Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Senator]

Excellent public service announcements which address an issue I find to represent the collective stupidity of our society:

sWS0GVOQPs0

y2qtenJqVlg

uEpBYKOs3ys

[Backdrifter]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

[Backdrifter]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

[Backdrifter]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

[Marx]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

[Marx]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

[Marx]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

[The Senator]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.


But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

[The Senator]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.


But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

[The Senator]

I believe that marriage is a divinely created union between one man and one woman. I also think that the family is the moral fiber that holds any society together. It is where you learn about love, life and how to live. Over the past 50 years and more increasingly as time carries on, the family has deteriorated. I wonder how many people on these boards come from divorced families? So, if the moral fiber of the US is being slowly eroded away this affects nearly every aspect of our culture, government, economy, etc. We need morality to create order and it comes from the healthy family. Ultimately, I think this is a theological issue, but I don't want to start a debate on whether or not God exists.

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.


But, America was founded on on the right to chose what you want to do. I think we should continue to allow people chose their own lifestyles. If Americans chose to legalize gay marriage, so be it. But, I think this is another nail in coffin for our society. The same kind moral decay is what assisted in the downfall of the Greek and Roman societies and we are experiencing it again today in our own country.

Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

[Backdrifter]

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

All you need to do is turn on the TV to understand what I mean. Love is for sale in our culture. How many reality shows turn love into a game? Rock of Love, Telia Tequila, The Bachelor, Joe Millionare, etc. Americans have no respect for marriage anymore, period. I think the gay issue is over-emphasized. We don't ever talk about heterosexual issues. Notice I said, another nail in the proverbial coffin. Gay marriage is just one problem. It is by no means the absolute, end all problem to every moral issue. Can you imagine a societies where everyone grew up in a loving family with a father who assumed his responsibility as leader and lover and servant of his wife only, a mother who cared for her children and didn't try to compete with her husband for power, children who respected their parents and each-other? Do you think that that kind of society would somehow failed to continue? Instead we have families disappearing rapidly. Kids grow up with out their fathers or are torn between mom and dad every other weekend. People raised in divorced families have parents who don't usually agree on what is best for them so they are left to fend for themselves and where do they go? Television, the internet, friends. We are all raised by everything that we shouldn't be raised by. It is quite sad and tragic really.

[Backdrifter]

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

All you need to do is turn on the TV to understand what I mean. Love is for sale in our culture. How many reality shows turn love into a game? Rock of Love, Telia Tequila, The Bachelor, Joe Millionare, etc. Americans have no respect for marriage anymore, period. I think the gay issue is over-emphasized. We don't ever talk about heterosexual issues. Notice I said, another nail in the proverbial coffin. Gay marriage is just one problem. It is by no means the absolute, end all problem to every moral issue. Can you imagine a societies where everyone grew up in a loving family with a father who assumed his responsibility as leader and lover and servant of his wife only, a mother who cared for her children and didn't try to compete with her husband for power, children who respected their parents and each-other? Do you think that that kind of society would somehow failed to continue? Instead we have families disappearing rapidly. Kids grow up with out their fathers or are torn between mom and dad every other weekend. People raised in divorced families have parents who don't usually agree on what is best for them so they are left to fend for themselves and where do they go? Television, the internet, friends. We are all raised by everything that we shouldn't be raised by. It is quite sad and tragic really.

[Backdrifter]

Allow me, Jman.

:facepalm

All you need to do is turn on the TV to understand what I mean. Love is for sale in our culture. How many reality shows turn love into a game? Rock of Love, Telia Tequila, The Bachelor, Joe Millionare, etc. Americans have no respect for marriage anymore, period. I think the gay issue is over-emphasized. We don't ever talk about heterosexual issues. Notice I said, another nail in the proverbial coffin. Gay marriage is just one problem. It is by no means the absolute, end all problem to every moral issue. Can you imagine a societies where everyone grew up in a loving family with a father who assumed his responsibility as leader and lover and servant of his wife only, a mother who cared for her children and didn't try to compete with her husband for power, children who respected their parents and each-other? Do you think that that kind of society would somehow failed to continue? Instead we have families disappearing rapidly. Kids grow up with out their fathers or are torn between mom and dad every other weekend. People raised in divorced families have parents who don't usually agree on what is best for them so they are left to fend for themselves and where do they go? Television, the internet, friends. We are all raised by everything that we shouldn't be raised by. It is quite sad and tragic really.

[Backdrifter]

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.



Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

Like I said, it is just one piece of a larger issue. And, I don't think I implied that anything is going to fall apart over night. When we talk about issues related to family life it takes generations to see the effects. In addition, when I use a word like 'deteriorate' I think it is understood that I mean this happens over time. To say that they legalized gay marriage in Mass and everything is A.O.K isn't really much of an observation. That is similar to all this bailout business. It would be foolish to say that the bailout saved the economy at this point when economists are predicting a massive recession in the coming years. Social change regarding family is similar. Our current culture is the result of people who were raised in mostly divorced families, thus we have all these inane shows, people living frivolous sexual lifestyles, and the list goes on. But, I think this is an problem that just perpetuates itself. It is like a snowball rolling down a steep hill; it just gets bigger and bigger and goes faster and faster.

[Backdrifter]

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.



Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

Like I said, it is just one piece of a larger issue. And, I don't think I implied that anything is going to fall apart over night. When we talk about issues related to family life it takes generations to see the effects. In addition, when I use a word like 'deteriorate' I think it is understood that I mean this happens over time. To say that they legalized gay marriage in Mass and everything is A.O.K isn't really much of an observation. That is similar to all this bailout business. It would be foolish to say that the bailout saved the economy at this point when economists are predicting a massive recession in the coming years. Social change regarding family is similar. Our current culture is the result of people who were raised in mostly divorced families, thus we have all these inane shows, people living frivolous sexual lifestyles, and the list goes on. But, I think this is an problem that just perpetuates itself. It is like a snowball rolling down a steep hill; it just gets bigger and bigger and goes faster and faster.

[Backdrifter]

Good. Because I have an opinion on that topic you won't find appealing.



Gay marriage has been around for three years in Massachusetts, and I'd hardly say that our society is crumbling as a result. :huh:

Like I said, it is just one piece of a larger issue. And, I don't think I implied that anything is going to fall apart over night. When we talk about issues related to family life it takes generations to see the effects. In addition, when I use a word like 'deteriorate' I think it is understood that I mean this happens over time. To say that they legalized gay marriage in Mass and everything is A.O.K isn't really much of an observation. That is similar to all this bailout business. It would be foolish to say that the bailout saved the economy at this point when economists are predicting a massive recession in the coming years. Social change regarding family is similar. Our current culture is the result of people who were raised in mostly divorced families, thus we have all these inane shows, people living frivolous sexual lifestyles, and the list goes on. But, I think this is an problem that just perpetuates itself. It is like a snowball rolling down a steep hill; it just gets bigger and bigger and goes faster and faster.

[The Senator]

So, basically, homosexuality will lead to the downfall of society because you say so? :huh:

Also, I find it interesting that you claim the internet raises us when it shouldn't... yet, here you are, preaching on the internet... strange.

[The Senator]

So, basically, homosexuality will lead to the downfall of society because you say so? :huh:

Also, I find it interesting that you claim the internet raises us when it shouldn't... yet, here you are, preaching on the internet... strange.

