Since a similar topic came up in the "Am I missing something" thread, I thought I'd put this out here. I feel quite strongly about it, myself.
It is my opinion that homosexual couples are as entitled to marry as anyone else. Before somebody objects on religious grounds, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between marriage in a religious context and the marriage sanctioned by the state. Remember, athiests get married, too.
Is not civil marriage simply a contract, primarily about property? If two people, no matter their sexual orientation, choose to commit themselves to that arrangement (and again, it has nothing to do with religion), why should they be denied that privilege? I say privilege because a marriage license is granted by the state. Isn't it sexual discrimination to allow only hetero couples to have a state marriage license? If anyone is opposed because of religious belief, it shouldn't matter because this is not a marriage in the church. People who are religious, usually, marry in the church, and get a license.
Why would anyone feel threatened by this since it has no impact on anyone but the parties involved?

Vermont, where I live, passed the first civil union bill in the country a year or two ago. At first there was a lot of hoopla and protest about it, mostly on religious grounds and partly just because it was so untraditional to so many tradional type of people. Now, it's amazing to me to see how quickly it evaporated as a political issue (as you hinted in your post on the "Am I missing something" thread) and how it's now just taken in stride, more or less, by most of the people who live here, and I include the conservatives in that group. There are so many more important issues to worry about that it's just not worth wasting your time on what someone else does with their personal life...

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

I didn't know that, about VT. That's really good to hear and it makes them a leader in respecting the rights of the individual. You see people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the rest, carrying on like it would be the end of the world - "Our institutions will be violated", blah, blah, blah. VT, who would have guessed. You'd think it would've been CA. Don't they have gay marriage in HI? I noticed, too, you said domestic partnership - I guess they just couldn't bring themselves to call it marriage. Silly.

The notion that homosexuality is a perversion, and that allowing homosexual union or marriage by the state is the same as condoning (or endorsing) it, is what usually motivates people to object to it. Some people believe it is "wrong" for religious reasons, others for certain moral doctrines they have come up with on their own, but I haven't ever heard of a logical reason for not allowing it. And that crap about "destroying population" is bogus.. there are already enough asshats on the planet, so from my point of view, homosexuality is a nice form of population control.. think about it, no controversy over abortion or birth control, no children out of wedlock, and everybody is happy (except the asshats).

Freespirit they had an election in Hawaii about it. But, I'm pretty sure it was voted down. (I went an looked and came up with this)

http://www.sphi.com/newsletters/9901/worst_case.htm

And another: http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=3514

LOL, if nobody on that panel isn't gay, how the hell could they presume to know what the "Gay Agenda" is. They act like its a coverup at Area 51!

Hi.

I come from the UK, and it was announced on the news here only last week that soon transsexuals will be able to officially have their birth certificates changed to have their true, rather than birth gender stated, which will enable them to marry someone of the opposite sex, whereas previously that would not have been allowed as it would have been considered a same sex marriage.

I think it is so wrong that two people who love each other should not have it recognised legally by the state, just because they both happen to be of the same sex, at the end of the day surely it is love and commitment that matter. I am actually in a "normal" male,female relationship and have been for nearly twenty years, but at least I have the choice of getting married if I want to.

As far as I know, all three of my children are straight, but if they were not, I would still love them to be able to get married if they wished.

Amie

Please visit me at my other home; http://www.mypcclinic.com/forum/

Well now I gotta disagree with ya there Lesamie.
>snip<their true, rather than birth gender stated>snip<.
I'm not sure of the stats, but it's very small, that doctors mis-diagnose the gender.
Sexual preference is a state of mind. Not a state of body. If you're born a man with a penis, then you're a man.
If not, then you're a woman. Simple as that.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Or else there's a closet in the room.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Will most likely be flamed to death for this, but what the hey!

IS THERE A GAY AGENDA?



Homosexual activists often scoff at the idea that a "gay agenda" exists. Please read the following and decide for yourself:

In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met at the Armitage Avenue United Methodist Church in Chicago. An invitation had been sent out to 495 homosexual organizations across the U.S. to come and prepare a "gay stance for the 1972 elections."

About 200 individuals from 18 states representing 85 organizations showed up for the two-day event. Conference participants adopted the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, which included 17 federal and state "demands."

DEMANDS:
Federal:


Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges from homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.

Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.

Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.

Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.

Federal funding of aid programs of Gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.

Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.

State:

All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.

Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.

Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

Repeal of all laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.

Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.


(The source of the information above is by Laud Humphreys, "Out of the Closets...The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation", Prentice Hall: 1972, p.165)


"The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens."


From The Homosexualization of America,
by homosexual activist Dennis Altman.

Johnny


Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

200 people, especially unelected self-proclaimed "leaders", do not represent the average homosexual community. I can tell you exactly what is wanted: To be treated not better nor worse than any other person, to be able to live their lives with the same amount of privacy and freedom that is enjoyed by the heterosexual community, and in general to have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I just want to know One thing Dr. What is an Asshat? LOL

See Post #53.. now thats an asshat!

Change in anything has two possible causes:

1. Enough people band together to bring about the change.

2. Enough people DO NOT band together to stop the change.

The first is done from necessity, the second comes from ambivalence. We live now in a "live and let live" society. However, this does not make some things "right and beautiful". Forgive me - but this is not natural. I am not a gay basher, but I cannot support same-sex unions. I do not support "new drug laws" either. Just because one may think that "it is not hurting me, why should I care?", does not make it right. Love is very powerful, especially when disguised as lust.

I noticed in your profile that you hunt. I don't believe in killing animals. I have strong spiritual beliefs that tell me it's wrong. Now, what you are doing, IS hurting someone else. I'd bet you don't think it matters if anyone else thinks it's right, wrong, immoral or sport. All you care is that you want to do it, screw the suffering you cause. Gay people who enter into relationships are not hurting anyone. If you don't like it, that's your problem. Who do you think you are to try to relegate the love that two people have for each other to nothing but lust? Additionally, lust is very common among heterosexuals. You may think that's a sin and that's your opinion, but as long as it's among consenting adults, it's not for you to condone or not.

It is for me, as well as for us all, to condone or not anything we take a stand for or against. Please remember, this is how we as a society develop a value system. Any value system is in a constant state of flux. Communism fell because of this flux, and a lot of people felt this was a good system in the beginning. Hunting may well one day be gone, and not just because we are running out of land. You are correct - I do hunt. However, this year I passed on three shots. I am not a trophy hunter. I actually like to eat what I hunt. This year, I just did not have the desire, even though I thoroughly enjoyed my two weekends in the woods. You are also correct in that lust applies to us all, which is what I meant. I just did not explain that too well. This was my first post in this forum, and will be my last for awhile. I was not ready for the beating I took. I will be more careful next time.

Mike

It is for me, as well as for us all, to condone or not anything we take a stand for or against.

You are right and I was wrong to have made that statement. Of course we all decide what we'll condone or not. It was a poor choice of words, on my part. My sentiment had more to do with preventing someone from doing something completely harmless, just because you don't approve. Can you not see how wrong that is? I'll give you an example (pardon me if it's explicit): I, personally, do not find anal sex to be appealing, healthy, sexy or biologically a "normal" thing to do. Now, just because I have that opinion doesn't mean that I would even dream of trying to prevent consenting adults from engaging in it. It doesn't hurt or affect anyone but them. Who am I to tell someone what they can do when it hurts no one? Why would I want to? It is, afterall, their anus. Doesn't a person have the right to the persuit of happiness without another standing in the way? What is it to you if a same sex couple has a contract between them when it has no affect on you? Why do you want to interfere in someone else's pursuit of happiness?
Please don't be put off by the strong opinions. This is the type of topic that generates them. That is one of the reasons that I posted it. It makes intersting conversation. It's a topic worth exploring. I hope you don't leave, and I'll bet that everyone else here feels the same. All of the voices are what make it a great forum. I've taken a few beatings, as others have. If you think this was rough, just wait until you cross Al or Hal9000! Stick around, it gets better .

Right. Bring your popcorn and kool-aid!!
I don't know how many times I come here for a good read, and have a snack at the same time.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

I will stay, and thanks for listening to my rant.

It doesn't hurt or affect anyone but them. Who am I to tell someone what they can do when it hurts no one? Why would I want to?

It is my opinion that what affects one, affects us all. We are both uplifted, and/or diminished by the actions of others. We should always stick to our beliefs until we are just proven totally wrong. However, this proof sometimes can only be truly found on the day of our deaths. As much as I want to see what is waiting for us on the other side, I must confess that I am in no hurry to acquire all knowledge. In the meantime, I have only my conscience as a guide.

