Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 108

• 0%

  nikkibabe2 months, 4 weeks ago

  I wonder what drives crazy people to oppose gay & lesbian marriages?

  . it will not drive up cost of gas

  . it will not increase monthly mortgage payments of anyone

  . it will not affect anyone's jobs

  . it will not affect food prices

  . it will not affect anything

  Strange people, strange country.

  Reply

  55 Replies

  • 0%

    DaneL2 months, 4 weeks ago

    Can use the same argument for poligamy.

    Reply

    13 Replies

    • 0%

      Dicax_Maximus2 months, 3 weeks ago

      DaneL - If it's consensual, why should that be a problem (well, appart from the husband that is, it's hard enough dealing with ONE wife !!!!) ;-)

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Exactly.

        Reply
    • 0%

      hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

      But poligamy is not a right. No one has the right to marry more than one person. That isn't what's at debate. The question is: How does this affect you in any way shape or form? How does someone else being able to get married affect your marriage?

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        xlegultx2 months, 3 weeks ago

        "No one has the right to marry more than one person."

        Says a certain religion.

        This religion also says no gay marriages.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Except that religion is NOT a requirement of marriage. A heterosexual atheist couple can wed before a justice of the peace, and no one's religious rights are infringed. Gay couples could wed before a Justice of the Peace, a ship's captain or a religious person who does not object to such a wedding. Your religious rights should not trump those of other people! After all, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a civil institution.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago

            I noticed voters in yet another Dem-run state overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage - prop 22 in California - just as they did in Michigan in 2004 and Wisconsin in 2006. Gore won California in 2000. Kerry won Michigan in 2004. Dem. Gov. Jim Doyle won Wisconsin in 2006.

            Clearly, Democrats are voting against gay marriage. Otherwise, the votes would have gone in favor of gay marriage as they did the Dem candidates.

            And Republican Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts gay marriage law.

            Gays need to wake up and realize Democrats are not their allies nor Republicans their enemy.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

              Republicans are the reason we are having this debate right now. If Bush and Cheney hadn't politicized the issue in the first place to scare right wing conservatives into voting for him, this wouldn't be happening.

              But he did. And the problem is that I would never EVER vote for someone who would associate with people who hate as much as the republican party. I would never EVER vote my own rights away.

              I am not a democrat or a republican. I could care less about either of their ideology. I look out for myself.

              My rights are important to me. The ideas associated with political parties are not.

              Reply
        • 0%

          hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

          No. That is the law. The law says that polygamy is not allowed in this country. Polygamists aren't born. They are not a protected class of citizen under the fair housing or equal treatment policies of this country.

          This isn't about religion. It has nothing to do with religion. I could care less if I can't get married in a church. I just want the rights afforded every other tax paying citizen.

          That or I pay lower taxes. You decide.

          Reply
    • 0%

      mark-stevens2 months, 3 weeks ago

      DaneL is right... if gay marriage is okay than poligamy should be. Unlike that Texas group, it should at least involve adults only!!

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago

        No, he isn't correct. The right of marriage already exists. The right of polygamy does not exist, so no right is being denied.

        Reply
      • 0%

        Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Polygamy and polyandry too - except that when you find polygamy, it is often coerced, and by dessicated old coots that likely cannot satisfy even one women, let alone several women a fraction of their age. This is the problem with what the Mormon nutboy cults are doing, it is coerced.

        Reply
    • 0%

      mark-stevens2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Seeing black ministers declaring that gay marriage is unnatural is ironic, as that is what they use to say about inter-racial marriages!

      Reply
    • 0%

      RNR522 months, 3 weeks ago

      There is no logical reason to oppose marriage between two consenting adults of either gender. Polygamy or polyandry can get complicated with rights of spouses, support of children, finances, property rights, etc. The more parties involved the more legally complicated the arrangement becomes. Marriage is a contractual agreement and contracts are complicated enough with just two parties. Energies can be spent better elsewhere than opposing "gay marriage."

      Reply
  • 0%

    bigurn2 months, 4 weeks ago

    I don't think labeling people as crazy helps. Some very thoughtful folks have sound intellectual arguments for their opposition to gay marriage.

    That having been said, it's a state-level issue and should be resolved according to the voters in each state. I believe it will eventually become commonplace in the U.S.

    Reply

    35 Replies

    • 0%

      dandt16122 months, 4 weeks ago

      Well I agree with you that it will become commonplace in this country.

