rate that things are going right now, the US might be the last place in North America that still discriminates against homosexuals in marriage.

And by "no society," I assume you mean no society except the following: Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, USA, Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain.

Virtually every society prior to the nineteenth century had suppressed women.

Note the use of the word virtual. Certainly women have been oppressed and still are in many cultures. But history records many women in positions of power as well. This is not an issue about individual oppression, it is an issue where a minority want society in general to redefine their values to match the minority view.

Why should our society dispense with the concept of marriage? Why should the minority rule?

I'm not big on using tradition as an excuse for personal prejudices.

However, marriages for property, power or status affect only a small fraction of a society, the largest portion of which has neither money, power or status.

I would love to see you try to back up this statement.

This is not an issue about individual oppression, it is an issue where a minority want society in general to redefine their values to match the minority view.

See interracial marriage. That was a "redefining of values" to match a minority view at the time. This is becoming rather mindnumbing.

Why should our society dispense with the concept of marriage?

Who ever proposed that?

The closest anyone's come is to say that the government should not preside over religious marriages, and that same-sex marriage should have the same legal rights.

spiffie, don't you know that places which legalize same-sex marriage don't count as "societies"?

Note the use of the word virtual.

What I note is that I typically qualify my statements because universal absolutes are very rarely true; e.g. when you said "no society," which is demonstrably false.

This is not an issue about individual oppression, it is an issue where a minority want society in general to redefine their values to match the minority view.

I'm not sure how the first part of that sentence isn't equivalent to the second part. How is oppressinoby a majority not an issue about individual oppression?

Why should the minority rule?

The minority isn't asking to rule, it's asking to be allowed a place at the table.

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Source

Ah yes, great and most important societal bedrock, indeed.

P.S. - Conservative Christians have higher divorce rates than other faith groups, and much higher divorce rates than atheists or agnostics (same source). Hmmm, I guess conservative Christianity chips at society's foundation a lot more than atheism. Who knew?

Henry, where have you learned this? Can you cite one reputable study or statistic that shows that marriage is bad for a society, particularly ours?

I was stating that limiting marriage to "traditional" marriage is no more beneficial than marriage in the more progressive sense. Now, if you would like to show data that the homosexuals down the street having sex every night while being stripped of their rights is better for society than for them to be married and doing the same - be my guest.

How does same sex marriage benefit society? If you find that it does benefit society, why has no society historically availed itself of this benefit?

Same sex marriage benefits society because it is a recognition of the moral principle that every citizen has the same basic rights. I hold a society that recognises these rights in higher esteem that a society that does not, ceteris paribus.

Since this is about rights, the minority/majority arguments are void. Human and constitutional rights have been conceived exactly to prevent majorities from oppressing minorities.

I don't care if there is a majority opposed to same-sex marriage: homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Since this is about rights, the minority/majority arguments are void. Human and constitutional rights have been conceived exactly to prevent majorities from oppressing minorities.

It is not about rights. Same sex couples (or triplets, quadruplets, etc.) have the same right anyone else has to form any type of union they desire.

What you are calling a right and saying is denied is the capacity to force society to sanction such relationships.

You are saying 'Not only do I demand this right (which I already have), but I demand that you declare that my relationship is a marriage'.

Society does not find same sex unions worthy of the term marriage. Why do you believe you have the right to force society to believe or behave otherwise?

For the same reason that people felt it necessary and proper to fight anti-miscegenation laws. Just because society doesn't recognize a relationship is not absolute proof that the current position is right or just. Restrictions have been and can be removed.

jpark,

It is not about rights. Same sex couples (or triplets, quadruplets, etc.) have the same right anyone else has to form any type of union they desire.

Last time I checked, civil marriages or even civil unions were not open to gays in the vast majority of US states. So yes, this is about rights.

What you are calling a right and saying is denied is the capacity to force society to sanction such relationships.

The capacity to enforce equal treatment should be rigorously and consistently protected.

You are saying 'Not only do I demand this right...but I demand that you declare that my relationship is a marriage'.

Lest any confusion arise, I am advocating this right for others, not for me. I happen to live in a society where gay marriage is already reality. Even though I am not gay, I strongly support this policy. Why? Because I think my society is morally better off because of it.

Society does not find same sex unions worthy of the term marriage. Why do you believe you have the right to force society to believe or behave otherwise?

Because that society claims to respect basic rights, such as the right to fair and equal treatment. Whenever it does not respect these rights, it should be held accountable. Why do you believe you can deny people a right that you can enjoy?

I am not trying to force society 'to believe or behave otherwise'. I would like society to respect its own founding principles by protecting everyone's rights and freedoms. Anyone can believe or behave in any way she or he wants.

Last time I checked, civil marriages or even civil unions were not open to gays in the vast majority of US states. So yes, this is about rights.

Anyone can set up house with any number of other people of any sex. Contracts can be used to assign property, etc. in those relationships. There is no law preventing or even hindering this.