[The Senator]

So, basically, homosexuality will lead to the downfall of society because you say so? :huh:

Also, I find it interesting that you claim the internet raises us when it shouldn't... yet, here you are, preaching on the internet... strange.

[Bathead]

Hopefully this hasn't been said, I didn't feel like going thru all twenty plus pages of posts. If it has, I apologize.
Anyway...
One thing I keep hearing from those opposed to gay marriage is that you if allow gays to marry it will undermine marriage and destroy the family. If heterosexuals haven't destroyed marriage and the family after all this time, I doubt gays will do them any harm. Us straights don't have a terrifically good record when it comes to these institutions.

[Bathead]

Hopefully this hasn't been said, I didn't feel like going thru all twenty plus pages of posts. If it has, I apologize.
Anyway...
One thing I keep hearing from those opposed to gay marriage is that you if allow gays to marry it will undermine marriage and destroy the family. If heterosexuals haven't destroyed marriage and the family after all this time, I doubt gays will do them any harm. Us straights don't have a terrifically good record when it comes to these institutions.

[Bathead]

Hopefully this hasn't been said, I didn't feel like going thru all twenty plus pages of posts. If it has, I apologize.
Anyway...
One thing I keep hearing from those opposed to gay marriage is that you if allow gays to marry it will undermine marriage and destroy the family. If heterosexuals haven't destroyed marriage and the family after all this time, I doubt gays will do them any harm. Us straights don't have a terrifically good record when it comes to these institutions.

[Schlosser85]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

[Schlosser85]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

[Schlosser85]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

[moraldeficiency]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

^this is full of win.

[moraldeficiency]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

^this is full of win.

[moraldeficiency]

I also hardly think ending the immoral, unConstitutional, un-American, and un-Christian discrimination against homosexuals in a country that likes to pretend it's the land of the free, is a sign of "moral decay". A government oppressing law-abiding citizens is itself a stain on that nation's morality.

^this is full of win.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

[Lightning Strykez!]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

[Lightning Strykez!]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

[moraldeficiency]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Equal rights? The same legal and financial standing marriage bestows on you?

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

[moraldeficiency]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Equal rights? The same legal and financial standing marriage bestows on you?

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

[moraldeficiency]

I dunno why but...this entire situation of Gay Marriage Rights does absolutely nothing for me. It doesn't thrill me, nor does it impassion me. I simply have no desire to marry another man legally. And for the life of me, I can't understand why any other gay or bisexual male would desire this for themselves. :dry:

Equal rights? The same legal and financial standing marriage bestows on you?

Many gay men have a hard time staying faithful to their mates. Promiscuity is always a major element in some of these relationships (hence the spread of AIDS/ HIV). I just don't have faith that a man could stay faithful if tied down in marriage...To go through all that legal trouble I'd need a Prenup or something. :(

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

[Malice]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

[Malice]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

[Malice]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

That's what most don't get. Being married is a legal standing with implications both good and bad. It affords very basic rights for the person you've decided to share your life with.

If a church doesn't want to marry someone, that's their right and buisness. But for the gov. to deny that, it's unconstitutional and completely voids the bill of rights. You either believe in the concepts of freedom, whether you agree with a person's choice or not, or you don't. There's no mostly freedom except when I don't like what you want to do.

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

That's what most don't get. Being married is a legal standing with implications both good and bad. It affords very basic rights for the person you've decided to share your life with.

If a church doesn't want to marry someone, that's their right and buisness. But for the gov. to deny that, it's unconstitutional and completely voids the bill of rights. You either believe in the concepts of freedom, whether you agree with a person's choice or not, or you don't. There's no mostly freedom except when I don't like what you want to do.

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

That's what most don't get. Being married is a legal standing with implications both good and bad. It affords very basic rights for the person you've decided to share your life with.

If a church doesn't want to marry someone, that's their right and buisness. But for the gov. to deny that, it's unconstitutional and completely voids the bill of rights. You either believe in the concepts of freedom, whether you agree with a person's choice or not, or you don't. There's no mostly freedom except when I don't like what you want to do.

[Marx]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

[Marx]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

[Marx]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

[Lightning Strykez!]

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

[Lightning Strykez!]

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

[Lightning Strykez!]

This is like saying all black people have a tendency towards crime or all asians are good at math. Unless you personally know every gay person in existence you're just letting blatant and completely unfounded prejudice be your logic.

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

[moraldeficiency]

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

[moraldeficiency]

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

[moraldeficiency]

Chill.

In no way did I generalize "all" gay people in my post. Reread it and you'll find that I used the words "Many" and "some"--not all. And I can personally attest to the fact that this does happen with many gay men. So it's a fact.

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

[Backdrifter]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

[Backdrifter]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

[Backdrifter]

Heterosexual couples have already done enough damage to the 'sanctity of marriage' Backdrifter. There is absolutely nothing that gay couples could do that would damage it any further. This is about equality and legal standing. This country was founded on the basis that everyone was created equal. Not just the few. Not just those who believe in a certain god.

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

[Marx]

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

I did read your post. It seems to me that you believe gay marriage will only damage marriage and family because you say it will. There is no evidence to prove that.

So my question to you is this - Why can't a gay couple successfully lead a family? (And please do not use the 'kids need one mother and one father' as an argument. There are single parents out there who are very successful in raising a family. They have a support system in place, just as anyone would.) Honest question.

[Marx]

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

I did read your post. It seems to me that you believe gay marriage will only damage marriage and family because you say it will. There is no evidence to prove that.

So my question to you is this - Why can't a gay couple successfully lead a family? (And please do not use the 'kids need one mother and one father' as an argument. There are single parents out there who are very successful in raising a family. They have a support system in place, just as anyone would.) Honest question.

[Marx]

I am aware of this and I stated it several times. If you had read my post I said that gay marriage is one part of a larger issue. The family has been in decay for sometime now and this is only going to further things.

As far as me talking over the internet and being hypocritical or whatever... I never claimed not to be. I am from a divorced family myself. Actually, my mother has been divorced 3 times. I know first had the damages of divorce and what it did to my life. Thankfully, God rescued me from it all.

I did read your post. It seems to me that you believe gay marriage will only damage marriage and family because you say it will. There is no evidence to prove that.

So my question to you is this - Why can't a gay couple successfully lead a family? (And please do not use the 'kids need one mother and one father' as an argument. There are single parents out there who are very successful in raising a family. They have a support system in place, just as anyone would.) Honest question.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.



Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact. It is documented as such.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community in several parts of the country. Therefore I have a clear perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So stop looking for some sort of battle here. You're in over your head.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.



Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact. It is documented as such.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community in several parts of the country. Therefore I have a clear perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So stop looking for some sort of battle here. You're in over your head.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm totally chill.

Ok so we could also say most black people are criminals and most asians are good at math. Since it's not all, and I could get better stats on this than you could possibly on your "most gay people are premiscious" theory then you certianly agree with this as well.



Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact. It is documented as such.

You personally knowing a few gay guys doesn't make you any kind of authority and you definately don't know what the word fact means.

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community in several parts of the country. Therefore I have a clear perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So stop looking for some sort of battle here. You're in over your head.