      I DO disagree that it should be left up to the voters to decide if I can marry my partner or not.

      Reply

      31 Replies

      • 0%

        DropkickaLib2 months, 4 weeks ago

        That's because the voters nationwide have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, so the democracy option is inconvenient for the Leftist position.

        Reply

        20 Replies

        • 0%

          Will13132 months, 4 weeks ago

          why are you so against marriage.. would your gay lover then want to actually marry you.. ???

          Reply

          19 Replies

          • 0%

            DropkickaLib2 months, 4 weeks ago

            Quit propositioning me.

            Reply

            16 Replies

            • 0%

              Will13132 months, 4 weeks ago

              been waiting.. your invitation to stop by and drop kick me is still open..... punk..

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                DropkickaLib2 months, 4 weeks ago

                Punk? You're Clint Eastwood now. Sure if you want. Which trailer court was it again? Yours was the one with the car up on blocks parked in front and the dead dog chained to the porch. Nevermind, I'll just follow the smell of smoke from the methlab in the kitchen.

                Reply

                7 Replies

                • 0%

                  Will13132 months, 4 weeks ago

                  come on by we'll discuss that and a lot of other things..

                  you must be one of those elitist snobs.. thinking people in trailer courts are somehow less worthy than yourself....

                  I'm quite sure you know what meth and crack smell like..

                  Reply

                  6 Replies

                  • 0%

                    DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Me elitist...funny concept. Anyhow, you can tuck in your Johnson and we'll both move on to other subjects. This is getting pretty boring.

                    Reply

                    5 Replies

                    • 0%

                      Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago

                      for someone so anti-gay.. you seem awfully obsessed with my johnson.. and pants..

                      getting hot.. are you.. better watch mom will catch you masturbating again...

                      Reply

                      4 Replies

                      • 0%

                        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        I'm not anti-gay, just in favor of honoring the results of the electoral process in each state. As for the thought of being fascinated by your package, it's fascinating in the same way as electronic circuitry or a Swiss watch. It's interesting that something so tiny can be assembled with such precision as to remain functional.

                        Reply

                        3 Replies

                        • 0%

                          Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago

                          NOW YOU ADMIT TO BEING A SIZE QUEEN..

                          I knew you'd like'm BIG..

                          Reply

                          1 Reply

                          • 0%

                            DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                            You dreamed that you mean.

                            Reply
                        • 0%

                          Bruedaddy2 months, 3 weeks ago

                          Both of you are just plain childish - find somewhere else to play.

                          Reply
            • 0%

              hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

              Again. Your vanity is astounding.

              Granting rights never should nor has been left to the people as a vote. For some reason, no one understands that you can't use a vote to grant human rights.

              That is what we discovered during the civil rights movement. Remember? Loving v Virginia? Look it up.

              Same thing. Even she said so right before she died.

              Reply

              6 Replies

              • 0%

                DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                Again, the authoritarian arrogance of the Left astounds me. The government is a social compact and society has the right to approve the terms of that compact through the democratic process. No society should be forced to amend laws that reflect traditional shared social values without its consent.

                Reply

                5 Replies

                • 0%

                  david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Right, see my argument regarding tradition. For the longest time tradition said women could not own property or vote, and blacks were worth 3/5 of a person for taxation and census purposes. Traditions can and ultimately must change to fit our sense of equality and fairness. Social values change with the times. Societies should be forced to amend their laws when they are inequitable and wholly unfair.

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                    ...and you are exactly the one to decide what is and is not fair. The Left sees the need to destroy all traditional morality, religion and traditions as the means to achieve open-mindedness. The result is a hollow, value-less society, out of touch with its roots.

                    Reply

                    3 Replies

                    • 0%

                      hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

                      Traditional morality and religion has nothing to do with law.

                      Law's governing American citizens should be equal.

                      That is long and the short of it.

                      Reply

                      2 Replies

                      • 0%

                        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        Actually, law is an outgrowth of traditional morality. It's a legal fiction to think otherwise.

                        Reply
                      • 0%

                        david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        So Droppie, you endorse slavery, want to end women's suffrage, and believe that a man is still king of his castle. Stuff your traditional values, you putz!

                        Reply
          • 0%

            newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago

            "why are you so against marriage.. would your gay lover then want to actually marry you.. ???"