Nobody is contending that! This topic is about civil unions and marriages for gay people, not about buying houses. The fact that same-sex couples can jointly own property does not undermine the argument in favour of them being able to get married.

By the way, property shared by same-sex couples is treated very differently by the law than property shared by married couples. For no other reason than the fact of not being married.

You are not prevented from entering a marriage type of relationship, and contracts and agreements can assign property rights for that relationship. You can even call your relationship a marriage.

You just can't require me (and the majority of Americans) to call your relationship a marriage.

You are not prevented from doing what you want. What bothers you is that you are unable to compel others to approve of what you do.

You are not prevented from doing what you want.

When hacked-together legal contracts for same-sex partners don't grant them the same rights at straight married couples, then yes, they are prevented from doing what they want.

What bothers you is that you are unable to compel others to approve of what you do.

You think the debate about same-sex marriage is about making other people cheer them on?! My God you're abso-f---ing-lutely delusional.

Society does not find same sex unions worthy of the term marriage. Why do you believe you have the right to force society to believe or behave otherwise?

A few decades ago: Society does not find interracial unions worthy of the term marriage. Why do you believe you have the right to force society to believe or behave otherwise?

Great argument, kid.

Please stop referring to 'my relationship'. For the second time, I am not gay and even if I were, I could get married because I live in the Netherlands. You are unnecessarily making this discussion both personal and confusing.

What bothers me is that a society creates second-class citizens by refusing them the right to marry before the law. The state should be obliged to sanction gay marriage legally.

Nobody is required to approve gay marriage morally, and I am not asking for that. I couldn't care less how you refer to same-sex relationships personally.

My above comment was aimed at jpark, of course.

Handshake,

Sorry if my response implied that I was speaking about you or your relationships specifically.

I was responding to your post and used you to address the comments in the post.

Society, despite the claims to the contrary, has no obligation whatsoever to sanction same sex unions. It should be enough that society does not prevent those unions.

Society, despite the claims to the contrary, has no obligation whatsoever to sanction same sex unions. It should be enough that society does not prevent those unions.

Naturally, you're the reigning authority on what "should be enough" for society.

Many people once thought that "separate but equal" "should be enough", and that it "should be enough" that society didn't prevent blacks from going to school at all. I guess people who disagreed should've just sucked it up. After all, it's already enough, right?

It should be enough that society does not prevent those unions.

Actually, it does prevent those unions as legally binding contracts (which is just what marriages are in the eyes of the law).

Next time you try to make the same blind point yet again, count how many times it'd been refuted and how many times you've ignored or simply brushed aside the refutations. It'll help curb the dumbing down of this discussion.

The vague platitudes about "society" are getting annoyingly shallow and repetitive. Your comments far fall short of demonstrating the mental sophistication needed to even consider speaking for "society."

jpark,

Alright, thanks for the explanation.

Legal marriage carries important symbolic and material benefits. As such, assigning the right to marry to heterosexual couples creates a class of privileged citizens and another class of second-class citizens. There is no justification for this: society has the obligation to protect minorities and to ensure equal rights. Hence, the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples.

Any your continuing comparison of same sex unions to racial bias is getting tiresome.

I suppose it helps your argument to compare to something which most people abhor, but the comparison fails. Same sex unions are now allowed. Though they are not viewed by the majority of society as desirable, you don't have control over the thoughts and desires of society.

you don't have control over the thoughts and desires of society.

And I'm not asking for general society to be yippee-ki-yay happy-go-lucky about watching a gay wedding.

"Equal" schools for blacks were once allowed. I guess we should've just stayed there, and not bothered fixing "separate but equal." Curse you, stupid civil rights movement!

P.S. - Thank you, once again, for pretending that arguments you can't counter were never made.

Thank you for continuing to compare same sex marriages to racial bias.

The issues are not comparable. There have been interracial marriages as long as there have been races to intermarry. Societies have never sanctioned same sex marriages and are unlikely to sanction them.

The issues are not comparable.

Says you, maybe.

Societies have never sanctioned same sex marriages and are unlikely to sanction them.

Excepting, you know, the societies which have and do...

(Don't you hate it when reality goes and ruins a perfectly good "point"?)

It should be enough that society does not prevent those unions.

Jpark, society is, at least in part, gay people, and gay unions. Don't let it blow your mind or anything, but there it is.

Society, despite the claims to the contrary, has no obligation whatsoever to sanction same sex unions

I suppose in the way that society has "no obligation" whatsoever to prevent slavery, or give women a vote? Or allow red-headed kids to live? Men over 80 to go outdoors on a Wednesday?

You seem to misunderstand what "society" is.

Excepting, you know, the societies which have and do...

Historically they have not. Do I need to say that every time or can you remember that I am talking about societies never having sanctioned marriage throughout history? There are, of course, a few areas in the world today which do sanction same sex unions.

Chasing,

I suppose in the way that society has "no obligation" whatsoever to prevent slavery, or give women a vote? Or allow red-headed kids to live? Men over 80 to go outdoors on a Wednesday?