Live long and large freespirit!

Mike

Mike~

hope to see you posting often. was just about to write to you myself. not saying we'll always agree, but i like your style!

Welcome to the forum!

Sophie

Thanks, I now have my feet wet and feel more comfortable in this type of debate. I must admit that it is exhilarating as h***

Rah Rah-Sis-Kumm-Bah! Where are my pompoms when I need them. GO FREESPIRIT!

Attachment #1, (html file)

You got a point there Freespirit. The fact is that none but those in the relationship would be affected and like I tried to say in the other thread no one else should stress it unless they are terminally bored which if they had half a brain they wouldn't be. There is so much more to do in life than get involved in something that will do nothing but damage your own existance. If you want to be with a member of the same sex than do it, if not than go away and take care of your own life. Thanks again for letting me put my two cents worth in. Love ya all.

Crazy

PS. Sometimes even being "normal" I don't feel like I fit in. What a life. :'(

PPS. LIVE!!! (spelled backwards is evil by the way. HEHEHE) }> }> }> }>

Stranger than life

Based solely on the law as it is, and since these marriages are not protected by law or recognized, wouldn't it be better to simply form a corporation, a partnership, for the joining of assets?

Isn't there a tax advantage as well?

I don't know, just supposing....

OR ...is it all about making a social statement?

Is there a way for a male and female to join in a parnership with assests and tax advantages as a business?

Old Dude -

Actually, it's about getting the same advantages and benefits that heterosexual couples do. Health care, legal rights regarding the spouse, tax benefits.

JP

How many kind of marriages are there? I know only of one kind of marriage where a male and a female get together to produce a child and so preserving the species of human kind.

Didn't I already say that the argument for human population is bogus?

doc, you did say that, but you saying it doesn't make it so. It just means that is what you believe.

Bill K.

Look at the population figures of the world, and the rate at which we are increasing. Wouldn't it stand to reason that any argument based on "sustaining" a human population is for all intents and purposes an irrelevant argument? There are plenty of people on the planet, and homosexual relationships help to stem the tide of overpopulation, especially in places like China.

Well, there you go again. You're not thinking clearly. Here are some of the kinds:

1. Traditional male husband and female wife
2. Gay female and gay female
3. Gay male and gay male
4. Transexual female husband and transexual male wife, and vice versa
4. Gay female with gay male and vice versa
5. Common law - may apply to all of the above
6. ?other

Not all traditional marriages produce offspring, but offspring are often produced without traditional marriage. Children are born to gay mothers with artificial insemination, which invariably means they have unmarried fathers as well.

And wait for a few more years and we'll be able to add human cloning to the mix....

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

HI all.This thread reminds me of a joke i thought was quite funny.

Two unstraight individuals were going to get married and questions were asked before the marriage would take place.

Asked of one of the pair. Now which one of you is going to be the provider you know bring home the bacon,work etc whereas one said pointing "he is".

OK. Now which one is going to take care of paying the bills like managing the checking account,writing the checks etc and the other one said "he is"

Now one more question. Which one of you has the cycle you know the menstral cycle and one said " Well it must me him because i ride a Honda.

LOL, that is pretty funny.

WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

hehe, Waldo BTW, I LOVE the Little Rascals (Our Gang)!

About 2 years ago, he was on Letterman. He actually flew in, and Dave finally got a fire extinguisher after him. Funny!!

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

Perhaps you are the one who don't think clearly. Do you consider gays and lesbians as normal relationships? They are simply against the norms and the cause of many serious problems and diseases.

I don't in any way consider gays and lesbians to be normal compared to me. I don't even pretend to understand homosexuality. I'm not sure I would consider you to be normal compared to me either, (if I were to meet you.) The issue is whether someone has to be "normal" by my standards or your standards to be granted the same rights and priveleges as the rest of the members of a free society. Personally, I'm not godlike enough to make that decision.

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

>Do you
>consider gays and lesbians as normal relationships?

Of course I do.

They are
>simply against the norms and the cause of many serious
>problems and diseases.


Against the norm... so your a fear monger, pointing your finger at people that are "different". So you could also say that interacial marriages, which are against the norm (at least in the U.S.) are just as wrong as homosexuality. Great, welcome to the wonderful world of ethno-centrism, your guide will be Napolean. While you're at it, you might add non-religious people to your list of people to exterminate, because they are not the norm in our society.