            Once again Will1313 proves he is incapable of adult discussion.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Will13132 months, 3 weeks ago

              and again YOU follow me all over the boards. .. no other comment on this thread.. .. bet you like a three way.. with me and drop kick...

              except I just don't swing that way..if you do.. no problem.. but I just don't..

              Reply
      • 0%

        DropkickaLib2 months, 4 weeks ago

        double post

        Reply
      • 0%

        bigurn2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Dan,

        I understand your predicament. There are basically two options in governance: 1) The government decides. I think this is a slippery slope for all other decisions. Once you allow the government to impose laws without the consent of the people, you are on a track which ultimately leads to totalitarianism (but may stop short). 2) The people decide. This carries with it the "tyranny of the majority", where a portion of the population could be discriminated against.

        The Founders consistently chose #2. They installed elected representatives to bring legislation on behalf of the minority to determine if laws needed to be enacted so that the majority doesn't always win. I think this is the best system, but it does have its negatives.

        Reply
      • 0%

        david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Agreed dandt1612, the people do not have the right to vote to determine who is allowed to wed. It should be and is rightly treated as a fundamental right under the laws of California. As California goes, so goes the nation. Some rights and civil institutions are not open for public debate. Nor should they be bastions for discrimination.

        Children cannot wed because they cannot consent. Marrying blood relatives is a general health and safety concern. Polygamy is out because a marriage, by definition, is a solemn contract between two people. Hence, none of these red herring arguments against gay marriage make any sense.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Marriage is also, by current definitions, between a man and a woman. I don't think you can take polygamy out of it, but I do think that polygamy should require consent of ALL parties, i.e. not be separate marriage contracts all involving the same man, but any man (or woman) should have to agree to the new spouse being added to the marriage.

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

            However, you have too narrowly defined marriage. It is a civil arrangement between two people. Your argument does not address the why it is between two people, you merely state that that is the case. End of discussion.

            To that end, I argue, not end of discussion. Marriage, as now accepted in two states is the union of two, non-blood relatives who have consented to enter into a communal living arrangement. Said arrangement is marriage. What do you have against two men or two women marrying?

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago

              I don't think he has something against same sex marriage. I do believe he is stating that the definition is bound to change as people begin to refuse the current mores of society, for example polygamy as wrong. I see nothing wrong with that belief or statement and see no reason a person cannot love multiple people and wish to enter into a voluntary civil contract similar to marriage with said multiple people. However, society by and large will disagree with me, I know. I believe the statements by will are trying to state that the mores of society are bound to change in this direction (not as a result of same sex marriage but as a natural evolution of society).

              Go ahead Propeller, label me a left wing radical!

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

                Oh no, does your last comment mean *I've* been labeled as a left wing radical?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Could be. I think I've managed to avoid the tag of "radical" my time on this site, but never know. Now that I've openly supported polygamy I might be in trouble though! Since you've done the same, be prepared!

                  Reply
            • 0%

              willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

              Nothing at all. No more than I have against polygamy by three (or more) willing individuals.

              In fact, I'm singing during the signing of the register at my friends' (both male) wedding in a couple of weeks.

              I wouldn't marry another man, nor would I add a third person to my marriage. Not because I myself am against it, but because my wife is uncomfortable with it. I could personally see myself quite enjoying a third (male or female) party in the marriage.

              Reply
          • 0%

            Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago

            I agree. Polygamy, nothing wrong with it, assuming its voluntary. Keep government out of people's lives as much as possible except that which is needed to maintain a healthy state.

            Reply
    • 0%

      hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

      But why should a majority vote be used to grant rights? What if I proposed a bill that would imprison all men over 30 in Illinois and then put it up for a vote. Somehow I convinced the majority in the state to agree with me and that becomes law.

      How is that good for the people being voted against?

      Reply
    • 0%

      Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago

      "Some very thoughtful folks have sound intellectual arguments for their opposition to gay marriage."

      No kidding. Apparently, they avoid Propeller like the plague.

      Reply
    • 0%

      jordan112 months, 3 weeks ago

      t's a state-level issue and should be resolved according to the voters in each state. >>>>

      Actually, it is not a state level issue. It's a Constitutional issue. Equal rights are a given by birth here. Civil rights are a given by birth here. There are specific Constitutional tenets which bind us as a nation, and without which, we aren't a nation at all. We are NOT a pure democracy, which allows the whim of any majority to deny the same rights they enjoy to a minority. And the ONLY thing protecting those rights, including YOURS, is the Constitution of the United States. So if you want your state to be ruled by the majority, then withddraw from the union. We can't have it both ways. And this is something people have GOT to get their head around on this issue. This isn't about marriage. It's about equal rights. We revere that or we don't. But if we don't, are you prepared to start over as a nation?