You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between allowing something and sanctioning something. Society already allows same sex unions, it just doesn't sanction them.

Need an edit button!
4.49 never having sanctioned marriage should have read
never having sanctioned same sex marriage.

Historically they have not.

Look outside your window, buddy. What you're seeing? That's history. Get used to it.

As far as the past goes, differing societies all over the world have condoned a wide variety of unions, including homosexual. Was it ever a dominant reality, across the globe? No, but then neither was (or is) the act of reading. You know, or taking an airplane to visit Grandma. Times change. Dustbin of history? It's calling your name.

Look, if you want to remain fettered to outdated modes of thought, you go right ahead. But don't be surprised if you find that the rest of us have moved on, and left you behind. We simply don't have much incentive to wait around for ya. So sorry.

Society already allows same sex unions, it just doesn't sanction them.

I'm not addressing the semantics of sanction vs allow, I'm addressing your notion on what "society" a) is, and b) "allows". It's a fool's comparison, anyway - do you really (honestly) think that society has any choice in "allowing" gay unions? Don't act as though you're society, or that your society is doing me any favors with this "allowing" business. We simply do not need your permission.

We simply do not need your permission.

Of course you don't.

Why do you need societies sanction?

Ah yes, because Republicans have rock-solid opinions and "stay the course" has fared so well in recent history.

Republicans are not without problems too. But a clear statement of position is not too much to ask of any politician. (And yes, on many issues, you will never get a clear statement of position from candidates of either party).

Just evening out partisan bias is all. :-p

I agree that the Dems are being rather wimpy, but, from your article:

Supposedly, Republicans turned down the opportunity to debate on gay issues. That's too bad.

I'd say the Democrats were more ballsy this time around. At least they showed their faces.

WHY DOES THIS NOT PISS OFF THE 'GAY RIGHTS' LEFT AND GAY MARRIAGE PROPONENTS???

It did.

I wouldn't say that is a slap in the face. The Dems showed up and laid out what they thought... maybe gay marriage isn't on their agenda this time around... it surely will be in elections in the future though. You can bet on it.

The Dems will do more for them than any Republican would.

Laura, it depends on how the state sets up the civil union. One of the advantages to just calling it marriage is that there's a pretty unequivocal set of rights and privileges that "marriage" carries. Even in situations where a government has stated that a "civil union" carries all the same effective rights and privileges, there have been rights at the margin that were excluded. The UPS insurance coverage issue in New Jersey was one such, although that was eventually settled correctly (in my opinion) when UPS agreed to extend its coverage to partners in NJ unions.

Not all governments define civil unions or domestic partnerships so liberally. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might only refer to hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, parenting rights, property rights, some of these, all of these, or some others not listed here.

Laura -- it's not just about a will. It's about taxation. For instance, if a man is in a heterosexual marriage, and his partner dies, he receives her property free of taxation. However, if a man is in a homosexual union and his partner dies, he receives his partner's property as if he was receiving property from an unrelated stranger: it is taxed at the full rate of estate tax (which is pretty heavy).

This may just seem like money or greed, but when the person you love more than anyone in the world has just died and you're trying to go on, the last thing anyone wants is to be hit with taxes that might cause you to lose your home as well.

Wiki actually has a good list of the benefits of marriage in the US that apply only to heterosexual couples, not to homosexuals. Ultimately, though, doesn't it just make sense to have 'marriage' mean the same thing for everyone? Didn't we realize a long time ago that separate but equal sucked?

Inheritance by a spouse is not exempt from estate taxes. There should be no estate taxes, but marriage is no escape from them.

I community property states, the spouse is considered to own half the estate unless there is a contractual agreement to the contrary. Most states recognize ownership according to legal documents.

A homosexual couple can enter a legal agreement to share all assets. I think most states in estate matters would consider the surviving partner to have ownership of half the assets.

Why would they do that when they can simply steal from them? It's not as if the majority of people would stand up for them in such a case. Too much faith-based bigotry in this country.

Well, jpark, you're...uh...wrong. In so many ways. You're wrong. I mean, I just don't know where to begin; you're wrong.

I'm talking here of federal tax. Individual states, of course, may apply taxes to the spouse or may not -- and okay, taxes kick in for estates valued above, what is it, two million? But for those of us who aren't multimillionaires, yeah, spouses are exempt from federal estate tax.

And to say that "I think most states in estate matters would consider the surviving (homosexual) partner to have ownership of half the assets" is just...wrong, and really speaks to how completely devoid of clue you are on this point. If you don't actually know how states are actually applying the law in the really real world, you might not want to open mouth unless you think Foot is tasty. The government doesn't give up money it's entitled to by law just because it'd be awfully nice to consider the surviving partner the way that a wife would be considered.

Please name a state which does not honor legal ownership, by contract or other legal document?

Estate taxes do kick in at some point, but they kick in for everyone.