[moraldeficiency]

Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

You can just call me sir or great one. And I have many many many problems I'm sure reading is one of them.

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact--and it is documented.

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny). You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community. Therefore I have a perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

Doesn't matter how many ties you have you cannot speak for all gays any more than I can speak for all irish immigrants. Your life experience no matter what it is, cannot be enough to prove any "fact" (look this word up, dude) about any group of people especially a group numbering in the tens of millions. Sorry but that's just logic and common sense.

You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

[moraldeficiency]

Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

You can just call me sir or great one. And I have many many many problems I'm sure reading is one of them.

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact--and it is documented.

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny). You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community. Therefore I have a perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

Doesn't matter how many ties you have you cannot speak for all gays any more than I can speak for all irish immigrants. Your life experience no matter what it is, cannot be enough to prove any "fact" (look this word up, dude) about any group of people especially a group numbering in the tens of millions. Sorry but that's just logic and common sense.

You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

[moraldeficiency]

Do you have reading problems mister? :whatever:

You can just call me sir or great one. And I have many many many problems I'm sure reading is one of them.

Your stereotypical illustration using blacks and asians carries no water because I didn't say "Most"--as that would constitute a majority. I carefully said "many" and "some", and considering that there thousands upon thousands of cases of gay infedelity that's hardly an unimaginable fact--and it is documented.

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny). You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

WTF?

Dude, I am both biracial AND bisexual--and have many ties with the gay community. Therefore I have a perspective on this and my comments are qualified. You're not in a position to define my life experiences as an opinion.

So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

Doesn't matter how many ties you have you cannot speak for all gays any more than I can speak for all irish immigrants. Your life experience no matter what it is, cannot be enough to prove any "fact" (look this word up, dude) about any group of people especially a group numbering in the tens of millions. Sorry but that's just logic and common sense.

You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

[The Senator]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

Couples who are married have more legal rights than couple who are joined by a civil union. It is a separate but equal policy.

Plus, heterosexual couples can get married by the state... why shouldn't homosexuals?

[The Senator]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

Couples who are married have more legal rights than couple who are joined by a civil union. It is a separate but equal policy.

Plus, heterosexual couples can get married by the state... why shouldn't homosexuals?

[The Senator]

Yeah, they are wanting an equivalent legal standing if I am correct.
Honestly...
Give it to them

Religions want to keep "marriage"....fine
Leave Marriage between a man and woman

Make a "Union" or whatever they want to term it, for a gay couple.

I am all for it.

Couples who are married have more legal rights than couple who are joined by a civil union. It is a separate but equal policy.

Plus, heterosexual couples can get married by the state... why shouldn't homosexuals?

[Lightning Strykez!]

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

To illustrate: MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

Do you see my point?


First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny).

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I study...A LOT. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.


You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.




So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.


You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

:eek:

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

To illustrate: MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

Do you see my point?


First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny).

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I study...A LOT. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.


You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.




So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.


You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

:eek:

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I was using common racist generalized nonsense to show you were using common prejudiced nonsense. Look we can change most to many or whatever you want, it's still prejudice ment to show many/most/all of a certian people behave the same way when everyone I've ever met are profoundly different despite some shared beliefs.

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

To illustrate: MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

Do you see my point?


First you cannot effectively document something like fidelity because most cases of infidelity are not caught and certianly not taken by a census taker (but why don't you try, it'll be funny).

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I study...A LOT. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.


You speak about the habits of gay men in your first post but why shouldn't that relate to men in heterosexual relationships? Should we just ban all marriages cause men cannot be trusted? Or do you think gay men are paticularly unfaithful?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.




So you're one of those self hating black gay guys huh?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.


You can say all the gay guys you know are promiscious and unworthy of being allowed to marry and that could certianly be true but that's really all you have.

:eek:

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

[moraldeficiency]

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

You're absolutely right, many has no definable number or percentage and doesn't really count to prove anything. So when you originally used it as a basis for a "fact" you invalidated yourself. This is fun.

MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are. So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I read...A LOT. And I know a lot of gay men. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.

Logic is why you shouldn't have engaged me. Read what you first wrote. I read too, big deal. I know a lot of gay men too, big deal. You can't actually quantify cheating because by it's nature it's hidden. There can be no effective survey on this. If people are seeing shrinks and such and this is how the study is taken than it's a group of gay men needing help and invalidates itself. You can't accurately measure something people lie about. At best it's a theory or hypothesis. You cannot win this argument period because you're using the word fact incorrectively and letting your bias show. I'm just saying everyone should have equal rights and legal protection. You're saying they shouldn't cause gay men are less trust worthy and you're trying to state that's a fact cause you know some gay guys?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.

You're right. So you've shown no actual reason why gay men shouldn't marry at all in that case.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.

You're entire first post was, but I still dignified it. You shouldn't be so touchy.

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

Ok, so there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get married just like everyone else. You just wouldn't, but do you oppose it being legal? You're reasonings are subjective to say the least in all of this. I'm just saying freedoms should apply across the board same with penalties.

Oh, I'm sorry were you trying to just say, "marriage for anyone isn't worth it, but I have no problems with gay guys getting married" cause if so I agree completely and this argument is over, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if that isn't, then you were being ignorant.

I just admitted to many problems including reading in the last post. So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

[moraldeficiency]

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

You're absolutely right, many has no definable number or percentage and doesn't really count to prove anything. So when you originally used it as a basis for a "fact" you invalidated yourself. This is fun.

MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are. So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I read...A LOT. And I know a lot of gay men. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.

Logic is why you shouldn't have engaged me. Read what you first wrote. I read too, big deal. I know a lot of gay men too, big deal. You can't actually quantify cheating because by it's nature it's hidden. There can be no effective survey on this. If people are seeing shrinks and such and this is how the study is taken than it's a group of gay men needing help and invalidates itself. You can't accurately measure something people lie about. At best it's a theory or hypothesis. You cannot win this argument period because you're using the word fact incorrectively and letting your bias show. I'm just saying everyone should have equal rights and legal protection. You're saying they shouldn't cause gay men are less trust worthy and you're trying to state that's a fact cause you know some gay guys?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.

You're right. So you've shown no actual reason why gay men shouldn't marry at all in that case.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.

You're entire first post was, but I still dignified it. You shouldn't be so touchy.

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

Ok, so there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get married just like everyone else. You just wouldn't, but do you oppose it being legal? You're reasonings are subjective to say the least in all of this. I'm just saying freedoms should apply across the board same with penalties.

Oh, I'm sorry were you trying to just say, "marriage for anyone isn't worth it, but I have no problems with gay guys getting married" cause if so I agree completely and this argument is over, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if that isn't, then you were being ignorant.

I just admitted to many problems including reading in the last post. So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

[moraldeficiency]

You cannot put "many", "most" and "all" together into the same category.

You're absolutely right, many has no definable number or percentage and doesn't really count to prove anything. So when you originally used it as a basis for a "fact" you invalidated yourself. This is fun.

MANY people suffer from cancer. That's an undeniable, documented fact. It does not mean, however, that 'most' or 'all' people have the disease.

So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are. So you can dispense with this lame line of reasoning you're trying to employ here; it doesn't fly.