      Reply
  • 0%

    mark-stevens2 months, 3 weeks ago

    Speaking of trolls... Bennett the guy that lied to buy and move the Seattle Sonics, gave an anti gay marriage group one and a half million dollars... how many homeless could have been helped with that money??

    Reply
  • 0%

    david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

    From your posts it would seem you want to tell us how to live. How is that any different? Your claim that being gay is not normal and therefore not a normal functioning family unit is disputed by numerous medical, psychiatric, psychological and education agency and professional organizations. Gays and lesbians have perfectly acceptable family units and no one suggest devolving anything. It seems to me that hetero divorce is tending to that matter just fine without any help from gays and lesbians. How does a gay couple getting married devolve anything? You prattle on about that, but never clearly explain how it happens, because you can't. It simply does not happen!

    Reply
  • 0%

    Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

    I wonder what drives crazy people to oppose murder?

    . it will not drive up cost of gas

    . it will not increase monthly mortgage payments of anyone

    . it will not affect anyone's jobs

    . it will not affect food prices

    Strange people, strange country.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Near as I can tell, murder does immediately impact the jobs of the victims.

      Reply
    • 0%

      MereMortal2 months, 3 weeks ago

      I notice you conveniently left off the fifth point, "it will not affect anything."

      Murder affects the one being murdered. BIG difference! Nice try.

      Reply
• 0%

  TimALoftis2 months, 4 weeks ago

  excellent thoughts, David

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

    Thank you, Tim, and many thanks to Dakota for posting this story. I appreciate the focus on the civil rights of those in California and throughout the United States who are not treated equally.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Interesting articles... but teaching about homosexuals does not equal forcing it upon people. Homosexuality is a behaviour observed in nature as well as in people. It is a scientific deviation from "the norm", but it is not an agenda or an abomination. It's just different.

      Teaching people about the diversity of life does not make them change, it just makes them accept. You do not "become gay" by learning that gays exist. You're gay, or you aren't. (Or, according to Kinsey, you exist along the spectrum, but that's another discussion entirely.)

      Assuming that teaching children about homosexuals will make them gay is like thinking that teaching them about slavery will make them black.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Can you explain, then? Maybe with your help I can understand.

        Reply
      • 0%

        willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

        I read the full article now, the parent seems like a bit of a loon: "Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other topic, up to and including Nazism?"

        Umm... last I checked, kids were taught about the Nazis in school, it was called 'History' class, when you learn about WWII. And I think it would be very dangerous to remove that topic from the curriculum. Thank you, Mr. Parker, for very eloquently stating a case for keeping homosexuality (as a factor of human sexuality) in the classrooms.

        Reply
      • 0%

        willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

        ...and from the second article:

        "One book, called "Tackling Gay Issues in School," is for kindergarten through grade 12, and offers a "rationale (for the inclusion of les/bi/gay/trans issues in school)." It features recommended "extracurricular" activities for classes."

        I notice that no mention is made about what those recommended activities are, they just put extra quotation marks to make it seem like they must be bad!

        The article then goes on about the homosexual lobby's radical agenda. Well it's true, they have an agenda:

        Educate children in such a way that they don't grow up to commit hate-crimes against homosexuals! That children accept everyone as deserving of love and respect. (BTW, that was Jesus' agenda, too.)

        Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

      No, I will admit no such thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to wed the person of their choice. It just so happens that society conveniently makes that process easy. Gays and lesbians are not so lucky. They are treated unfairly as I have explained further in this forum.

      Your ad hominem remark about California's name did not go unnoticed. It seems to me you have issues. Thanks for reading.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

        I have made my comments quite clear. You are imposing the way you want people to live on others, and have not backed it with a scintilla of evidence or explanation other than to bloviate about the kind of person I am and attack my character. The only insane ranting I have read other than from SOTM is from you. If we do not bow to the right's whims, you get all upset. Well, too bad.

        Again, happy reading.

        Reply
    • 0%

      willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

      no death-eater... gays having their way does not mean they get in hetero's way... unless the hetero way is to see that the gays don't get their way.

      Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

      In like manner, death eater, a principal in Florida was lambasted by the US Appellate Court for claiming that rainbows are a pro-gay symbol and should not be allowed in schools. The court tossed him out and essentially told him to stop wasting the court's time. It would seem bigotry abounds in schools as much as your alleged "pro-homosexual" agenda abounds.

      Again, I have the backing of numerous medical, psychiatric and psychological organizations. Am through reading your comments, too.

      Reply
• 0%

  Dicax_Maximus2 months, 4 weeks ago

  David - Cogently & rationally put......

  Reply
• 0%

  gamahuche2 months, 4 weeks ago

  With Massachussets in the East and California in the west Gay Marriage goes bi-coastal.

  How long before the thrust of this movement penetrates into the interior?

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    dandt16122 months, 4 weeks ago

    Soon I hope. My partner and I are ready to make it legal. We have been waiting quite a while now.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      saintetienne2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Why is this such a big deal for you? Why not just live together? Why get married?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Because without the same rights, of which there are around 1800, wills mean nothing. If my husband is in the hospital, without marriage, I can't see him. I am not family. His family could take everything if he passes away. They could take my home. It has happened to a lot of friends of mine.

        You don't know what it's like to not have rights. You have them and always will.

        I have friends who left a large sum of money to their partners and the family fought them and won easily.

        Let me put the same question to you? Do you want to get married? If so, why?

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          saintetienne2 months, 3 weeks ago

          What about joint banking accounts? If both partners names are on the account, the family can do very little to get the money. And I disagree that wills mean nothing - a person's last will and testament sends the money and property to whomever they please, by law. The family may contest it, but it is very difficult to fight.

          The entity you should be fighting is the government, who wants very much to extract mucho inheritence taxes. It might be interesting to know that President Bush repealed the increases to the inheritence taxes that the Democrats had put in place. So though you insist on hating him, Bush sure becomes your friend when a family member kicks the bucket.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

            Wow, how incredibly naive. Family members can and do contest wills in probate court and can hold matters there nearly indefinitely. In the interim, the partner of the infirmed or deceased could end up kicked out of the home which the two had built together.

            Likewise, any of the personal property can be withheld in probate, leaving the one partner with little legal recourse. What about making decisions for the life of a same-sex partner? Without marriage, hospitals commonly overlook same-sex partners and ignore their wishes, because they are not "family."

            In reality, the inheritance tax issue only becomes important if the estate is over $1 Million. For most gay couples, that amount precludes them from worrying about it. What is more important are the tax perks to which married couples are entitled, but same sex couples are not.

            Reply
          • 0%

            willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

            You didn't answer the question: Why do you (or straight people in general) want to get married?

            I'll hazard a guess that's non-materialistic. They want their love to be recognized by God, their family and friends, and even strangers they'll meet later.

            Now, God's going to recognize whatever he wants and it doesn't matter what earthly ceremonies we allow... but why is it so difficult for you and others to allow their love to be recognized?

            Reply
    • 0%

      Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Make it legal? What does that mean? You're doing something illegal now?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

        It is a matter of civil legal recognition. No one is looking for religious recognition in this argument so my question is why do you oppose legal recognition of marriage equality?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Lack of religious recognition. No matter how you try to seperate it, people still vote their conscience.

          Reply
  • 0%

    newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago

    If by the "interior" you mean the midwest/Bible belt, I wouldn't hold your breath.

    I am one of those people that could care less if you wanna marry someone of the same sex, doesn't bother me one bit.

    I also think it should remain a states issue/choice. If it were legalized here in Illinois I'd be all for it but I think if the people of the state didn't want it, it shouldn't be forced upon them by big government.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Yup. I live in the bible belt. Voted 70% for a ban on same sex marriage via constitutional amendment. Not only that but the woman running as Governor on the GOP ticket this time around, or one of them, is using the fact that she wrote the amendment as a positive in her campaign... I will have to see where the Dem stands on this issue Missouri. If he's also against it, which is probable if he wants to win, then I might just vote Republican. Its damned annoying, quite probably not even having a state level choice for same-sex marriage.

      Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Newbie, by your logic, if the people of your state wanted to ban interracial marriage, they could by constitutional amendment. They would, however, be trumped by the Loving v. Virginia US Supreme Court case. The people were not allowed to vote on such an issue, so why should that change here?