All of them.

You link to an article about eminent domain. How does that bear on the question of states recognizing contract law?

Clearly they don't honor your contract to your home. Why would they honor the rest of your property?

Eminent domain means a government entity can seize property for the public good. It has nothing to do with contract law.

It does, because they clearly break the contracts you have to do so.

Eminent domain isn't the issue here, I agree, but jpark, what you're talking about and what the actual subject here is are worlds apart. Here, I'll try to explain.

If a man dies and leaves his estate to his wife, she inherits that estate without incurring federal taxes on it (again, not talking about those rare few multimillionaires out there).

If a man dies and leaves his estate to Bob who sits down the hall at the office, Bob inherits that estate, but is taxed on it. Even if he has a legal agreement with Bob that Bob will inherit everything...Bob will inherit everything, less taxes.

If a man dies and leaves his estate to Bob, who has been his committed partner for twenty years, Bob inherits that estate, but is taxed on it. Even if he has a legal agreement with Bob that Bob will inherit everything...Bob will inherit everything, less taxes.

Some sort of arrangement whereby a couple shares assets doesn't exempt them from taxation. I'm not sure why you think it would (I hope you have an accountant doing your taxes every year).

Estate taxes do not kick in for everyone. They do not kick in for spouses. Which is why we're having this conversation. Why is it that hard to keep up?

Estate taxes are a special tax applied to the estate. The estate (for those millionaires who have a large enough estate) is taxed before distribution to beneficiaries. Marriage does not affect the application of estate taxes to the estate.

And what about social security? If my partner dies, I don't get survivor's benefits. Our years together don't entitle me to any security at all. And there is NO way to get that. If I'm lucky, her family won't contest the will, and the dogs and I will still have our house.

Social security was forced on the American population with the assertion that it was a retirement system. Of course, it always was and continues to be a transfer of wealth. I won't defend social security because it is indefensible. In any real retirement system, you can assign the asset to anyone you desire.

In an ideal world, you're right--you WOULD be able to assign that asset to your choice. But this is the reality that I live with. My partner has worked for a Fire Department for over 20 years. She'll retire with 30 years of distinguished service. And her reward from the government? Oh, that system doesn't protect your family because it isn't sanctioned.

Personally, I think the SS system needs a complete overhaul, but this is the world we get.

Estate taxes are a special tax applied to the estate. The estate (for those millionaires who have a large enough estate) is taxed before distribution to beneficiaries. Marriage does not affect the application of estate taxes to the estate.

You're wrong, so you're changing the parameters of what we're talking about in order to pretend you're not. And that's bad debate tactics. I've stated quite clearly, repeatedly, that I'm talking about federal estate taxes to spouses (not all beneficiaries) as applied to the vast majority of us who are not multimillionaires.

Spouses are not taxed federally on estates worth less than two million dollars. This becomes important when defining WHAT A SPOUSE IS, hence why it is germane to the topic at hand.

You're wrong, and as you so typically do*, you're refusing to simply admit you are mistaken about a very minor point in fear that it might make your entire position appear to be wrong. Grow up and accept that you screwed up here so we can get back to arguing the actual point, because I'm not going to let you squirm out of it.

* Please, seriously, I don't want anyone to follow this up with any stupid nonsense about how all (insert political party here) do this; I'm talking about one person, not making some sweeping generality.

Why? Because for every progressive, tolerant voter there are at least ten backward bigots.

If you like another man's sandwich, it's often easier to just order another one than it is to convince him to share his.

Yes, but I'm not asking to share another man's wife. Let's put it this way, if you want a Big Mac, it's easier to order another Big Mac than it is to go up to the counter and say, "You see that guy over there? I want exactly what he's having, but I can't call it what he called it."

No. You don't want exactly what he is having. You want something else but want to call it what he is having.

I want a Big Mac without special sauce, maybe, but it's so substantively the same thing that I don't see the point in being so pedantic to insist it's something else.

There is a reason we honor marriage as between a man and a woman and if start to honor and reward other forms of relationships, then marriage is not a sacred institution anymore.

As a legal contract imparting legal rights and benefits, marriage should never be a "sacred" institution.

Don't confuse the common church ceremony with the legal license, guaranteeing rights and benefits.

If the title of marriage was left alone, I think this topic would encounter far less resistance from traditionalists

It's probably worth noting that change takes time. Some people (of particularly the older-and-more-set-in-their-ways generations) need to die off before gay marriage can be a reality. If gay people can make incremental progress by supporting civil unions they should, it only improves their political position going forward. It isn't the ideal that they want, but it puts them within striking distance of that ideal. They'd be better positioned to make the separate-but-equal argument that obviously follows.

if start to honor and reward other forms of relationships, then marriage is not a sacred institution anymore. Is it?

Um, well actually yeah it is. Think back to the 60's and civil rights. Did white human rights suffer a degrading blow because they were extended to black people? No. Human rights are still extremely sacred in society. Making rights universal increases their sanctity. The same would be true for marriage.