Comments like the above are the reasons you shouldn't have engaged me on this subject. I read...A LOT. And I know a lot of gay men. You do realize that psychologists, doctors and therapists have done countless studies on this type of behavior, right? They've even written books on it. Their conclusion? MANY gay men have cheated on their lovers. It's. A. Fact. It happens. You cannot win this argument because the facts simply deny your claims.

Logic is why you shouldn't have engaged me. Read what you first wrote. I read too, big deal. I know a lot of gay men too, big deal. You can't actually quantify cheating because by it's nature it's hidden. There can be no effective survey on this. If people are seeing shrinks and such and this is how the study is taken than it's a group of gay men needing help and invalidates itself. You can't accurately measure something people lie about. At best it's a theory or hypothesis. You cannot win this argument period because you're using the word fact incorrectively and letting your bias show. I'm just saying everyone should have equal rights and legal protection. You're saying they shouldn't cause gay men are less trust worthy and you're trying to state that's a fact cause you know some gay guys?

Many str8 men do cheat on their wives. But not "most", and certainly not "all". Do you yet see the shaded connotation these three words carry--and why you shouldn't mix them?

You are the one generalizing here Moral, not I.

You're right. So you've shown no actual reason why gay men shouldn't marry at all in that case.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...it's ignorant.

You're entire first post was, but I still dignified it. You shouldn't be so touchy.

When did I say all the gay men I know are promiscuous and unworthy of marriage? I said, I didn't think it was worth it. Again, do you have reading problems? :dry:

Ok, so there's no reason they shouldn't be able to get married just like everyone else. You just wouldn't, but do you oppose it being legal? You're reasonings are subjective to say the least in all of this. I'm just saying freedoms should apply across the board same with penalties.

Oh, I'm sorry were you trying to just say, "marriage for anyone isn't worth it, but I have no problems with gay guys getting married" cause if so I agree completely and this argument is over, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if that isn't, then you were being ignorant.

I just admitted to many problems including reading in the last post. So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

[Lightning Strykez!]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.


right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are.

o_O

That was...my original...point. :dry:


So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

Yes, let's form a club. And you can be President, because you're also a client. :)

[Lightning Strykez!]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.


right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are.

o_O

That was...my original...point. :dry:


So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

Yes, let's form a club. And you can be President, because you're also a client. :)

[Lightning Strykez!]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.


right so if many gay guys are promiscious it in no way means most or all are.

o_O

That was...my original...point. :dry:


So I guess we both have reading problems if you're asking me the same question again. Maybe we should form a club?

Yes, let's form a club. And you can be President, because you're also a client. :)

[Schlosser85]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point.

I have never, would never cheat on my boyfriend, and I want to get married for the same reasons that anyone else does.

[Schlosser85]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point.

I have never, would never cheat on my boyfriend, and I want to get married for the same reasons that anyone else does.

[Schlosser85]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point.

I have never, would never cheat on my boyfriend, and I want to get married for the same reasons that anyone else does.

[cerealkiller182]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point

Exactly. Every excuse not to allow gay marriage sounds like a stretch. and those who try to do "same benefits, different name" arguments just so ignorant and foolish. The infidelity excuse is probably one of the more laughable ones.

[cerealkiller182]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point

Exactly. Every excuse not to allow gay marriage sounds like a stretch. and those who try to do "same benefits, different name" arguments just so ignorant and foolish. The infidelity excuse is probably one of the more laughable ones.

[cerealkiller182]

The large numbers of heterosexuals cheating on each other has nothing to do with their right to get married, so I'm not sure why large numbers of gays doing the same should be a valid point

Exactly. Every excuse not to allow gay marriage sounds like a stretch. and those who try to do "same benefits, different name" arguments just so ignorant and foolish. The infidelity excuse is probably one of the more laughable ones.

[USMC]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.

I came in late and don't want to backtrack...

are you saying gays shouldn't marry cause they cheat so much so there fore it's not worth it?:huh:

Maybe I should backtrack...

[USMC]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.

I came in late and don't want to backtrack...

are you saying gays shouldn't marry cause they cheat so much so there fore it's not worth it?:huh:

Maybe I should backtrack...

[USMC]

*sighs and shakes head*

We are like two ships passing in the night here Moral. We are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this subject and I'm not interested in splitting hairs further. You appear to require direct telepathy to determine EXACTLY how many equals "many" when it comes to gay infidelity. I'm content with what professional studies have determined in dealing with thousands of gay men who have experienced their lovers cheating on them. There are *many* cases out there claiming that's happened in their lives, and that's enough for me to believe.

So interpet from my post what you will.

I came in late and don't want to backtrack...

are you saying gays shouldn't marry cause they cheat so much so there fore it's not worth it?:huh:

Maybe I should backtrack...

[The Senator]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.

[The Senator]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.

[The Senator]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.

[Paradoxium]

This is related yet unrelated. But I hear a lot of lawyers from around the globe avoid gay divorces like the plague. Not cause they have anything against them, but because it's insanely difficult to play it.

Usually it goes: woman divorces the man (initate like 70-80% of divorces). They also usually make less or are stay at home moms; hence they play up monetary entitlement schema. So then you have money split, the alimony and so forth and the lawyer's profit (a percentage). But when you get gay couples, like two women... suddenly you get stuck in a log jam of sorts; who do you "dress up" as the mother in distress that needs money? Especially when the two of them are kind of utilitarian, in the sense they both play the "mother" role and the "father" role. It's less one-sided and less profitable. So then lawyers end up avoiding gay divorces. Any thoughts on this peculiar phenomenon?

[Paradoxium]

This is related yet unrelated. But I hear a lot of lawyers from around the globe avoid gay divorces like the plague. Not cause they have anything against them, but because it's insanely difficult to play it.

Usually it goes: woman divorces the man (initate like 70-80% of divorces). They also usually make less or are stay at home moms; hence they play up monetary entitlement schema. So then you have money split, the alimony and so forth and the lawyer's profit (a percentage). But when you get gay couples, like two women... suddenly you get stuck in a log jam of sorts; who do you "dress up" as the mother in distress that needs money? Especially when the two of them are kind of utilitarian, in the sense they both play the "mother" role and the "father" role. It's less one-sided and less profitable. So then lawyers end up avoiding gay divorces. Any thoughts on this peculiar phenomenon?

[Paradoxium]

This is related yet unrelated. But I hear a lot of lawyers from around the globe avoid gay divorces like the plague. Not cause they have anything against them, but because it's insanely difficult to play it.

Usually it goes: woman divorces the man (initate like 70-80% of divorces). They also usually make less or are stay at home moms; hence they play up monetary entitlement schema. So then you have money split, the alimony and so forth and the lawyer's profit (a percentage). But when you get gay couples, like two women... suddenly you get stuck in a log jam of sorts; who do you "dress up" as the mother in distress that needs money? Especially when the two of them are kind of utilitarian, in the sense they both play the "mother" role and the "father" role. It's less one-sided and less profitable. So then lawyers end up avoiding gay divorces. Any thoughts on this peculiar phenomenon?

[The Senator]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.

[The Senator]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.

[The Senator]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.

[USMC]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.


Gays don't cheat because they're gay.

They cheat because they're guys.

[USMC]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.


Gays don't cheat because they're gay.

They cheat because they're guys.