And what serious problems are these people responsible for? And what diseases do they carry that heterosexuals don't?





I scrolled down, down, down
and the flames they flared up higher.. }>

AIDS is a serious disease and the link between the two is a well documented..agree or not? and by engaging in such a relationship, you are depriving the earth of a would be nice, healthy individual, hopefully.

AIDS is also a heterosexual disease. It can be caused by heterosexual contact or by transfusions, treatment of hemophilia, needle sticks (often among health care workers), and many others. Should we add them all to the list of "abnormals" and deny them the same rights you have?

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

>and by engaging in such a
>relationship, you are depriving the earth of a would be
>nice, healthy individual, hopefully.

Wait, a person is responsible for any potential children that may be created with their genes? So, I guess from your point of view, every time a male masturbates he's commiting mass murder. After all, every single one of the those sperm cells is a potential child.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good...

(thats from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life")

According to Mr. Man I am a homocidal maniac with more blood on my hands than all the evil dictators put together. Put me away, kill me. I can't handle the guilt anymore. LOL I actually love watching those little guys swimming around looking for a home (hehehehehehehe). To quote one of the great anarchists of our time, "Am I evil? Yes I am. Am I evil? I am man." I hope they don't come after me for copyright infringement for this. }>

This thread has become quite interesting. Maybe when I wake up I will enjoy it some more.

Luv ya all

Stranger than life

If thats blood, you should see a doctor. }>

Wanker

>AIDS is a serious disease and the link between the two is a
>well documented..agree or not? and by engaging in such a
>relationship, you are depriving the earth of a would be
>nice, healthy individual, hopefully.


I agree that HIV is a serious disease, and the link between homosexuality and AIDS is well documented. I also agree that the link between heterosexuality and AIDS is just as strong (if not stronger, look at the levels it has exploded to in Africa).

I agree with Mr. Man on this one. You could also say that each and every time a person has sex they should have a child, and you can't possibly believe that there is really a lack of population on the planet.

>AIDS is a serious disease and the link between the two is a
>well documented..agree or not? and by engaging in such a
>relationship, you are depriving the earth of a would be
>nice, healthy individual, hopefully.

Hey, I'm with DM. Aids has ravaged Africa and has spread among heterosexuals.
When you speak of "depriving", it sounds like we have a duty that we're neglecting, if we don't have kids. I don't have kids because I don't want any, and I'm straight. Napolean, there are so many unwanted children in the world. If fewer are brought into this world, for any reason, it won't be any great loss, and for the enviornment, it will be good.

Napolean, the kind of marriage that you describe may be the preferred in the case of some religious context. I think that's fine and that people are entitled to believe and practice as they choose (as long as no other is hurt). What I am referring to is civil marriage, where a license is granted by the state. That has nothing to do with procreation or even love. It merely protects the legal interests of the parties involved. Hopefully, most who marry do it for love, but we need to respect the fact that people have free will and make choices for themselves. Who knows the reasons why our next door neighbor decided to marry?

Everyone, is entitled to their opinion, as am I. I disagree, whole heartedly, that gays/lesbians should be allowed to be legally recognized as a married couple.

No, I am not religious, ergo, this does not contravene any religious beliefs. I, along with anyone else, am entitled to disagree, and I, along with anyone else, are entitled to do so without being labeled as homo-phobic.

Just as you, or anyone else, are entitled to disagree with me.

Why, because I feel its wrong. Simple as that.

Are you any less of a person for having your beliefs, of life style? No.

Am I any less of a person for disagreeing with you? No.

AFAIAC, end of story.

MY HOME PAGE!
GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

So, you admit that you have no logical basis for your beliefs regarding this issue? Do you know how incredibly ridiculous that sounds? A functional society cannot base its laws solely around faith.

>So, you admit that you have no logical basis for your
>beliefs regarding this issue? Do you know how incredibly
>ridiculous that sounds? A functional society cannot base its
>laws solely around faith.


Who said anything about faith? I indicated these were my feelings of which do not have to be justified.

I just think its wrong for a non-traditional couple to be legally recognized as married. What's illogical or ridiculous about that?

I also think too many of our traditions are being dropped solely in the name of political correctness. Am I ridiculous for feeling that way as well? Have I said your arguement is ridiculous?