Gay food? Is that, like, flan?

What do you think its greatest purpose is, OttO?

*sound of crickets chirping*

I wonder what would happen if everybody was gay and homosexual? What a minute, we wouldn't have a world.

Gay and homosexual? Hold your horses there, buddy! I think any normal human being could only hope to ever accomplish just the one! We aren't all superheroes, here!

And I think the world would go on just fine without humanity. No? Although I'm sure all the lovely gay and/or (but never both!) people might avail themselves of, oh, I don't know, artificial insemination. Or hey! Cloning!

Yeah, I bet with cloning, you could breed a Supergay! You know, one that's both gay and homosexual! Ahhhh.....brave new world! I hear your call!

I wonder what would happen if everybody was gay and homosexual? What a minute, we wouldn't have a world.

This fight for equality by homosexuals is a crying shame. They keep talking about acceptance.

You got to admit, a man and woman gets together; they can have a child. You get a man and man together; and you get uhhhhhhh, nothing.

So, marriage is for making babies?

I guess you'd be fully in support of not allowing marriage for infertile/post-menopausal women and sterile men, then. After all, they can't have kids, and if everyone were sterile or post-menopausal, humanity would go kaput.

Chasing, I'll bring the soma!

I didn't say for making babies. I want you to notice the amazing reality that happens when a vagina and penis meets versus when a penis and penis meet.

Everybody will not have babies, I get that. But what I don't get is that people don't see the immorality of it. Where would we be if man got only with man? We wouldn't be here. We wouldn't have opportunities to clone or artifically inseminate.

I do know that marriage isn't for two men or two women.

I'm going to assume you aren't joking (which is a stretch).

I want you to notice the amazing reality that happens when a vagina and penis meets versus when a penis and penis meet.

Well, as a lesbian, I'd rather not, but thanks for asking. Trust me, I have a very happy and healthy sex life that doesn't require your approval (or even a penis).

I'll try not to pass judgment on your life if you'll agree to do the same for me. Immoral is a subjective term, so no, I don't "get it." I think lots of things are immoral that you may not agree with--like going to war with a country who hasn't threatened us, and letting people die of hunger, and not taking care of each other. Like I said, it's subjective, not absolute.

It isn't impossible for gay people to have children--they do it all the time. Some even have sex the old-fashioned way.

Wait.

Why are you confusing biology with morality?

More importantly, why are you confusing biology with marriage and then in the same breath saying that marriage isn't for making babies?

I do believe, sir, that you need to attend a brief seminar on the mechanics of debate.

But since you brought it up: if a penis and a vagina are your only requirements for marriage, what are your beliefs about post-op transsexuals?

Immoral is a subjective term, so no, I don't "get it." I think lots of things are immoral that you may not agree with--like going to war with a country who hasn't threatened us, and letting people die of hunger, and not taking care of each other. Like I said, it's subjective, not absolute.

Thanks Chum! I enjoyed that!

I am not confusing biology with morality. I didn't say a penis and vagina are the only requirements, but people who are married have those parts.

I am not judging anybody, I am stating what you say you are. What you do is unnatural, bottom line. Yes we can talk about a lot of immoral things, but we are talking about the immorality of homosexuality. Well since immorality is subjective which I do agree with, isn't morality then. I think so.

Can you absolutely say that homosexuality is moral? And don't even get me started on transsexuals. How could you dare change into something that you are not? And I didn't know transsexuals could have children normally like women. So a man can go and get a sex change and then have a child through his womb?

If (s)he can, then I apologize.

I want you to notice the amazing reality that happens when a vagina and penis meets versus when a penis and penis meet.

Your idea of gay sex is... a bit off.

Bonobos penis-fence. Gay men don't.

I am not judging anybody, I am stating what you say you are.

Of course you're not judging. They simply are immoral and unnatural, just like blacks and people who like porn.

What you do is unnatural, bottom line.

Even if it's observed in many, many animal species?

Well since immorality is subjective which I do agree with, isn't morality then. I think so.

Essentially, you've just said that you calling something immoral means nothing more than "I don't like it. It's icky."

Can you absolutely say that homosexuality is moral?

Am I absolutely saying homosexuality is not icky? I personally don't think it's icky, but I don't see that's relevant.

How could you dare change into something that you are not?

How dare a small-chested woman get breast implants! You're changing into a buxom woman, which you're not!

How dare someone get a nose job! You're changing into a sexy-nosed person, which you're not!

And I didn't know transsexuals could have children normally like women. So a man can go and get a sex change and then have a child through his womb?

We were talking about transsexuals and marriage. I thought you said having children wasn't a requirement for marriage. I'd hate to call you a two-faced liar now, but I don't think I have a choice.

To TheBoss

I have never been one to call someone's opinion stupid, but I can't avoid it with the extremely ignorant statements you made. I don't of anywhere in the constitution where it says that a couple should be able to have a child, to be treated equally. What about Hetero marriages without kids? I deserve to be treated equally b/c I am a human being. It doesn't mean a d*** thing whether I ever contribute to soceity.