[USMC]

I'm gay, I've been cheated on, I've known others who have cheated and been cheated on as well. So it is true that there is a lot of adultery occurring in the gay community, and it will occur regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not nationwide.

That said, there are many homosexuals in loving, stable relationships... especially older gay couples... who want to get married and quite frankly deserve that option. Hell, heterosexuals screw around all the time, but there are many heterosexual couples in loving, stable relationships who get married and live their lives happily. Same thing can be said about the queer community. So I don't think a basket full of bad eggs should spoil the opportunities of everyone else.


Gays don't cheat because they're gay.

They cheat because they're guys.

[Paradoxium]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.
In an ideal world that would be true. But having studied this topic a bit on the reality of things, I don't see it changing. My theory goes that certain roles or instincts are just too ingrained in us, humans are not completely malleable or artificial like Rousseau thinks. Hence these roles; I am not trying to justify, I am saying why it still is.

Women do statistically get a lot more from divorces. I recall there was this case of a rich man, and a well educated women (but not insanely rich) end up getting tons of alimony on the basis of (wait for this - this is hilarious): "being accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle" and if she had not "sacrificed her career" for him, she would be well off. She ends up raking in a 200k monthly alimony. Guy ends up financially raped, and pawns off a lot off all his assets, his business and becomes a shell of his former self. And the punchline? They were only married for a couple years.

After finding all these stories, it makes a bit weary about getting married at all. I hear stories of prenups being throw out! That's why I usually freak out when girls start talking about having babies and all her crazy plans for the future. I run for the hills :woot:

The thing I pointing is how the lawyers are "dealing with it" - they just avoid it. And in some ways, they do have the right to do so... whether one likes it not. These "roles" are too profitable for lawyers (and some women) to give up on. But that's my cynical view on it.

[Paradoxium]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.
In an ideal world that would be true. But having studied this topic a bit on the reality of things, I don't see it changing. My theory goes that certain roles or instincts are just too ingrained in us, humans are not completely malleable or artificial like Rousseau thinks. Hence these roles; I am not trying to justify, I am saying why it still is.

Women do statistically get a lot more from divorces. I recall there was this case of a rich man, and a well educated women (but not insanely rich) end up getting tons of alimony on the basis of (wait for this - this is hilarious): "being accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle" and if she had not "sacrificed her career" for him, she would be well off. She ends up raking in a 200k monthly alimony. Guy ends up financially raped, and pawns off a lot off all his assets, his business and becomes a shell of his former self. And the punchline? They were only married for a couple years.

After finding all these stories, it makes a bit weary about getting married at all. I hear stories of prenups being throw out! That's why I usually freak out when girls start talking about having babies and all her crazy plans for the future. I run for the hills :woot:

The thing I pointing is how the lawyers are "dealing with it" - they just avoid it. And in some ways, they do have the right to do so... whether one likes it not. These "roles" are too profitable for lawyers (and some women) to give up on. But that's my cynical view on it.

[Paradoxium]

I personally see no issue in the gay divorce "problem" you outlined above. Lawyers shouldn't reward people based on gender, it should be all about need and what each partner deserves. Furthermore, their work shouldn't be all about the money, it should be about helping those who are truly in need of their services. The only reason why lawyers have such a hard time is because our society has given different roles to men and women, and because of this, heterosexual divorces are much easier.

They should suck it up and deal with it; that's their job.
In an ideal world that would be true. But having studied this topic a bit on the reality of things, I don't see it changing. My theory goes that certain roles or instincts are just too ingrained in us, humans are not completely malleable or artificial like Rousseau thinks. Hence these roles; I am not trying to justify, I am saying why it still is.

Women do statistically get a lot more from divorces. I recall there was this case of a rich man, and a well educated women (but not insanely rich) end up getting tons of alimony on the basis of (wait for this - this is hilarious): "being accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle" and if she had not "sacrificed her career" for him, she would be well off. She ends up raking in a 200k monthly alimony. Guy ends up financially raped, and pawns off a lot off all his assets, his business and becomes a shell of his former self. And the punchline? They were only married for a couple years.

After finding all these stories, it makes a bit weary about getting married at all. I hear stories of prenups being throw out! That's why I usually freak out when girls start talking about having babies and all her crazy plans for the future. I run for the hills :woot:

The thing I pointing is how the lawyers are "dealing with it" - they just avoid it. And in some ways, they do have the right to do so... whether one likes it not. These "roles" are too profitable for lawyers (and some women) to give up on. But that's my cynical view on it.

[Motown Marvel]

isnt marriage a legal right? and doesnt the constitution gaurantee all citizens are afforded equal rights? maybe im wrong on this. either way, gays are great and should be allowed to wed.

[Motown Marvel]

isnt marriage a legal right? and doesnt the constitution gaurantee all citizens are afforded equal rights? maybe im wrong on this. either way, gays are great and should be allowed to wed.

[Motown Marvel]

isnt marriage a legal right? and doesnt the constitution gaurantee all citizens are afforded equal rights? maybe im wrong on this. either way, gays are great and should be allowed to wed.

[Marx]

MCCAIN AND PALIN DISAGREE ON FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE BAN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/)





(Add another issue to 'the list' of differences. :wow:)

[Marx]

MCCAIN AND PALIN DISAGREE ON FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE BAN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/)





(Add another issue to 'the list' of differences. :wow:)

[Marx]

MCCAIN AND PALIN DISAGREE ON FEDERAL GAY MARRIAGE BAN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/)





(Add another issue to 'the list' of differences. :wow:)

[Lightning Strykez!]

They really need to get their **** together. :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

They really need to get their **** together. :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

They really need to get their **** together. :dry:

[The Overlord]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

[The Overlord]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

[The Overlord]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

[Ion Kenshin]

i dont think anyone has provided one yet....so much for that old church and state separation thing i learned about in school

[Ion Kenshin]

i dont think anyone has provided one yet....so much for that old church and state separation thing i learned about in school

[Ion Kenshin]

i dont think anyone has provided one yet....so much for that old church and state separation thing i learned about in school

[StorminNorman]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

[StorminNorman]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

[StorminNorman]

Is there any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

[The Overlord]

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

How so?

[The Overlord]

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

How so?

[The Overlord]

I believe the argument is the preservation of "traditional values".

So, no.

Sadly Obama and Biden are just as wrong on the issue as McCain and Palin.

How so?

[Gilpesh]

How so?

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

[Gilpesh]

How so?

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

[Gilpesh]

How so?

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

[StorminNorman]

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

[StorminNorman]

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

[StorminNorman]

They all oppose gay marriage. Although, Obama/Biden is a weaker opposition to it.

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

[Gilpesh]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

[Gilpesh]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

[Gilpesh]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

[The Incredible Hulk]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

[The Incredible Hulk]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

[The Incredible Hulk]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

[danoyse]

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

McCain voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

[danoyse]

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

McCain voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

[danoyse]

No. I had thought McCain/Palin would support an amendment to ban it... but I was not correctly informed.

McCain voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

[The Overlord]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

[The Overlord]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

[The Overlord]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

[StorminNorman]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

Yes, it would be. I really think the monetary benefits don't matter to 90% of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

[StorminNorman]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

Yes, it would be. I really think the monetary benefits don't matter to 90% of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

[StorminNorman]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?