      The integration of schools was "forced upon the people by big government." Yet, over 50 years later, we still hear of racial divides and gaps within our schools. The two have a common theme. Big government intervenes to right wrongs. Sometimes that effort must come from the judiciary to protect fairness and equality. The people cannot mandate it.

      Reply
    • 0%

      willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

      newbie, please stop worrying. The government will NOT force you into a gay marriage. Unless you get your gay lover pregnant... then they ought to.

      Reply
• 0%

  ZippySpincycle2 months, 4 weeks ago

  Humorist Brian Unger has pointed out that, considering how much money gets spent on weddings, a national trend toward legalizing gay marriage could help pull us out of recession.

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

  Reply
• 0%

  SonOfTheMask2 months, 3 weeks ago

  Packaging the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage as being "progress" towards "marriage equality" is merely marketing mumbo-jumbo. It is really no different than pro-abortionists marketing themselves "pro-choice".

  We already had marriage "equality". Adults had the equal opportunity to marry one person of the opposite gender who was not too closely related to them by blood.

  There you go, marriage equality.

  Reply
• 0%

  david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

  What the bigots like SOTM fail to accept is that gays and lesbians do not choose to be gay. Since we do not choose our sexual identities, why should we be forced to conform to your idea of sexual identity. Namely, why should we be forced to forego wedding our partners of choice because of your religious upbringing? As I have laid clear in the article and on this thread, religion is NOT a preclusion to marriage. Atheists wed frequently, but none of their relationships are challenged. Thus far, SOTM et al have not laid out one rational reason about how gay marriage or marriage equality is faulty. Furthermore, none of them explained why it should not be implemented.

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 0%

    willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

    I followed your links. I replied... it's a bunch of scare tactics about the government trying to make children gay. No, the government is trying to educate children about homosexuality so that they don't grow up to be as bigoted as you are.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

    "What the bigots like SOTM fail to accept is that gays and lesbians do not choose to be gay...."

    Alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholics, but that doesn't mean they should drink.

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

      This forum is in English. Please ask someone to assist you to translate what you are trying to articulate, or come back when you finsh the 5th grade.

      Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

      The argument is illogical and unfounded. You cannot compare alcoholics to gay people in the way that you have.

      Reply

      14 Replies

      • 0%

        Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Why not. You have no trouble comparing yourself to slavery. And, in fact, I am right in line with my comparrison. By your own admission, you don't choose to be gay. However, that doesn't mean you should indulge the behavior.

        Reply

        13 Replies

        • 0%

          david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Why should I not "indulge in the behavior"? Being gay is about more than sexual conduct, as being straight is about more than sexual conduct. As for the comparison to slavery, you misread my point. What I claim, is that tradition says slavery once existed and was a tradition for centuries. That did not make it right.

          As for the alcoholic comparison, it is invalid. Alcoholics have an illness by which they drink excessively and cause destruction. One cannot make the claim that by being gay one causes destruction. Hence, your argument folds.

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 0%

            willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

            Well said. I was also going to comment on the alcoholic comparison. It's invalid because alcoholics hurt others with their behaviour. If you're an alcoholic who doesn't, then by all means, drink on. (And you'll note that there are no laws preventing you from doing so.)

            Reply

            9 Replies

            • 0%

              Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

              " It's invalid because alcoholics hurt others with their behaviour...."

              Like it or not, their are some families that are hurt and affected by homosexual behavior, not to mention shame and embarrassment. And there are no laws preventing someone from being an alcoholic, however there are laws preventing two men from getting married.

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago

                Tough. Being gay is perfectly normal and no amount of wishing or praying is going to make that go away. Yes, laws exist to prevent gays from marrying, and some states like California and Massachusetts have seen fit to deem those laws unconstitutional. In time, GW, you will be in the minority and forced to accept that marriage equality is here to stay. Gays and lesbians will not sit comfortably or quietly in the closet any longer!

                Reply

                6 Replies

                • 0%

                  Global_Warmer2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  "Being gay is perfectly normal"

                  No! Sticking your penis in another man's ass is not normal.

                  Reply

                  5 Replies

                  • 0%

                    willottica2 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Okay, but neither are blue eyes. The majority of the population does not have them, therefore it is not "normal". It is, however, natural, in the strictest sense. Such behaviour has been observed in nature.

                    If one wants to point to it as un(re)productive