(Should we accept a man who wants to marry his sister? Should we accept a man who wants to marry three women?)

These issues are points that make no sense, we don't allow siblings to marry because it's detrimental to families, and the kids health.(proven) We don't let men be bigots becausem again it's been proven to be detrimental to families.(proven) No one has yet to show me that gay marriage, or homosexuals in general are detrimental to society in any way shape or form. Nobody gives a rat's a** whether you approve or 2 men or 2 women being together. That's like not changing the law because a racist doesn't like the idea of ethnic groups being equal. It is sad to say that your type of people make me sick to my stomach, and you are the reason the teen suicide rate is so high! The stats say that most teenagers who commit suicide are in some way dealing with sexual identity and acceptance. But I try not to let people like you or jpark, who have no real logics or arguments prevent me from fighting for my rights. I have the constitution on my side, and you have prejudice & discrimination on yours.

These issues are points that make no sense, we don't allow siblings to marry because it's detrimental to families, and the kids health.(proven) We don't let men be bigots becausem again it's been proven to be detrimental to families.(proven)

And you don't think that two men being together is detrimental to families. Come on. That one is too easy. If all men decide to be with other men, our world we be extinct in 150 years. Now that is DETRIMENTAL.

I will say that you have your right to want marriage for homosexuals. You have your right to want to change the laws in order for them to align with the way society has changed. I understand it all. I say fight for your rights. But don't get made because Christians fight for the rights to keep homosexual marriage illegal. Or because anybody fights that homosexuals are not given rights. They are just fighting for what they believe to.

But homosexuality is wrong. Point blank.

That one is too easy. If all men decide to be with other men, our world we be extinct in 150 years.

Which is a fallacy--no one is suggesting that all men must marry other men, only that it be left up to the individual to decide.

So if it is left up to the individual, that means homosexuality is a choice.

I'm sorry. THere is no man made to be with another man and then another man made to be with a woman. I'm sorry. There is no woman made to be with another woman and then a woman made to be with a man.

I'm sorry. Homosexuals are just confused. Sincerely, I understand we want to be happy; all of us. But the lifestyle is just wrong. I do sympathize with people who are confused about this lifestyle. A lie is the perverted truth. Lust is perverted love. Homosexuality is perverted nature.

This clearly won't go any where, so I'll leave you to your apologies.

no one is suggesting that all men must marry other men, only that it be left up to the individual to decide.

So if it is left up to the individual, that means homosexuality is a choice.

It means marriage is a choice, not homosexuality.

Homosexuals are just confused. ... the lifestyle is just wrong. ... A lie is the perverted truth. ...Lust is perverted love. Homosexuality is perverted nature.

Congratuations on another unsubstantiated faith based argument. You may as well be making the case that the world is ruled by the giant spaghetti monster. Come back when you can apply reason and logic to the argument.

I have some questions below these comments. I would appreciate your substantiated faith based argument answers for these questions.

Since we want to base things on facts. What would you say about a person having the choice to have sex with their own teenage child? What about a society where we don't have to wear clothes or pay taxes and killing your neighbor is okay? Wait a minute. That isn't the same thing as being gay.

LEt me get back to the point at hand. How is a person born homosexual?

What would you say about a person having the choice to have sex with their own teenage child?

A child cannot give informed consent to having sex with an adult.

What about a society where we don't have to wear clothes or pay taxes and killing your neighbor is okay?

Or being Christian, for that matter! Religion is certainly more of a choice than sexual orientation. Maybe we should admit that religion is unnatural. Fewer species in the nature exhibit religion than exhibit homosexual behavior, after all.

How is a person born homosexual?

How is a person born intelligent? (This isn't an insult; I use intelligence as an analog in arguments over nature vs. nurture on Newsvine quite frequently. Think about it and get back to me.)

So if we define a child as a person who is 17 and an adult as a person who is 18. Check this out. This person is born on January 1, 1990. Today that person is 17 years old. On January 1, 2008; that person becomes 18, what we consider an adult. What is the difference between that person on December 31, 2007 at 11:58pm and January 1, 2008 at 12:02 am?

What is the basis you use for saying a child cannot give consent to having sex with an adult?

This should get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent.

So if we define a child as a person who is 17 and an adult as a person who is 18. Check this out. This person is born on January 1, 1990. Today that person is 17 years old. On January 1, 2008; that person becomes 18, what we consider an adult. What is the difference between that person on December 31, 2007 at 11:58pm and January 1, 2008 at 12:02 am?

2 minutes til adulthood, but since the times are so short if such a scenario were to take place they could easily said they had sex at 12:02 on the 1st and then there wouldn't be a conflict.

But homosexuality is wrong. Point blank.

My God. That's it, I'm convinced now. I mean, who can argue with point blank, especially when there's not a bare semblance of rebuttal to many given counterpoints?