Yes, it would be. I really think the monetary benefits don't matter to 90% of the anti-gay marriage crowd.

True enough, but who turned the gay rights issue into a wedge issue, the dems or the GOP? If the Dems backed gay marriage, the GOP would say they are "atacking family values" and would try to use that as a rallying point against the dems, that's what they did 2004.

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

[Marx]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

[Marx]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

[Marx]

How does Obama and Biden have "weaker" opposition to it? Because they are liberals?

Both McCain and Obama support benefits for gay couples, Palin signed into law similar benefits in her state.

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

[cerealkiller182]

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

While I think Palin is looney and completely unfit for the role of VP, at least there seems to be progress in her stance. Most of the candidates will say they believe in same sex benefits but not gay marriage which is really stupid because instead of just having gay marriage you have "gay marriage for all intents and purposes but not called gay marriage" (at least as far as my knowledge which admittedly is not very politically inclined)

[cerealkiller182]

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

While I think Palin is looney and completely unfit for the role of VP, at least there seems to be progress in her stance. Most of the candidates will say they believe in same sex benefits but not gay marriage which is really stupid because instead of just having gay marriage you have "gay marriage for all intents and purposes but not called gay marriage" (at least as far as my knowledge which admittedly is not very politically inclined)

[cerealkiller182]

Sarah Palin's record on gay rights is hardly that cut and dry Norm.

According to ontheissues.org

Non-support of anything but traditional marriage. (Oct 2008)
Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
Comply with same-sex partner benefits despite disagreement. (Dec 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
Special legislative session on same-sex health benefits. (Nov 2006)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

While I think Palin is looney and completely unfit for the role of VP, at least there seems to be progress in her stance. Most of the candidates will say they believe in same sex benefits but not gay marriage which is really stupid because instead of just having gay marriage you have "gay marriage for all intents and purposes but not called gay marriage" (at least as far as my knowledge which admittedly is not very politically inclined)

[The Senator]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

[The Senator]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

[The Senator]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

[Paradoxium]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?
More like Russian Roulette with financial rape (50/50 shot of divorce) - at least for guys or rich women anyways.

[Paradoxium]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?
More like Russian Roulette with financial rape (50/50 shot of divorce) - at least for guys or rich women anyways.

[Paradoxium]

do you think this would be nearly the issue it is if there werent monetary benefits associated with being married in the form of health care costs and tax breaks?

Would one side or the other really care if all it was, was a commitment ceremony?
More like Russian Roulette with financial rape (50/50 shot of divorce) - at least for guys or rich women anyways.

[cerealkiller182]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

While I like to think i do more than JUST "tolerate" gay people (i think they should have all the rights everyone else is entitled to) but tolerance IS progress. Plenty of people tolerated minorities and women when they were fighting for and getting their civil rights at first. Hell there are still people who ONLY tolerate minorities and women. I know to a lot of us these decisions are obvious and simple but people dont take to change well and I truly believe that "tolerance" is a step forward not backward/

[cerealkiller182]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

While I like to think i do more than JUST "tolerate" gay people (i think they should have all the rights everyone else is entitled to) but tolerance IS progress. Plenty of people tolerated minorities and women when they were fighting for and getting their civil rights at first. Hell there are still people who ONLY tolerate minorities and women. I know to a lot of us these decisions are obvious and simple but people dont take to change well and I truly believe that "tolerance" is a step forward not backward/

[cerealkiller182]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

While I like to think i do more than JUST "tolerate" gay people (i think they should have all the rights everyone else is entitled to) but tolerance IS progress. Plenty of people tolerated minorities and women when they were fighting for and getting their civil rights at first. Hell there are still people who ONLY tolerate minorities and women. I know to a lot of us these decisions are obvious and simple but people dont take to change well and I truly believe that "tolerance" is a step forward not backward/

[StorminNorman]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

[StorminNorman]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

[StorminNorman]

Ah, but let's remember, Sarah Palin "tolerates" gay people, so she's totally qualified to deal with gay issues...

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

[danoyse]

At election time, I always think "I support strong civil unions" is really code for "I do support gay marriage, but I'll lose this election if I say that so let's just start here..."

I think Bill Richardson was the only Democrat who said he supported gay marriage.

[danoyse]

At election time, I always think "I support strong civil unions" is really code for "I do support gay marriage, but I'll lose this election if I say that so let's just start here..."

I think Bill Richardson was the only Democrat who said he supported gay marriage.

[danoyse]

At election time, I always think "I support strong civil unions" is really code for "I do support gay marriage, but I'll lose this election if I say that so let's just start here..."

I think Bill Richardson was the only Democrat who said he supported gay marriage.

[StorminNorman]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

[StorminNorman]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

[StorminNorman]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

[Bathead]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

[Bathead]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

[Bathead]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

[StorminNorman]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

Its simple - I prefer a politician who stands by there position, no matter how much I may disagree, over a politician who is afraid to admit they agree with me.

[StorminNorman]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

Its simple - I prefer a politician who stands by there position, no matter how much I may disagree, over a politician who is afraid to admit they agree with me.

[StorminNorman]

How's that? What you say makes no sense.

Its simple - I prefer a politician who stands by there position, no matter how much I may disagree, over a politician who is afraid to admit they agree with me.

[rdh007]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

[rdh007]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

[rdh007]

People who say they only support civil unions because they don't support gay marriage are worse than those that simply disagree with gay marriage and say so.

Cowards.

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

[StorminNorman]

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

If that was really true, then atheists could never be married.

Marriage does not require religion.

[StorminNorman]

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

If that was really true, then atheists could never be married.

Marriage does not require religion.

[StorminNorman]

I'd agree with you except that marriage is a two parter--one part religion, one part state. So the state has a duty to recognize gay marriage (obviously imho) and call it civil unions if they want and the religion has a duty to do whatever the hell it wants. This is another reason why the church and the state should be completely and totally separate.

If that was really true, then atheists could never be married.

Marriage does not require religion.

[rdh007]

Right, but they could have civil unions.

[rdh007]

Right, but they could have civil unions.

[rdh007]

Right, but they could have civil unions.

[StorminNorman]

if the civil unions are the same as marriage - why not call it marriage?

[StorminNorman]

if the civil unions are the same as marriage - why not call it marriage?

[StorminNorman]

if the civil unions are the same as marriage - why not call it marriage?

[rdh007]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

[rdh007]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

[rdh007]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

[Backdrifter]

Maybe we should just get rid of state marriages all together and call everything civil unions. What is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? For thousands of years, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage was taken to be of divine origin between a man and a woman. But, what is it now? What does it represent? This all comes down to your own religion. You may say, "Well I don't have a religion, I don't believe in God." That is fine, but would you call Buddhism a religion? But, Zen Buddhism doesn't believe in God. Or is religion a belief in the supernatural? But, Hinduism does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, they believe in a spiritual reality within the empirical. So religion is really a set of beliefs on how you interpret reality; what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans should spend their time doing.

So your religion may be that the material world is all that there is, that we are all here by accident, and when we die we just rot and therefore the important thing to do is to just chose to do what makes you happy and lot let others impose their beliefs on you.