In fact, I think I went out of my way in stating that there is not enough of "agreeing to disagree" going on. What's illogical or ridiculous about that?

I didn't say it is immoral, or that homosexuals are diseased or anything slanderous or libel or slamming or flaming at all. I didn't invalidate homosexuals as people. I simply stated that I felt that it is wrong to have their union legally recognized as a marriage.

Why is it that, when one disagree's with someone else's beliefs, that that person is immediately labeled?

Listen up, you do not have to agree with, accept everything, believe all. Guess what, neither do I.

Know what else, if you try, you will fail miserably, become miserable waiting for the other shoe to drop so you can accept that as well, or go mad. You will alwyas be one step behind. One or the other. Define yourself, not through the beliefs of others, but by your own. You cannot accept all beliefs. It just simply isn't possible.




MY HOME PAGE!
GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

>I just think its wrong for a non-traditional couple
>to be legally recognized as married. What's illogical or
>ridiculous about that?

Again, your going to have to explain that term "non-traditional". You never know, Trent Lott might be reading this board and say "right on, keep those blacks in there place and don't let them marry our white women".


>
>I also think too many of our traditions are being dropped
>solely in the name of political correctness. Am I ridiculous
>for feeling that way as well? Have I said your arguement is
>ridiculous?

Traditions in and of themselves have to have some sort of logical or functionaly necessary existence. For example, burying people. Now thats just dumb.. "Hey, when I'm dead, put me in the ground".. uh .. yeah, OK..


>
>In fact, I think I went out of my way in stating that there
>is not enough of "agreeing to disagree" going on. What's
>illogical or ridiculous about that?

People who "agree to disagree" don't make any progress. Its the civil arguments that form society, not the speeches where someone rants on for hours and everyone says "well, ok.. whatever, Bob, maybe you drank too much".

>
>I didn't say it is immoral, or that homosexuals are diseased
>or anything slanderous or libel or slamming or flaming at
>all. I didn't invalidate homosexuals as people. I simply
>stated that I felt that it is wrong to have their
>union legally recognized as a marriage.

I guess the problem is that it sounds odd for someone to take a fairly strict stance on something, but not offer any reasoning or rationale to themselves


>
>Why is it that, when one disagree's with someone else's
>beliefs, that that person is immediately labeled?

No clue.

>
>Listen up, you do not have to agree with, accept
>everything, believe all. Guess what, neither do I.

But you do, in your own way.. think about that for a while.

>
>Know what else, if you try, you will fail miserably, become
>miserable waiting for the other shoe to drop so you can
>accept that as well, or go mad. You will alwyas be one step
>behind. One or the other. Define yourself, not through the
>beliefs of others, but by your own. You cannot accept all
>beliefs. It just simply isn't possible.


You can't have beliefs if you can't justify them to yourself, in the very least. Thats just living in limbo.. how boring would that be? I think what Mr. Man was trying to say is that you have a responsibility to yourself, in the very least, to come up with some kind of rationale for the reason you take a particular stance on an issue. It just kind of sounds like you made up your mind about this issue, or maybe others, without any real thought, so it comes out kind of random.

>Who said anything about faith? I indicated these were my
>feelings of which do not have to be justified.

Faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. What you feel is neither logical proof nor material evidence. Thus, your beliefs on this matter are based solely on faith.

>I just think its wrong for a non-traditional couple
>to be legally recognized as married. What's illogical or
>ridiculous about that?

So, it's wrong because you feel it's wrong? Sorry, but that's pretty much the epitome of illogical thinking.

>I also think too many of our traditions are being dropped
>solely in the name of political correctness. Am I ridiculous
>for feeling that way as well? Have I said your arguement is
>ridiculous?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

>In fact, I think I went out of my way in stating that there
>is not enough of "agreeing to disagree" going on. What's
>illogical or ridiculous about that?

If you don't wish to defend your beliefs, then your free to stop replying. As for me, I will continue to argue my position.

>I didn't say it is immoral, or that homosexuals are diseased
>or anything slanderous or libel or slamming or flaming at
>all. I didn't invalidate homosexuals as people. I simply
>stated that I felt that it is wrong to have their
>union legally recognized as a marriage.
>
>Why is it that, when one disagree's with someone else's
>beliefs, that that person is immediately labeled?

I'm calling your argument ridiculous because it's fraught with blatantly obvious logical fallacies.