Homosexuals are just confused.

Naturally, you know this because of your deep knowledge of homosexuals (or at least the penis-fencing kind).

How is a person born homosexual?

I think the intelligence analogue may be a slightly weakened argument, since it can be argued the social measures of intelligence are often ask much about social exposure as it is about genetics.

But: How is a person born heterosexual?

I would appreciate your substantiated faith based argument answers for these questions.

Laws should never be based on faith-based arguments.

Is it right for me (A Man) to marry another man that I love?

No. You're not gay. If you were gay, then sure.

Is it right for me (A Man) to marry another man (My Blood Brother) that I love?

No. And this isn't a discussion about incest. Stop trying to derail it.

Is it right for me (A Man) to marry (My Blood Sister) that I love? No. And this isn't a discussion about incest. Stop trying to derail it.

Is it right for me (A 23 year old man) to have sex with a 12-year old girl?

Depends on where you live. Me, I think it's pretty damn sick, but there are countries where it's legal. Personally, I think you need to be a little older than twelve to give informed consent, but hey, laws are laws.

Is it right for me (A 23 year old man) to marry a 15 year old boy?

Depends on where you live. See above. Again, that's not what the discussion's about; stop derailing the thread.

Is it right for me (A 23 year old man) to marry a 15 year old girl?

Depends on where you live. See above. Again, that's not what the discussion's about; stop derailing the thread.

Is it right for me (A Man) to marry 3 women that I love deeply?

Depends on where you live. I personally don't have a problem with it; if they're capable of consent, whatever, but that's just me. But this thread isn't about polygamy. Stop derailing the thread.

Is it right for me (A Man) to marry 3 men that I love deeply?

I personally don't have a problem with it, as long as all are capable of consent...but that's just me. But this thread isn't about polygamy. Stop derailing the thread.

If you can't raise a sensible objection to gay marriage -- monogamous, adult, consensual gay marriage -- without raising the bogeymen of OMG THERE WILL BE INCEST AND PEDOPHILIA AND POLYGAMY AND OMG DOGS AND CATS SLEEPING TOGETHER -- MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!!!!, then you've lost the debate before you've even begun. Take a debate class, or learn a little more about your subject.

Grumble. I swear, that looked just fine in the preview before I posted it. Curse you, formatting!

I thought we were talking about rights. Shouldn't I have the right to marry whomever I want to?

I am not derailing the discussion. I am just trying to prove to you that these things are just as sick as being homosexual is. That is all I am trying to saw.

I would like to hear some more answers for these questions.

...considering I didn't agree with you on the relative 'sickness' of any of your propositions, sorry, you're on your own way on over there. In fact, I pointed out to you that different cultures have traditions of marriage and sexuality that are different from ours...so all those arguments about how we should stick with the 'traditional' definition of marriage need to run up against those countries where seven-year-olds get married.

My guess is that you're not going to hear a whole lot more answers, because you're coming off as belligerent and wholly uninterested in rational discussion -- all you want to do is shout about how "sick" you think people are. Why would anyone want to play your reindeer games?

In fact, I think I'm pretty much done, myself.

All I am saying. If gays get to do this, when someone else steps up about rights should we just say, "Okay this is America. We should give you rights for this and that?"

I understand gays fighting for their rights. I really do. But do you understand that everybody is fighting to have their say. I don't want to end this discussion on the account that I am a gay hater. I love all people. But what is wrong to me is wrong to me, just as it with anyone else.

I am not playing reindeer games. I just have a position that homosexuality is wrong. No matter how happy that may make a person. I don't believe a man was born to fulfill the role of a woman to another man. I don't believe a woman was born to fulfill the role of a man to another woman.

You have to get how unnatural the reality of same-sex relationships are?. I know it is hard when you feel that it has been the best thing in your life, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

What would make me happy is not so along the lines that amendments are passed to define marriage between man and woman? Nor that gays are banished? But that they change their ways.

I don't hate homosexuals. I hate satan. I hate how he perverts God given nature. All of the efforts are not against people, but against the source of perversion: satan. Am I calling homosexuals satan, God no. But homosexuality is truly from satan and continuing to dwell in it lines you right up for hell. I just pray that people will turn from it and recognize they have truly been tricked.

Same-sex relationships are perfectly natural. They have been observed in both human and animal populations across the globe and across time.

I thought we were talking about rights. Shouldn't I have the right to marry whomever I want to?

You weren't talking about rights, and I really don't think your grasp of the English language is piss-poor to make you confused about that.

"Is it right to..." is not a question about civil rights. It's a value judgment. Point blank.

I'd appreciate if you, ahem, stop the bulls---.

I don't believe a man was born to fulfill the role of a woman to another man. I don't believe a woman was born to fulfill the role of a man to another woman.

And you have nothing to justify these beliefs beyond "look at me, I'm referencing God!"