This may not be an "organized" religion, but it still contains a master narrative, meaning it contains a belief about the meaning of life and a recommendation on how to live based on that account of things. And, whatever you religion is, you put faith in it. You may not directly profess faith in it, but however you are living your life right now, you are banking on your religion as being the one that is correct.

Getting back to marriage. How do you define marriage based on your religious beliefs? It is impossible to separate religion from marriage because everyone one of us operates from a particular set of worldviews about what marriage is.

So what is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? If you think that marriage is for the rearing of children and is good for the whole of society then, you will make divorce very difficult. But, if you believe marriage is primarily for the happiness and emotional fulfillment of the adults who enter into it, you will make divorce much easier. The first view of marriage is grounded in the belief that the family is more important than the individual for purposes of human flourishing and well-being. And the second view is based on the secular humanistic view of the purpose of life.

So, we may call for the exclusion of religious views from the public policy concerning marriage, but we must admit that such a call itself is religious.

[Backdrifter]

Maybe we should just get rid of state marriages all together and call everything civil unions. What is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? For thousands of years, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage was taken to be of divine origin between a man and a woman. But, what is it now? What does it represent? This all comes down to your own religion. You may say, "Well I don't have a religion, I don't believe in God." That is fine, but would you call Buddhism a religion? But, Zen Buddhism doesn't believe in God. Or is religion a belief in the supernatural? But, Hinduism does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, they believe in a spiritual reality within the empirical. So religion is really a set of beliefs on how you interpret reality; what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans should spend their time doing.

So your religion may be that the material world is all that there is, that we are all here by accident, and when we die we just rot and therefore the important thing to do is to just chose to do what makes you happy and lot let others impose their beliefs on you.

This may not be an "organized" religion, but it still contains a master narrative, meaning it contains a belief about the meaning of life and a recommendation on how to live based on that account of things. And, whatever you religion is, you put faith in it. You may not directly profess faith in it, but however you are living your life right now, you are banking on your religion as being the one that is correct.

Getting back to marriage. How do you define marriage based on your religious beliefs? It is impossible to separate religion from marriage because everyone one of us operates from a particular set of worldviews about what marriage is.

So what is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? If you think that marriage is for the rearing of children and is good for the whole of society then, you will make divorce very difficult. But, if you believe marriage is primarily for the happiness and emotional fulfillment of the adults who enter into it, you will make divorce much easier. The first view of marriage is grounded in the belief that the family is more important than the individual for purposes of human flourishing and well-being. And the second view is based on the secular humanistic view of the purpose of life.

So, we may call for the exclusion of religious views from the public policy concerning marriage, but we must admit that such a call itself is religious.

[Backdrifter]

Maybe we should just get rid of state marriages all together and call everything civil unions. What is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? For thousands of years, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage was taken to be of divine origin between a man and a woman. But, what is it now? What does it represent? This all comes down to your own religion. You may say, "Well I don't have a religion, I don't believe in God." That is fine, but would you call Buddhism a religion? But, Zen Buddhism doesn't believe in God. Or is religion a belief in the supernatural? But, Hinduism does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, they believe in a spiritual reality within the empirical. So religion is really a set of beliefs on how you interpret reality; what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans should spend their time doing.

So your religion may be that the material world is all that there is, that we are all here by accident, and when we die we just rot and therefore the important thing to do is to just chose to do what makes you happy and lot let others impose their beliefs on you.

This may not be an "organized" religion, but it still contains a master narrative, meaning it contains a belief about the meaning of life and a recommendation on how to live based on that account of things. And, whatever you religion is, you put faith in it. You may not directly profess faith in it, but however you are living your life right now, you are banking on your religion as being the one that is correct.

Getting back to marriage. How do you define marriage based on your religious beliefs? It is impossible to separate religion from marriage because everyone one of us operates from a particular set of worldviews about what marriage is.

So what is marriage? What is the purpose of marriage? If you think that marriage is for the rearing of children and is good for the whole of society then, you will make divorce very difficult. But, if you believe marriage is primarily for the happiness and emotional fulfillment of the adults who enter into it, you will make divorce much easier. The first view of marriage is grounded in the belief that the family is more important than the individual for purposes of human flourishing and well-being. And the second view is based on the secular humanistic view of the purpose of life.

So, we may call for the exclusion of religious views from the public policy concerning marriage, but we must admit that such a call itself is religious.

[cerealkiller182]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Why? They should both be considered equal in the eye of the government so theres no reason for different names. The fact that the word "civil unions" are not called "marriages" is part of the problem for the gay community in the US (I believe).

[cerealkiller182]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Why? They should both be considered equal in the eye of the government so theres no reason for different names. The fact that the word "civil unions" are not called "marriages" is part of the problem for the gay community in the US (I believe).

[cerealkiller182]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Why? They should both be considered equal in the eye of the government so theres no reason for different names. The fact that the word "civil unions" are not called "marriages" is part of the problem for the gay community in the US (I believe).

[hippie_hunter]

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

[hippie_hunter]

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

[hippie_hunter]

I personally don't think either ticket is very qualified to deal with gay issues since neither seem to support true equality.

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

[The Senator]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Uh huh.

Which is why heterosexual couples married by the state are "married," but gay couples who are married by the state are engaged in a "civil union."

Oh-- and let's not forget there are more rights in marriage than civil unions.

[The Senator]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Uh huh.

Which is why heterosexual couples married by the state are "married," but gay couples who are married by the state are engaged in a "civil union."

Oh-- and let's not forget there are more rights in marriage than civil unions.

[The Senator]

Because, to me, that's a religious term. I suppose you could call it the state marriage and the religious marriage, but I prefer two different terms.

Uh huh.

Which is why heterosexual couples married by the state are "married," but gay couples who are married by the state are engaged in a "civil union."

Oh-- and let's not forget there are more rights in marriage than civil unions.

[StorminNorman]

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

It was genius.

[StorminNorman]

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

It was genius.

[StorminNorman]

I think SNL said it best

Biden: In an Obama/Biden administration, same-sex couples will be guaranteed the same property rights, rights to insurance, and rights of ownership as heterosexual couples. There will be no distinction. I repeat NO DISTICTION!

Ifill: So to clarify, do you support gay marriage Senator Biden?

Biden: Absolutely not.

It was genius.

[The Overlord]

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

Mccain doesn't exist in a vaccum, the fact is his party has more of anti gay marriage attitude then the Dems do and if Obama was pro gay marriage, you don't the GOP spin doctors wouldn't try to to use that a wedge issue again? Yeah Obama can try and be completely pro gay marriage and the GOP can use it as a wedge issue again, that's a nice choice huh?

[The Overlord]

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

Mccain doesn't exist in a vaccum, the fact is his party has more of anti gay marriage attitude then the Dems do and if Obama was pro gay marriage, you don't the GOP spin doctors wouldn't try to to use that a wedge issue again? Yeah Obama can try and be completely pro gay marriage and the GOP can use it as a wedge issue again, that's a nice choice huh?

[The Overlord]

Am I missing something or was McCain not running in 2004 :huh:

Karl Rove turned gay marriage into a wedge issue - not John McCain.

Mccain doesn't exist in a vaccum, the fact is his party has more of anti gay marriage attitude then the Dems do and if Obama was pro gay marriage, you don't the GOP spin doctors wouldn't try to to use that a wedge issue again? Yeah Obama can try and be completely pro gay marriage and the GOP can use it as a wedge issue again, that's a nice choice huh?