>Listen up, you do not have to agree with, accept
>everything, believe all. Guess what, neither do I.
>
>Know what else, if you try, you will fail miserably, become
>miserable waiting for the other shoe to drop so you can
>accept that as well, or go mad. You will alwyas be one step
>behind. One or the other. Define yourself, not through the
>beliefs of others, but by your own. You cannot accept all
>beliefs. It just simply isn't possible.

Accept all beliefs? What the hell are you talking about?

"I'm calling your argument ridiculous because it's fraught with blatantly obvious logical fallacies." You go Mrman!WALDO

Walter A Robertson

DR MID, and MR. MAN....

Let's make this nice and simple for all you school age people now, okay? (sorry guys, couldn't resist... easy now, okay!)

What are you not understanding...

1. My point is, it is (simplistic terms here) your kind who insist that others who disagree with them are wrong, illogical and ridiculous.

2. I do not have to justify my feelings to anyone. Feelings are just that, feelings.

3. I think its wrong (now, listen carefully here) for homosexual couples to have their union legally recognized as a marriage.

4. I do not have to accept your beliefs, nor, do you have to accept mine. Having said that, it is the epitome of society that allows others to disagree without being attacked.

5. Yes, it is wrong because I feel its wrong... for me.

Both of you....

EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE TO THINK AS YOU DO!!!!
EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.
EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE TO THINK THE SAME.

IT IS OKAY TO THINK FOR YOURSELF.

IT IS OKAY TO HAVE SOME TRADITIONS THAT STAY AS TRADITIONS.

I AM NOT WRONG SIMPLY BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU.




MY HOME PAGE!
GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

I never said you were wrong because I disagreed with you, nor did I say that you had to agree with me. Read my post again. I'm more concerned that you make a value judgment against other people without justifying to YOURSELF, i.e., baseless discrimination.

>1. My point is, it is (simplistic terms here) your kind who
>insist that others who disagree with them are wrong,
>illogical and ridiculous.

Neither of us said that, or even implied it. I clearly explained that I called your post ridiculous not because you simply disagreed with me, but because your argument is filled with logical fallacies.

>2. I do not have to justify my feelings to anyone. Feelings
>are just that, feelings.

And I'm free to conclude that your beliefs are utterly ridiculous. Until you present evidence to the contrary, that is what I will continue to believe.

>3. I think its wrong (now, listen carefully here) for
>homosexual couples to have their union legally recognized as
>a marriage.
>
>4. I do not have to accept your beliefs, nor, do you have to
>accept mine. Having said that, it is the epitome of society
>that allows others to disagree without being
>attacked.

Of course you don't, nobody ever said you did. And, again, I disputed your post because of your ludicrous argument, not because of the simple fact of you disagreeing with me.

>5. Yes, it is wrong because I feel its wrong... for
>me.

Did you read the line in my previous post that read "A functional society cannot base its laws solely around faith."?

In conclusion:

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinions. I, too, think political correctness is bullshit. I also think it's wrong to impose your opinion on another, and prevent them from being happy. Why would you want to do that?

Right!! EVERYBODY is entitled to his/her opinion. The important thing is that we respect that right. And respect each other. If we all thought the same way, it would be very boring.

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

I too disagree with gay marriage recognized under the law. Just because it is something SOME people do, is NOT good enough to make it legal. Do more people now codone it than in the past, yes. Do the majority condone it? NO, or there would be laws on the federal level allowing it. People say, it's there right to be happy, yada yada, and with that i agree, however, let me give an example, tho a radical one. There are some sick individuals out there who like having sex wth animals, should it be condoned? Should it be allowed under law because it is there right to "pursue happiness" ? I know someone will say, but the animal isn't consenting, or isn't enjoying it. How do you know?? Did one TELL you that? My BIGGEST problem with gays are the militant types. Do you REALLY need a damn parade to tell the world your GAY?? I mean PLEASE, i'm heterosexual, but i DAMN sure don't need a parade so i can shout to the world that i am.
I know, by the tone of this thread my opinion is in the minority, but my opinion is just that, MINE. I am a firm believer in the "don't ask, don't tell " philosophy. I don't CARE that your gay, so do NOT keep shoving it in my face.

RussH

Where did the term "straight" come from in regards to heterosexual?
Straight as opposed to what? Crooked? Twisted? Warped?

Bill K.

Just like an argument about abortion, religion, or which team is worse, Seattle or The Bengals, its obvious that this thread isn't going to change anybody's mind.

>Just like an argument about abortion, religion, or which
>team is worse, Seattle or The Bengals, its obvious that this
>thread isn't going to change anybody's mind.

Dood, how can you even think that? Its the Bengals by a mile!

MY HOME PAGE!
GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

I have checked the first fifty messages and not one has used the proper term 'Queer' which is what they have always been. Instead in today's world they hide behind politically correct terms.

Maybe nobody here is homo, hence the fact that we've all overlooked using that term, which the gay community often uses to describe itself. Take a look at the synopsis of the following website -
Sweet Saugatuck, Michigan
... Sweet Saugatuck, Michigan 7/1/2001. Sailboats drift in a picturesque inlet. ... This
is Saugatuck, Michigan, the Midwest's primary queer resort destination. ...
www.gaywired.com/ storydetail.cfm?Section=36&ID=5747 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Where do you see me useing the word "straight"??

RussH

hmm free spirit thought you were hetero like myself.

www.Pe7e.com
Pe7e

You thought correctly.

The reason I asked was that I suggested a trip to Cody WY. And I have heard that they dont take to kindly to gays out in Wyoming. Would not like to put your health in jeporady. I'm a new yorker and feel quite at ease out there. Would not want to causee harm to the trip planner

www.Pe7e.com
Pe7e

There are probably quite a few people that are not heterosexual that you assume to be so.. hint, hint.

Hey, they'll let me marry whomever i want, so i'll return the favor.

Sophie

Anyone that doesn't allow gays the freedom to be gay and live their life the way they want is a fag!

Hal, I happen to agree with you on this one, but where have you been?

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

How are you dbhan?

Well, in England, a fag is a cigarette. O'course, I'm American. LOL!!

Gravity....not just a good idea, it's the law!
My Magic

If I remember correctly, in the olden days a 'fag' was a cigarette and 'Lucifer' lit it. How the words have changed. 'Fag' has also been referred to as a piece of wood, as in 'faggot of wood'?

If you want to have relations with someone of the same sex than do. F@#$ what anyone else says, just do it.

Love the intensity of the human spirit. This is what keeps us alive. Thank FreeSpirit for getting this thing going. When I am sober tommorrow I think I shall post an in depth reply to this if you will allow it.

Stranger than life

No problems with what you are saying except I dont think they should be allowed children. Now I know they cant physically have them, not without help but there is a growing trend here to allow them to adopt. I am just from the old school I suppose, and believe children have the right to a father and mother if at all possible.

I think children are entitled to a mother and a father. In the case of kids who have neither, many are not wanted by traditional couples and there are gays/lesbians willing to adopt them. I wouldn't consider it the ideal, but being loved and cared about is the bottom line. Something those kids will never get as wards of the state.

Being loved and cared about IS the ideal. It matters not what sex.

Being loved and cared about IS the ideal. It matters not what sex.

Oh, but it does! If the ideal is loving and protecting children, why place them in a situation where they can be stigmatized by the majority of society? Society is not yet ready for same sex union. Children placed in these unions are at risk. If one advocates putting chidren that no one else wants (who are at risk anyway), in these unions, then you have doomed most of their chances for a normal and productive life.

> but being loved and cared about is the bottom line.

Totally agreed, however I dont think homosexual couples should be considered unless there are no heterosexual couples who are suitable.

Why?

Because, in an ideal situation, I believe every child has the right to a mother and father. It is not possible for that to happen in a homosexual relationship. Children also learn so much from their parents actions etc. and basically I dont think it creates the right learning platform for them.

I agree with you. I think children get vastly different things from fathers and mothers, both equally important. I'm talking about good parents, of course. There are certainly lots of rotten marriages, screwing up kids.

Like Michael Jackson? Read "Courting Barney Frank," Doublegay Books.

Read "Courting Barney Frank." Doublegay....just kidding

Hal, I just googled that and nothing came up. Did a joke just go over my head? Is that a real book? Love that title.

Barney Frank was the first openly homosexual person to be elected to Congress.. at one point, another Senator "inadvertantly" referred to him as "Barney Fag" during a full meeting of The House.

Oh, I know who he is. I would have loved to have been watching C-Span when that happened! Do you recall who made the slip?

Yeah, it was some dick.