You have to get how unnatural the reality of same-sex relationships are?. I know it is hard when you feel that it has been the best thing in your life, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

Seeing as how I'm straight, I guess I don't have that starmawn hardship you state. I still don't see what makes same-sex relationships unnatural.

But homosexuality is truly from satan and continuing to dwell in it lines you right up for hell.

Simply playing the part of self-rightouese uber-Christian proselytizing from the pulpit will convince no one of anything more than "you don't actually have any substance, else you'd attempt to use it before grabbing for the Satan straws."

All of the efforts are not against people, but against the source of perversion: satan.

Ah yes, you're not limiting gay people's rights. You're limiting Satan's rights.

What a load of pure, unadulterated bulls---.

Wow. I really thought I was done playing Beat The Bully-Pulpit, but I guess I'm not.

I don't believe a man was born to fulfill the role of a woman to another man. I don't believe a woman was born to fulfill the role of a man to another woman.

Excuse the hell out of me? First, pal, you know nothing about what homosexual relationships are like. Nothing.

Second, the idea that one person has to be 'the man' and one person has to be 'the woman' in a gay relationship is an outdated idea that never was true of gay relationships in the first place.

And third, I don't know where you live, but I know plenty of heterosexual couples in which the woman is the more dominant figure, or the man likes to cook, or what have you. It doesn't make them perverted, and it doesn't mean that the woman is fulfilling the role of man or the man is fulfilling the role of woman, it makes them human beings. Each of us has different strengths, and whether you're straight or gay, it's best to find a partner and mate who complements those strengths.

You have to get how unnatural the reality of same-sex relationships are?. I know it is hard when you feel that it has been the best thing in your life, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

Oh, really? How's that natural air conditioning you're probably hanging out in right now? Does that natural computer work well for you? How about that car or mass transit system you use every day -- how natural is that? Mmm, how about that milk you had on your Cheerios this morning...or the Velveeta on your sandwich for lunch. Natural, huh? Ever had surgery for a broken bone or illness? Hmm, maybe not, but has your mother or father ever had life-saving surgery? What about more minor surgery? Were those completely natural? Were you born naturally, or did your mother choose to use an epidural...or did she have to undergo a c-section? Has your father had a vasectomy?

Animals from many species all over the world exhibit homosexual behavior; it's found in nature. None of the conveniences of your modern life are found in nature. Hey, since none of the animals in the Garden of Eden were ever tempted by the fruit of the tree, doesn't that suggest that they're still in a state of innocence...and thus what they do is natural? Oh, but let's see, not only does the Bible not mention stuff like cars, it DOES flat-out tell us not to cut our hair, shave our beards, or wear clothes made of two fabrics. Hey, those comfy, comfy jeans you're wearing...a little rayon in those threads, huh? Did you shave this morning? DID YOU?

You better believe I want answers to all these questions. It's only fair. I answered yours.

What would make me happy is not...that amendments are passed to define marriage...Nor that gays are banished? But that they change their ways.

Oh, see, you're not a screaming bigot at all. You don't want to limit gays' rights or kick them out. You just want to abolish homosexuality entirely by forcing them to conform to your standard of behavior. Perfectly reasonable! Nothing sick about that at all.

Matthew 5:22, my Bible-profaning friend. Get your nose out of the bits of the Old Testament that you don't even understand in the first place and start reading the parts that matter.

Wow. So now you are comparing humanity and animals. I guess you really are confused. You can't look at the bevahiors of animals and because they do it, it must be natural. Please stop.

Just answer the questions. No one has given me a justification for homosexuality. No one can prove that people are born this way. People choose to be this way. Yes they do.

So are the hormones or biological evidence that says that makes people desire to be Straight, Gay, Bisexual, Incestors, Child Molesters, and Murderers?

You can't look at the bevahiors of animals and because they do it, it must be natural. Please stop.

Ah yes, all the gay animals chose to be that way because they felt like it. Even your blithering references to God sound better than that. Care to break your streak of empty rhetoric and maybe support that statement with, oh you know, anything? And why should we stop? Are we crushing you with the oppressive weight of our cogent rhetoric?

People choose to be this way. Yes they do.

Just like you chose to be straight when you were a kid, right? Yeah, I'll bet you were thinking "Hmmm, so sex is logistically like so-and-so, and I have a duty to have kids, so... I choose to like boobs!"

Why don't you try to support, in any way, this ridiculously confident opinion of yours?

You keep asking us to "prove" that people are born gay. We've at least given highly credible support for the notion. You've simply kept spouting the same half-dozen words over and over again.

I did answer your questions. Every one of them. I want answers to mine.

Now.

And if you can't, or you're afraid to, I want you to concede that each person has the right to his own beliefs.

TheBoss,

Wow. So now you are comparing humanity and animals. I guess you really are confused. You can't look at the bevahiors of animals and because they do it, it must be natural. Please stop.

You claim that homosexuality is unnatural, but you won't accept claims from nature that prove the contrary. I don't need to comment further on that. I cannot even call it reasoning.