[Marx]

GAY MARRIAGE IN PERIL IN CALIFORNIA AS PROP 8 GAINS MOMENTUM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Marx]

GAY MARRIAGE IN PERIL IN CALIFORNIA AS PROP 8 GAINS MOMENTUM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Marx]

GAY MARRIAGE IN PERIL IN CALIFORNIA AS PROP 8 GAINS MOMENTUM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[The Senator]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

[The Senator]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

[The Senator]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

[Marx]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I certainly hope it's defeated. I was just caught off guard to read that it is actually gaining some momentum.

[Marx]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I certainly hope it's defeated. I was just caught off guard to read that it is actually gaining some momentum.

[Marx]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I certainly hope it's defeated. I was just caught off guard to read that it is actually gaining some momentum.

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE BAN BECOMES BIG MONEY RACE
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/calif-gay-marriage-ban-becomes-big-money-race/

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE BAN BECOMES BIG MONEY RACE
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/calif-gay-marriage-ban-becomes-big-money-race/

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE BAN BECOMES BIG MONEY RACE
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/calif-gay-marriage-ban-becomes-big-money-race/

[Marx]

ARNOLD SAYS 'NO' TO PROP 8
http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1353838.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

ARNOLD SAYS 'NO' TO PROP 8
http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1353838.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

ARNOLD SAYS 'NO' TO PROP 8
http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1353838.html





http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm surprised i haven't walked in here yet...

I love the Yes on prop 8 adds that keep talking about "the children" and how they will be forced to learn about gay marriage... *rollseyes*

1) We don't learn about marriage at all in school, so why would we now? And if we did learn about gay rights in school, it wouldn't be till 11th or 12th grades in a social studies class, when you learn about Rowe vs Wade and the Jim Crowe laws.

2) the children that they keep mentioning in the adds who were "forced" to go to there teachers lesbian wedding is so ridiculously skewed it's disgusting. It was a private school, and the students and parents of those students were very close to there teacher, and actually very supportive of her wedding, they wanted to go. Only 2 parents complained and the parents of the other kids, are now suing the prop 8 ads due to the lies.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm surprised i haven't walked in here yet...

I love the Yes on prop 8 adds that keep talking about "the children" and how they will be forced to learn about gay marriage... *rollseyes*

1) We don't learn about marriage at all in school, so why would we now? And if we did learn about gay rights in school, it wouldn't be till 11th or 12th grades in a social studies class, when you learn about Rowe vs Wade and the Jim Crowe laws.

2) the children that they keep mentioning in the adds who were "forced" to go to there teachers lesbian wedding is so ridiculously skewed it's disgusting. It was a private school, and the students and parents of those students were very close to there teacher, and actually very supportive of her wedding, they wanted to go. Only 2 parents complained and the parents of the other kids, are now suing the prop 8 ads due to the lies.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm surprised i haven't walked in here yet...

I love the Yes on prop 8 adds that keep talking about "the children" and how they will be forced to learn about gay marriage... *rollseyes*

1) We don't learn about marriage at all in school, so why would we now? And if we did learn about gay rights in school, it wouldn't be till 11th or 12th grades in a social studies class, when you learn about Rowe vs Wade and the Jim Crowe laws.

2) the children that they keep mentioning in the adds who were "forced" to go to there teachers lesbian wedding is so ridiculously skewed it's disgusting. It was a private school, and the students and parents of those students were very close to there teacher, and actually very supportive of her wedding, they wanted to go. Only 2 parents complained and the parents of the other kids, are now suing the prop 8 ads due to the lies.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

hopefully, but the whole "kid charade" is swooning votes. My friends just spent the weekend with me, coming back from bakersfield california... which is full of right wing conservatives. Even his own parents are for McCain and arn't exactly happy about gay marriage (even though they "love" there son and his boyfriend) :o

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

hopefully, but the whole "kid charade" is swooning votes. My friends just spent the weekend with me, coming back from bakersfield california... which is full of right wing conservatives. Even his own parents are for McCain and arn't exactly happy about gay marriage (even though they "love" there son and his boyfriend) :o

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

hopefully, but the whole "kid charade" is swooning votes. My friends just spent the weekend with me, coming back from bakersfield california... which is full of right wing conservatives. Even his own parents are for McCain and arn't exactly happy about gay marriage (even though they "love" there son and his boyfriend) :o

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

[Exploding Boy]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

[Exploding Boy]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

[Exploding Boy]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

[spideyboy_1111]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

I got some flyers in the mail.... and i totally wanted to burn it...

i hate channels that constantly play the yes ads... i just flip them when they turn on, it pisses me off that much.

[spideyboy_1111]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

I got some flyers in the mail.... and i totally wanted to burn it...

i hate channels that constantly play the yes ads... i just flip them when they turn on, it pisses me off that much.

[spideyboy_1111]

These people came to my door, rang my bell, and preached about yes on 8. I think they might have missed the 2, No On 8 signs on my front window. I taught those morons a lesson :hehe:

I got some flyers in the mail.... and i totally wanted to burn it...

i hate channels that constantly play the yes ads... i just flip them when they turn on, it pisses me off that much.

[Exploding Boy]

Yeah the ads are quite laughable.

These Mormons that came to my door faced a similar fate to the yes on 8 people. haha.

[Exploding Boy]

Yeah the ads are quite laughable.

These Mormons that came to my door faced a similar fate to the yes on 8 people. haha.

[Exploding Boy]

Yeah the ads are quite laughable.

These Mormons that came to my door faced a similar fate to the yes on 8 people. haha.

[spideyboy_1111]

ahh.. silly Mormons...

[spideyboy_1111]

ahh.. silly Mormons...

[spideyboy_1111]

ahh.. silly Mormons...

[The Battousai]

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

Arnold is against 8 :up:

[The Battousai]

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

Arnold is against 8 :up:

[The Battousai]

there's still alot of scary people here, hell Arnold won :(

Arnold is against 8 :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

course.. he might not be the greatest, but he's def right in this case :D

[spideyboy_1111]

course.. he might not be the greatest, but he's def right in this case :D

[spideyboy_1111]

course.. he might not be the greatest, but he's def right in this case :D

[amazingfantasy15]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

[amazingfantasy15]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

[amazingfantasy15]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

[The Senator]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

I would like certain Christians to stay out of this thread, considering they will continue to pervert the word of the Bible to represent their own personal bigotry towards homosexuals...

[The Senator]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

I would like certain Christians to stay out of this thread, considering they will continue to pervert the word of the Bible to represent their own personal bigotry towards homosexuals...

[The Senator]

I'd like to know what all the Christian's on this thread definition of marriage really is. Obviously if you're gay the marriage doesn't count, but what if you're hindu, buddist, believe in Norse or Greek gods, does the marriage count then, it's based on religion sure, but not the "right" religion, not the one that definied marriage. How about athelists, can they get married?

I would like certain Christians to stay out of this thread, considering they will continue to pervert the word of the Bible to represent their own personal bigotry towards homosexuals...

[Ion Kenshin]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember

[Ion Kenshin]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember

[Ion Kenshin]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember